If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(You are farked)   The BBC offers this advice for anyone in Britain who is attacked on the street: You are permitted to protect yourself with a briefcase, a handbag, or keys. You should shout 'Call the Police' rather than 'Help.' Bystanders are not to help   (theguntutor.com) divider line 373
    More: Amusing, Britain, Portland Police Bureau, Robert Green, kitchen knife, Portland Oregon, imminent threat  
•       •       •

5549 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Dec 2012 at 11:46 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



373 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-29 08:42:46 AM
Right subs. I'm sure the "information" provided by guntutor.com is completely true and not a large pile of horse shiat.
 
2012-12-29 09:23:42 AM
TFA: "the british problem"

You know what you stupid American guntards, have you considered the fact that there a quite a few countries out there where the vast majority don't actually WANT people running around with guns. If you lot want to run around like asstard cowboys, have farking fun. If you seriously want to link gun ownership to freedom, youre a farking moron. Freedom is not being scared that someone is going to blow your head off whilst youre at the cinema. Freedom is not having to be constantly feeling that you're split seconds from having to defend yourselves.

We had our Newtown massacre and the country chose to ban general gun ownership. We've been happier since.

For those of us who own guns, the long and tedious process we have to go through is worth it.
 
2012-12-29 09:31:04 AM
encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2012-12-29 11:04:24 AM
where is Bathia_Mapes?

this article uses the BBC knife-ban article from 2005, and another article from the BBC in 2004 as 2 of its 3 sources.

old news.

/I'm calling for her because she correctly identified these as old articles when they were submitted on 12-26 and 12-27.
 
2012-12-29 11:18:00 AM
i236.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-29 11:38:43 AM
I thought the proper response was "The Doctor will save us!"
 
2012-12-29 11:43:34 AM
Handbag?

i88.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-29 11:51:14 AM
OtherLittleGuy's too right. Proper response is "The Doctor will save us!"
Mayhap this one made it to Green before Bathia_Mapes could Take Appropriate Action -- if there is any. Kinda late for that now, innit?
 
2012-12-29 11:51:29 AM
Also if you see someone drowning, don't offer help. Police and rescue workers will be by shortly. By then the guy will be well drowned but it'll be a proper recovery.

Yea, there are pictures.
 
2012-12-29 11:53:37 AM

OtherLittleGuy: I thought the proper response was "The Doctor will save us!"


I thought it was 'Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!'
 
2012-12-29 11:53:47 AM
"Conventional weapons like guns, knives, and batons can be used against a deadly assault, and weapons of opportunity - your purse, a flower pot, dirt, gravel, a rock. With weapons of opportunity you need to be careful, because if it is potentially deadly, like a bottle that can cause a percussive injury or break and be used to cut, it cannot should be used against physical assault. That would make you the assailant STILL ALIVE."
FTFY
 
2012-12-29 11:55:05 AM

snuff3r: We had our Newtown massacre and the country chose to ban general gun ownership. We've been happier since..


I completely respect your country's right to have its own culture regarding guns (even though you don't reciprocate). And I think the article's tone is ridiculous. Your post's tone is also ridiculous. Your statement "[W]e've been happier since" isn't supportable by any sort of evidence. If you take it as a face-value "happiness" quotient, your country's citizens report overall less happiness. If it's "our country's safer now".,...well, that's not true either. Now, I think both of these things (less happiness and more crime) are not caused by the gun ban, but it's just a poor argument to make.

/Is guntard the new "libtard"/"rethuglikkkan"?
 
2012-12-29 11:55:17 AM
This is your future, America.
 
2012-12-29 11:56:50 AM
farm5.staticflickr.com
 
2012-12-29 11:57:29 AM
What if the woman who is the aggressor? Can I knock her the fark out?
 
2012-12-29 11:59:55 AM
If the British were allowed to carry guns, England would be crime-free, like the US.
 
2012-12-29 12:02:33 PM
39 British Subjects agree with subby; 9,763 US Citizens do not.

/The population of the UK is ~20% of that of the US
//Far more likely to have your TV stolen in the UK though, which much be partial consolation for being brutally murdered.
 
2012-12-29 12:02:44 PM

snuff3r: TFA: "the british problem"

You know what you stupid American guntards, have you considered the fact that there a quite a few countries out there where the vast majority don't actually WANT people running around with guns. If you lot want to run around like asstard cowboys, have farking fun. If you seriously want to link gun ownership to freedom, youre a farking moron. Freedom is not being scared that someone is going to blow your head off whilst youre at the cinema. Freedom is not having to be constantly feeling that you're split seconds from having to defend yourselves.

We had our Newtown massacre and the country chose to ban general gun ownership. We've been happier since.

For those of us who own guns, the long and tedious process we have to go through is worth it.



Freedom is having the means to protect yourself, your family, and your property.

Just because you guys gave up your rights, don't expect us to do the same,
 
2012-12-29 12:04:02 PM
it's having a criminal in the house that makes them less safe

While true this is also disingenuous. You can do much to prevent unauthorised access to your home but in the end it is the criminal who makes the decision. Since you have to work with situations which are largely dependent on others you should not expect other people to behave in the way that would be ideal to you. In this particular example you should always optimise based on worst case a scenario. There is someone in your home, how do you get out alive? According to research it is by de-escalating, which isn't what is going to happen if you pit two armed parties against each other.

Do not assume that just because you play by the rules that others do likewise.
 
2012-12-29 12:04:28 PM

Mrbogey: Also if you see someone drowning, don't offer help. Police and rescue workers will be by shortly. By then the guy will be well drowned but it'll be a proper recovery.

Yea, there are pictures.



♪ ♫ Well if you told me you were drowning, I would not lend a hand
I've seen your face before my friend, but I don't know if you know who I am ♪ ♫
 
2012-12-29 12:06:08 PM
Attacked on the street? Jim'll Fix It!!!
 
2012-12-29 12:06:14 PM

Via Infinito: Right subs. I'm sure the "information" provided by guntutor.com is completely true and not a large pile of horse shiat.


So, you're saying there has been no call to ban long knives, that guns are a welcome part of an Englishman's home, and that vigorous self-defense is applauded by the British police?
 
2012-12-29 12:07:26 PM
What if the assailant has a pointed stick?
 
2012-12-29 12:10:16 PM

snuff3r: If you seriously want to link gun ownership to freedom, youre a farking moron.


Gee, your enlightened, polite, reasonable argument is SO persuasive.

Why is it that when we look at other cultures, the left tries to encourage us to not pass judgment on their values and mores under the idea of cultural relativism, but if those values include the idea that the right to bear arms is a civil right, then suddenly they are barbaric bad guys?

Mao Tse-Tung rather famously declared that all political power ultimately flows from the barrel of a gun. While orthodox US political theory holds that political power flows from the will of the people, Mao's idea that having force to back up that will of the people holds a little merit. It's a lot harder to steal from somebody who can respond with lethal force. Nobody wants violence, but in this country, we have

Also, note that the pro-gun lobby in the US had a great deal of scorn for British gun control, since the whole original reason we have a Constitutional right to bear arms was as a direct response to British oppression in the 1760's and 1770's. Our two nations have a special relationship, but bringing up anything that brings back memories of the Revolution will make things unpleasant, and gun control is one of those things.

I think TFA is propaganda, pure and simple, and I'd only believe that if I saw it from some reputable source, however, the referenced BBC article Link is real and says exactly what the article does. A proposed ban on kitchen knives?

I remember circa 2004, ending up on a chat on AIM with somebody from the UK who hoped that when Kerry was elected (2004 elections, remember) that he'd ban all guns and knives so the US would be peaceful. When I explained to him that the right to bear arms is a basic civil right in the US, to this day I remember his response "WTF, who wrote your constitution with crayola?". At least we have a written Constitution which acts as a bulwark against the political fad of the day, instead of a Parliament which can choose to throw out a millennium of tradition with a simple majority vote if it wants.
 
2012-12-29 12:10:18 PM

snuff3r: TFA: "the british problem"

You know what you stupid American guntards, have you considered the fact that there a quite a few countries out there where the vast majority don't actually WANT people running around with guns. If you lot want to run around like asstard cowboys, have farking fun. If you seriously want to link gun ownership to freedom, youre a farking moron. Freedom is not being scared that someone is going to blow your head off whilst youre at the cinema. Freedom is not having to be constantly feeling that you're split seconds from having to defend yourselves.

We had our Newtown massacre and the country chose to ban general gun ownership. We've been happier since.

For those of us who own guns, the long and tedious process we have to go through is worth it.


Problem is, I get that feeling more in London than I ever did back home, and I don't mean just from toffee nosed douchebags that want to tell me what's wrong with my country, and can pretend to know what life is like in America without having ever been there. It's dangerous as fark in the big city. If you're not careful and don't know how to defend yourself, you'll get taken advantage of, same as anywhere.
 
2012-12-29 12:10:51 PM
Rule BETA-tannia!
 
2012-12-29 12:11:23 PM

snuff3r: TFA: "the british problem"

You know what you stupid American guntards, have you considered the fact that there a quite a few countries out there where the vast majority don't actually WANT people running around with guns. If you lot want to run around like asstard cowboys, have farking fun. If you seriously want to link gun ownership to freedom, youre a farking moron. Freedom is not being scared that someone is going to blow your head off whilst youre at the cinema. Freedom is not having to be constantly feeling that you're split seconds from having to defend yourselves.

We had our Newtown massacre and the country chose to ban general gun ownership. We've been happier since.

For those of us who own guns, the long and tedious process we have to go through is worth it.


...And knives...and people who defend themselves are charged with crimes. Tell me again how that's anything approaching a free country?

I will take dangerous liberty over the illusion of safety any day.

Oh, and as a side note, I'm not afraid of anything. I carry a gun as a means of having the proper tools to defend myself if necessary. I carry a pocket knife and a multitool as well. I keep blankets in the truck in winter time, tools, jumper cables, and a fist aid kit.

Be prepared, fear nothing.
 
2012-12-29 12:11:48 PM

snuff3r: TFA: "the british problem"

You know what you stupid American guntards, have you considered the fact that there a quite a few countries out there where the vast majority don't actually WANT people running around with guns. If you lot want to run around like asstard cowboys, have farking fun. If you seriously want to link gun ownership to freedom, youre a farking moron. Freedom is not being scared that someone is going to blow your head off whilst youre at the cinema. Freedom is not having to be constantly feeling that you're split seconds from having to defend yourselves.

We had our Newtown massacre and the country chose to ban general gun ownership. We've been happier since.

For those of us who own guns, the long and tedious process we have to go through is worth it.


Someone is sounding like they have lots of cash on them. Yummy yummy cash.
 
2012-12-29 12:11:55 PM
If you have a criminal justice system meting out farcical prison terms for even violent crimes, as the US had between the mid-1960s and late 1980s, and as the UK has today, then issues of gun ownership are almost besides the point.

I live in the US and don't feel comfortable about the gun culture and plummeting quality of life, but running an even greater risk of getting glassed or burgled in the UK would leave me even less secure.
 
2012-12-29 12:13:20 PM

offmymeds: What if the assailant has a pointed stick?


Release the tiger.

/the tiger does not relish the peach
 
2012-12-29 12:14:41 PM

Dinobot:


I remember that. Japan...the gift that keeps giving.
 
2012-12-29 12:14:56 PM
Sure signs of a sick and demented society.

Or, put another way, sure signs of a Piers Morgan society.
 
2012-12-29 12:14:58 PM

snuff3r: TFA: "the british problem"

You know what you stupid American guntards, have you considered the fact that there a quite a few countries out there where the vast majority don't actually WANT people running around with guns. If you lot want to run around like asstard cowboys, have farking fun. If you seriously want to link gun ownership to freedom, youre a farking moron. Freedom is not being scared that someone is going to blow your head off whilst youre at the cinema. Freedom is not having to be constantly feeling that you're split seconds from having to defend yourselves.

We had our Newtown massacre and the country chose to ban general gun ownership. We've been happier since.

For those of us who own guns, the long and tedious process we have to go through is worth it.


Want some cheese to go with that whine?
 
2012-12-29 12:16:56 PM

Kit Fister: Be prepared, fear nothing.


Your gun doesn't protect you from car accidents, natural disasters, cheating spouses, losing your job, cancer, your loved ones dying, and oh, most people who'd want to shoot you, since you won't be expecting it and won't be fast enough to protect yourself. So what is it you're "prepared" for? Only the scenario in your head where you get to shoot the bad guy and be a hero. Which has much less chance of happening than any of the things I just listed.
 
2012-12-29 12:17:35 PM

Silverstaff: At least we have a written Constitution which acts as a bulwark against the political fad of the day, instead of a Parliament which can choose to throw out a millennium of tradition with a simple majority vote if it wants.


The downside of that is that you're placing the opinions of a few long dead people over those of the current population, which is rather undemocratic. Was the US constitution voted on by the public at large?
 
2012-12-29 12:17:46 PM

Kit Fister: I'm not afraid of anything. I carry a gun as a means of having the proper tools to defend myself if necessary. I carry a pocket knife and a multitool as well. I keep blankets in the truck in winter time, tools, jumper cables, and a fist aid kit.

Be prepared, fear nothing.


lh5.googleusercontent.com
 
2012-12-29 12:18:28 PM

snuff3r: TFA: "the british problem"

You know what you stupid American guntards, have you considered the fact that there a quite a few countries out there where the vast majority don't actually WANT people running around with guns. If you lot want to run around like asstard cowboys, have farking fun. If you seriously want to link gun ownership to freedom, youre a farking moron. Freedom is not being scared that someone is going to blow your head off whilst youre at the cinema. Freedom is not having to be constantly feeling that you're split seconds from having to defend yourselves.

We had our Newtown massacre and the country chose to ban general gun ownership. We've been happier since.

For those of us who own guns, the long and tedious process we have to go through is worth it.


Who said guns? I say we should all be able to walk around with SWORDS. The whole Meiji Restoration thing was a bad idea.
 
2012-12-29 12:19:10 PM

cryinoutloud: Kit Fister: Be prepared, fear nothing.

Your gun doesn't protect you from car accidents, natural disasters, cheating spouses, losing your job, cancer, your loved ones dying, and oh, most people who'd want to shoot you, since you won't be expecting it and won't be fast enough to protect yourself. So what is it you're "prepared" for? Only the scenario in your head where you get to shoot the bad guy and be a hero. Which has much less chance of happening than any of the things I just listed.


He wasn't just talking about guns, sounds like you didn't read what he wrote. He's a man, not a not a stereotype.
 
2012-12-29 12:19:42 PM
The_Sponge: snuff3r: TFA: "the british problem"

You know what you stupid American guntards, have you considered the fact that there a quite a few countries out there where the vast majority don't actually WANT people running around with guns. If you lot want to run around like asstard cowboys, have farking fun. If you seriously want to link gun ownership to freedom, youre a farking moron. Freedom is not being scared that someone is going to blow your head off whilst youre at the cinema. Freedom is not having to be constantly feeling that you're split seconds from having to defend yourselves.

We had our Newtown massacre and the country chose to ban general gun ownership. We've been happier since.
For those of us who own guns, the long and tedious process we have to go through is worth it.
Freedom is having the means to protect yourself, your family, and your property.
Just because you guys gave up your rights, don't expect us to do the same,

Ah, the usual "freedom" BS. If you want freedom, move to somalia: no taxes, perfect unregulated capitalist economy, and all the guns you want.

Face up to it: you want guns because you want guns because you want guns. If you were truly concerned about 'safety' for you and your family, you'd be for sensible gun control and regulation laws and for stronger laws against illegal posession. but you're not. you're for guns because you like guns, and because ultimately you're a bit of sociopath -- and i mean that in technical, not pejorative sense. Like some anti-vaccination eedjit, you'd rather have a bit of false security for you even if it is at the expense of society as a whole. And make no mistake: it is at the expense of society as a whole.

To be clear: I am not against private ownership of guns if that occurs in a regulated, sensible way. Heck, I'm even all for letting private citizens shoot full automatics and even artillery if it's done at sanctioned, licensed, and regulated private ranges and clubs with the ammo stored under lock and key in a sensble, regulted, secure way. this would be the best solution for the USA.. but, eedjits like you arent proposing that. instead, the NRA fights against even the most commonsense reforms to gun laws and selfish, sociopathic morans push the 'safety' myth to rationalize what must ultimately be called their greed.

it has nothing whatsoever to do with 'freedom.'
 
2012-12-29 12:20:14 PM
 
2012-12-29 12:23:27 PM

Vimto: 39 British Subjects agree with subby; 9,763 US Citizens do not.

/The population of the UK is ~20% of that of the US
//Far more likely to have your TV stolen in the UK though, which much be partial consolation for being brutally murdered.


The US has always had several times the crime than the UK since the creation of the US of A. Also, you're only citing gun crime. You really think it's better to be beat or stabbed to death than shot? How does the math work on that?
 
2012-12-29 12:24:08 PM

Rising Ape: The downside of that is that you're placing the opinions of a few long dead people over those of the current population, which is rather undemocratic. Was the US constitution voted on by the public at large?



The US is not a democracy. "....and to the Republic, for which it stands..."

Thank god.
 
2012-12-29 12:25:33 PM

jaytkay: Kit Fister: I'm not afraid of anything. I carry a gun as a means of having the proper tools to defend myself if necessary. I carry a pocket knife and a multitool as well. I keep blankets in the truck in winter time, tools, jumper cables, and a fist aid kit.

Be prepared, fear nothing.

[lh5.googleusercontent.com image 400x400]


awesome
 
2012-12-29 12:25:37 PM

Bomb Head Mohammed: The_Sponge: snuff3r: TFA: "the british problem"

You know what you stupid American guntards, have you considered the fact that there a quite a few countries out there where the vast majority don't actually WANT people running around with guns. If you lot want to run around like asstard cowboys, have farking fun. If you seriously want to link gun ownership to freedom, youre a farking moron. Freedom is not being scared that someone is going to blow your head off whilst youre at the cinema. Freedom is not having to be constantly feeling that you're split seconds from having to defend yourselves.

We had our Newtown massacre and the country chose to ban general gun ownership. We've been happier since.
For those of us who own guns, the long and tedious process we have to go through is worth it.
Freedom is having the means to protect yourself, your family, and your property.
Just because you guys gave up your rights, don't expect us to do the same,

Ah, the usual "freedom" BS. If you want freedom, move to somalia: no taxes, perfect unregulated capitalist economy, and all the guns you want.

Face up to it: you want guns because you want guns because you want guns. If you were truly concerned about 'safety' for you and your family, you'd be for sensible gun control and regulation laws and for stronger laws against illegal posession. but you're not. you're for guns because you like guns, and because ultimately you're a bit of sociopath -- and i mean that in technical, not pejorative sense. Like some anti-vaccination eedjit, you'd rather have a bit of false security for you even if it is at the expense of society as a whole. And make no mistake: it is at the expense of society as a whole.

To be clear: I am not against private ownership of guns if that occurs in a regulated, sensible way. Heck, I'm even all for letting private citizens shoot full automatics and even artillery if it's done at sanctioned, licensed, and regulated private ranges and clubs with the ammo stored under lock and key in a sensble, regulted, secure way. this would be the best solution for the USA.. but, eedjits like you arent proposing that. instead, the NRA fights against even the most commonsense reforms to gun laws and selfish, sociopathic morans push the 'safety' myth to rationalize what must ultimately be called their greed.

it has nothing whatsoever to do with 'freedom.'


Nice opinion, feel free to put it back in the ass you pulled it from when you're done with it.
 
2012-12-29 12:26:43 PM
I'm headed to Europe for business this summer and planning in doing a little touring. The more I find out about England, the less and less I consider stopping there.

Even though my family us from there. Apparently they left with good cause.
 
2012-12-29 12:27:25 PM
'The BBC offers this advice for anyone in Britain who is attacked on the street: You are permitted to protect yourself with a briefcase, a handbag, or keys. You should shout 'Call the Police' rather than 'Help.' Bystanders are not to help'

-- JOYCE LEE MALCOLM

Just to assign the quote to its source.
Pro gun nut suprisingly!
 
2012-12-29 12:28:08 PM
So if i can try to understand the liberal mindset... banning guns is supposed to solve all our societies problems and no one will ever die again ever, but banning drugs has worked out horribly and we should give up the war on drugs completely because laws dont stop criminals. Got it.
 
2012-12-29 12:28:21 PM
Ah Britain, the country whose citizenry turned their guns to plowshares after WWI and had to come crying to the US for small arms to defend themselves from an invasion after the Luftwaffe came calling.
 
2012-12-29 12:28:39 PM

Rising Ape: Silverstaff: At least we have a written Constitution which acts as a bulwark against the political fad of the day, instead of a Parliament which can choose to throw out a millennium of tradition with a simple majority vote if it wants.

The downside of that is that you're placing the opinions of a few long dead people over those of the current population, which is rather undemocratic. Was the US constitution voted on by the public at large?


No, because the people are farking dumb and will vote to oppress a minority or institute slavery at the drop of a hat.
 
2012-12-29 12:29:27 PM

The_Sponge:

Freedom is having the means to protect yourself, your family, and your property.

Just because you guys gave up your rights, don't expect us to do the same,


Protect against who? Protection against the government is useless, because the government will always have more, bigger and better guns. This isn't the 1800's anymore. This is why even small town police in the US has and needs military grade weapons. If anything, you are turning your country in a less free, autocratic, militaristic, police state, as the government will put in more effort to control the gun-owning citizens.

For protection against other citizens you wouldn't need guns if there are no guns in society.

In short, the only thing gun ownership in a society like the US leads to, is more violent crimes, gun accidents and a police state where people have a very misguided sense of what 'liberty' actually means.
 
2012-12-29 12:31:06 PM

Mrbogey: Also, you're only citing gun crime. You really think it's better to be beat or stabbed to death than shot? How does the math work on that?


Are stab wounds as dangerous as gun shot wounds?

Kinda old, but does address your question. I've not checked its sources, or made any attempt to verify its findings.
 
2012-12-29 12:31:43 PM

Vimto: 39 British Subjects agree with subby; 9,763 US Citizens do not.

/The population of the UK is ~20% of that of the US
//Far more likely to have your TV stolen in the UK though, which much be partial consolation for being brutally murdered.


Yeah, but that's just from the BBC's License Vans.
 
2012-12-29 12:32:17 PM

HighlanderRPI: Ah Britain, the country whose citizenry turned their guns to plowshares after WWI and had to come crying to the US for small arms to defend themselves from an invasion after the Luftwaffe came calling.


Oh, but that will never happen again because people say so.
 
2012-12-29 12:33:03 PM

snuff3r: TFA: "the british problem"

You know what you stupid American guntards, have you considered the fact that there a quite a few countries out there where the vast majority don't actually WANT people running around with guns.


Enjoy your police state.
 
2012-12-29 12:34:24 PM

cryinoutloud: Kit Fister: Be prepared, fear nothing.

Your gun doesn't protect you from car accidents, natural disasters, cheating spouses, losing your job, cancer, your loved ones dying, and oh, most people who'd want to shoot you, since you won't be expecting it and won't be fast enough to protect yourself. So what is it you're "prepared" for? Only the scenario in your head where you get to shoot the bad guy and be a hero. Which has much less chance of happening than any of the things I just listed.


Protecting myself from car accidents is achieved by driving defensively, obeying the traffic laws, and assuming that other drivers don't know jack shiat about how to drive. Has served me well so far.

Natural Disasters - Worst natural disaster we're likely to get here in MI is a bad blizzard. To that end, I have a wood stove in my house, candles, blankets, etc. We also have a well installed that has a secondary interface capable of taking a hand pump to draw water in case of an extended power outage. I live on a farm and raise chickens and cows, as well, so, worst case, I have a source for milk, eggs, beef, and plenty of tillable area for corn, wheat, oats, etc.

Cheating spouses - Nothing to really "protect" myself from on this one. I'm prepared for the eventuality by having the agreement with my spouse that if she chooses to cheat, she leaves. We're pretty open and honest with each other.

Losing my job - Savings account, unemployment insurance, and a host of viable skills. Plus, being pretty well paid up on all of my bills to the tune of being ahead by 6-8 months on everything and no debt covers that.

Cancer - Illnesses that may kill me, nothing I can do to "prepare" for that except to eat healthy, exercise, not smoke or drink, and generally live a life that allows me to enjoy what I want to do, figuring that should I get Cancer or something incurable, I'll have one last hurrah in mexico and go out with a load of horse drugs.

My loved ones dying - I've lost three out of four grand parents, an uncle, a father, two great uncles, and my fair share of friends already. Nothing prepares you for that, but accepting it and being able to move on by remembering them does a fair job of making this such a pathetic issue to list on here that I wonder why you'd bother.

"Most guys who'd want to kill me" - Most people who would "want" to kill me are people that'd want to steal from me, or be people I wouldn't want to associate with. A life of avoidance and deescalation solves most of that problem -- if you're not where the bad guys are likely to be, then you're unlikely to get your ass shot off. Don't want to run into a Bear? Don't go where you see Bear sign. A lot of times, too, if you practice kindness towards others, you don't run into a problem. But I've also been in situations where I've been targeted and attack for no logical reasons. Never had to shoot anyone, but i've been fortunate enough to know far enough in advance something was wrong to have the gun half out before they pulled their shiat. They see it, everyone walks away quietly.

You are under the assumption that I am either slow, or lazy, or incapable of handling a firearm for self defense. I'm not Wyatt Erp, and this ain't the old west, so a fast draw and facing down a bad guy on the street at 20 yards is a fantasy. What I've learned in my years is that you know bad is coming before it comes, if you pay attention. I train relentlessly and hard to make sure that I'm decent with my gun, and that I'm capable of using it when I need to. I shoot competition sports, and I attend various LEO-sponsored training academies and seminars to keep up on tactics and the Law.

Shooting is my hobby, and it is also how I make my living, both through training and through gunsmithing. I'm under no illusions that a gun is the decider, or even anything more than a tool to be employed should every other possible option fail to resolve or avoid the confrontation/that outcome.

Hence, Be prepared.
 
2012-12-29 12:34:46 PM

bikkurikun: The_Sponge:

Freedom is having the means to protect yourself, your family, and your property.

Just because you guys gave up your rights, don't expect us to do the same,

Protect against who? Protection against the government is useless, because the government will always have more, bigger and better guns. This isn't the 1800's anymore. This is why even small town police in the US has and needs military grade weapons. If anything, you are turning your country in a less free, autocratic, militaristic, police state, as the government will put in more effort to control the gun-owning citizens.

For protection against other citizens you wouldn't need guns if there are no guns in society.

In short, the only thing gun ownership in a society like the US leads to, is more violent crimes, gun accidents and a police state where people have a very misguided sense of what 'liberty' actually means.


So since the government buys more guns and passes more regulations trying to control people that own guns, those that own guns should give up owning guns as they will no longer be oppressed as gun owners once they no longer own guns?
 
2012-12-29 12:36:03 PM

Mrbogey: You really think it's better to be beat or stabbed to death than shot?


You're much more likely to survive a beating or evade a knife, so I'll take my chances with those.

If guns are no more effective as weapons than knives are, why are the gun nuts so insistent that they need them? Just use a knife instead.
 
2012-12-29 12:38:47 PM

RickN99: Via Infinito: Right subs. I'm sure the "information" provided by guntutor.com is completely true and not a large pile of horse shiat.

So, you're saying there has been no call to ban long knives,


There are calls to ban all sorts of things, that doesn't mean it happens. cf Guns in the U.S.

that guns are a welcome part of an Englishman's home,

For any that want them, yes. My Nephew has had his own shotgun since he was 11.

and that vigorous self-defense is applauded by the British police?

As long as reasonable force is used, rather than gratuitous violence. Link Much like most of the US, I assume.
 
2012-12-29 12:40:35 PM
The Limeys need a license to watch TV. You think their government would grant the the right of self defense?
 
2012-12-29 12:42:45 PM

snuff3r: We had our Newtown massacre and the country chose to ban general gun ownership. We've been happier since.

For those of us who own guns, the long and tedious process we have to go through is worth it.


Not as happy as you could be, though, or you wouldn't be armed.
 
2012-12-29 12:46:06 PM

Rising Ape: Silverstaff: At least we have a written Constitution which acts as a bulwark against the political fad of the day, instead of a Parliament which can choose to throw out a millennium of tradition with a simple majority vote if it wants.

The downside of that is that you're placing the opinions of a few long dead people over those of the current population, which is rather undemocratic. Was the US constitution voted on by the public at large?


The United States of America is a Republic, we are ruled by elected officials. If we don't like what they say or do, we replace them with people who we do support.

The US Constitution was ratified by each of the original 13 states that were members at the time (1789), in ratifying conventions held in each state where delegates elected by the people and appointed by the elected legislature publicly debated on the document, which itself had been drafted in a special convention composed of delegates sent by the legislatures of each state. It legally took effect when 9 of the 13 had ratified it, but all 13 approved of the document. Each amendment then had to be ratified, including the right to bear arms in the second amendment (and the Constitution was only ratified by many states on the promise that it would include a bill of rights as later amendments).

Some state governments do have direct referendums on issues, but not at the Federal level.

The will of the people can change the US Constitution, however, it takes a massive political consensus to do so.

Any amendment must be supported by a 2/3 majority of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, as well as majority votes of the legislatures of 3/4 of the states. This is specifically to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The Constitution is our ground rules, the Bill of Rights are the things that as a culture we have long agreed are the basic freedoms and ground rules that everybody gets, and just because 51% of the population thinks otherwise one day they don't get to change it. To change the basic rules requires a nationwide consensus on an issue that holds over a period of years, not just a knee-jerk reaction to a single tragedy.

If it was the overwhelming consensus of the US to ban guns, yeah, we'd elect officials that would back a repeal of the Second Amendment, but right now you've barely got a slim majority that supports any increase in gun control, and support for total abolition is quite small indeed. In fact, that consensus would have to hold for several years because of terms of office, a massive change in the makeup of the Senate would take 6 years (another intentional design to insulate the law from the fad of the day or a passing whim.)
 
2012-12-29 12:46:27 PM
jaybeezey: Nice opinion, feel free to put it back in the ass you pulled it from when you're done with it.

derp derp derp. Gotcha. You forgot the quasi insinuation that because I didn't serve in the military that I have no right to open my yap. derp derp derp.
 
2012-12-29 12:47:09 PM

CujoQuarrel: Vimto: 39 British Subjects agree with subby; 9,763 US Citizens do not.

/The population of the UK is ~20% of that of the US
//Far more likely to have your TV stolen in the UK though, which much be partial consolation for being brutally murdered.

Yeah, but that's just from the BBC's License Vans.


img.youtube.com
 
2012-12-29 12:50:48 PM

Rising Ape: Mrbogey: You really think it's better to be beat or stabbed to death than shot?

You're much more likely to survive a beating or evade a knife, so I'll take my chances with those.

If guns are no more effective as weapons than knives are, why are the gun nuts so insistent that they need them? Just use a knife instead.


I'd rather have a briefcase.

loadoutroom.com
 
2012-12-29 12:52:31 PM

Bomb Head Mohammed: Ah, the usual "freedom" BS. If you want freedom, move to somalia: no taxes, perfect unregulated capitalist economy, and all the guns you want.

Face up to it: you want guns because you want guns because you want guns. If you were truly concerned about 'safety' for you and your family, you'd be for sensible gun control and regulation laws and for stronger laws against illegal posession. but you're not. you're for guns because you like guns, and because ultimately you're a bit of sociopath -- and i mean that in technical, not pejorative sense. Like some anti-vaccination eedjit, you'd rather have a bit of false security for you even if it is at the expense of society as a whole. And make no mistake: it is at the expense of society as a whole.

To be clear: I am not against private ownership of guns if that occurs in a regulated, sensible way. Heck, I'm even all for letting private citizens shoot full automatics and even artillery if it's done at sanctioned, licensed, and regulated private ranges and clubs with the ammo stored under lock and key in a sensble, regulted, secure way. this would be the best solution for the USA.. but, eedjits like you arent proposing that. instead, the NRA fights against even the most commonsense reforms to gun laws and selfish, sociopathic morans push the 'safety' myth to rationalize what must ultimately be called their greed.

it has nothing whatsoever to do with 'freedom.'


Yea pretty much this. I know some of these rabid pro-gun dudes. They talk about hunting and self defense a lot but it's pretty obvious this is just a convenient excuse for why they have assault rifles, fatigues, boots, vests and whatever other army gear they have stashed away in their basements. The real reason they are into this stuff is because it's so damn cool. They have Rambo fantasies of running around in the woods blasting all the bad guys. Never mind that not a one of them has ever been in a violent encounter in their life and they'd probably poop they're pants if they were ever in a real shootout.

When little boys are into this it's kinda funny, when grown men are into it it's a little sad. I respect their right to pursue their hobby in the fullest I just don't think they should have actual assault rifles. Get a paintball gun and blast the crap out of each other. Or, if you really wanna play with the big boys join the damn army and play with all the guns you want. Just leave it out of our neighborhoods and schools please.
 
2012-12-29 12:52:40 PM
This is why we can't have nice teeth.
 
2012-12-29 12:54:16 PM

Rising Ape: Mrbogey: You really think it's better to be beat or stabbed to death than shot?

You're much more likely to survive a beating or evade a knife, so I'll take my chances with those.

If guns are no more effective as weapons than knives are, why are the gun nuts so insistent that they need them? Just use a knife instead.


From a lethality and wounding perspective, knife wounds tend to do about as much damage as handgun bullets, and in some ways, are worse than bullet wounds. The only advantage a bullet has is range.
 
2012-12-29 12:54:29 PM
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" -- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good" -- George Washington

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

Relevant to this discussion:
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -- Mahatma Gandhi

The rights of the people are protected solely by their own individual right to possess and use firearms. Those who give up their right to self-defense eventually give up everything else as well.
 
2012-12-29 12:54:49 PM

Vimto: 39 British Subjects agree with subby; 9,763 US Citizens do not.

/The population of the UK is ~20% of that of the US
//Far more likely to have your TV stolen in the UK though, which much be partial consolation for being brutally murdered.


This tells me that if your country gave each and every citizen a free TV, the crime rate would go down.

Also put webcams on the TVs so you can keep an eye on your subjects indoors, too.
 
2012-12-29 12:56:05 PM
Why don't you ask some of the 50,000 people whose property and livelihoods were destroyed in the London riots how much they liked being in a country where they had no means to defend themselves.
 
2012-12-29 12:56:18 PM
We had our Newtown massacre and the country chose to ban general gun ownership. We've been happier since.

Why have you been happier?

Since you banned (most) guns, you've had another massacre in 2010. Your non-gun crime is the highest in Europe and beats the tar out of the US (that's rapes, robberies and assaults).

Oh, and your gun crime? It farking DOUBLED.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5211636.stm
 
2012-12-29 12:56:57 PM
I'm just pissed that I'm prices out of the AR market until this talk of gun banning nonsense blows over (which it will. This is just a distraction/bargaining chip for fiscal cliff talks)

I guess I'll just have to settle with getting a semi-automatic M1 battle rifle with high power armor piercing rounds shipped directly to my door (and subsidized by the government). Yes, this is a real thing. You mad anti-gunners?
 
2012-12-29 12:59:32 PM

Frank N Stein: I'm just pissed that I'm prices out of the AR market until this talk of gun banning nonsense blows over (which it will. This is just a distraction/bargaining chip for fiscal cliff talks)

I guess I'll just have to settle with getting a semi-automatic M1 battle rifle with high power armor piercing rounds shipped directly to my door (and subsidized by the government). Yes, this is a real thing. You mad anti-gunners?


You know what they say about men buying sports cars?
 
2012-12-29 01:00:02 PM

Frank N Stein: I'm just pissed that I'm prices out of the AR market until this talk of gun banning nonsense blows over (which it will. This is just a distraction/bargaining chip for fiscal cliff talks)

I guess I'll just have to settle with getting a semi-automatic M1 battle rifle with high power armor piercing rounds shipped directly to my door (and subsidized by the government). Yes, this is a real thing. You mad anti-gunners?


So how many times did you orgasm while typing that?
 
2012-12-29 01:00:23 PM
This seems legit, not unbiased or anything, like FOX News.
 
2012-12-29 01:00:45 PM

ElBarto79: Bomb Head Mohammed: Ah, the usual "freedom" BS. If you want freedom, move to somalia: no taxes, perfect unregulated capitalist economy, and all the guns you want.

Face up to it: you want guns because you want guns because you want guns. If you were truly concerned about 'safety' for you and your family, you'd be for sensible gun control and regulation laws and for stronger laws against illegal posession. but you're not. you're for guns because you like guns, and because ultimately you're a bit of sociopath -- and i mean that in technical, not pejorative sense. Like some anti-vaccination eedjit, you'd rather have a bit of false security for you even if it is at the expense of society as a whole. And make no mistake: it is at the expense of society as a whole.

To be clear: I am not against private ownership of guns if that occurs in a regulated, sensible way. Heck, I'm even all for letting private citizens shoot full automatics and even artillery if it's done at sanctioned, licensed, and regulated private ranges and clubs with the ammo stored under lock and key in a sensble, regulted, secure way. this would be the best solution for the USA.. but, eedjits like you arent proposing that. instead, the NRA fights against even the most commonsense reforms to gun laws and selfish, sociopathic morans push the 'safety' myth to rationalize what must ultimately be called their greed.

it has nothing whatsoever to do with 'freedom.'

Yea pretty much this. I know some of these rabid pro-gun dudes. They talk about hunting and self defense a lot but it's pretty obvious this is just a convenient excuse for why they have assault rifles, fatigues, boots, vests and whatever other army gear they have stashed away in their basements. The real reason they are into this stuff is because it's so damn cool. They have Rambo fantasies of running around in the woods blasting all the bad guys. Never mind that not a one of them has ever been in a violent encounter in their life and they'd p ...


Yep, I like guns. I own guns because I like guns. I don't think anyone has ever said they didn't. This does not negate the enjoyment of hunting, or the use of firearms in defense of home or person.

Besides, as we've already seen, commonsense legislation has totally stopped drug use, underage drinking, drunk driving, selling tainted medication, preventing robbery, rape, fraud, identity theft, movie piracy, music piracy, undocumented immigration, kiddie rape, etc. WHy would I expect a bloated, incompetent government with understaffed police agencies that show up in the news on an almost daily basis violating the rights of people (or committing crimes etc.) to protect me? Why would I feel SAFER in a culture that, even without the presence of firearms, ignores crimes being committed and fails to report suspicious behavior because they don't want to get involved?

Frankly, if I'm not willing to protect myself and be responsible for myself, ain't no one else going to do it.
 
2012-12-29 01:01:45 PM

flsprtsgod: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" -- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good" -- George Washington

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

Relevant to this discussion:
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -- Mahatma Gandhi

The rights of the people are protected solely by their own individual right to possess and use firearms. Those who give up their right to self-defense eventually give up everything else as well.


Well those are clearly just filthy communists talking.
 
2012-12-29 01:01:52 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: Frank N Stein: I'm just pissed that I'm prices out of the AR market until this talk of gun banning nonsense blows over (which it will. This is just a distraction/bargaining chip for fiscal cliff talks)

I guess I'll just have to settle with getting a semi-automatic M1 battle rifle with high power armor piercing rounds shipped directly to my door (and subsidized by the government). Yes, this is a real thing. You mad anti-gunners?

You know what they say about men buying sports cars?


They like sports cars?
 
2012-12-29 01:03:39 PM

Frank N Stein: Wolf_Blitzer: Frank N Stein: I'm just pissed that I'm prices out of the AR market until this talk of gun banning nonsense blows over (which it will. This is just a distraction/bargaining chip for fiscal cliff talks)

I guess I'll just have to settle with getting a semi-automatic M1 battle rifle with high power armor piercing rounds shipped directly to my door (and subsidized by the government). Yes, this is a real thing. You mad anti-gunners?

You know what they say about men buying sports cars?

They like sports cars?


No, they like pancakes and have to be at the gym in 26 minutes.
 
2012-12-29 01:03:42 PM

Kit Fister: ElBarto79: Bomb Head Mohammed: Ah, the usual "freedom" BS. If you want freedom, move to somalia: no taxes, perfect unregulated capitalist economy, and all the guns you want.

Face up to it: you want guns because you want guns because you want guns. If you were truly concerned about 'safety' for you and your family, you'd be for sensible gun control and regulation laws and for stronger laws against illegal posession. but you're not. you're for guns because you like guns, and because ultimately you're a bit of sociopath -- and i mean that in technical, not pejorative sense. Like some anti-vaccination eedjit, you'd rather have a bit of false security for you even if it is at the expense of society as a whole. And make no mistake: it is at the expense of society as a whole.

To be clear: I am not against private ownership of guns if that occurs in a regulated, sensible way. Heck, I'm even all for letting private citizens shoot full automatics and even artillery if it's done at sanctioned, licensed, and regulated private ranges and clubs with the ammo stored under lock and key in a sensble, regulted, secure way. this would be the best solution for the USA.. but, eedjits like you arent proposing that. instead, the NRA fights against even the most commonsense reforms to gun laws and selfish, sociopathic morans push the 'safety' myth to rationalize what must ultimately be called their greed.

it has nothing whatsoever to do with 'freedom.'

Yea pretty much this. I know some of these rabid pro-gun dudes. They talk about hunting and self defense a lot but it's pretty obvious this is just a convenient excuse for why they have assault rifles, fatigues, boots, vests and whatever other army gear they have stashed away in their basements. The real reason they are into this stuff is because it's so damn cool. They have Rambo fantasies of running around in the woods blasting all the bad guys. Never mind that not a one of them has ever been in a violent encounter in their life a ...


Shhh, personal responsibility is not welcome in these here parts. They will mockingly call you "boot strappy" if you aren't dependent on the government for your every whim and need.
 
2012-12-29 01:05:06 PM

Pincy: Frank N Stein: I'm just pissed that I'm prices out of the AR market until this talk of gun banning nonsense blows over (which it will. This is just a distraction/bargaining chip for fiscal cliff talks)

I guess I'll just have to settle with getting a semi-automatic M1 battle rifle with high power armor piercing rounds shipped directly to my door (and subsidized by the government). Yes, this is a real thing. You mad anti-gunners?

So how many times did you orgasm while typing that?


Nope, just getting a leg up on the eventual lingo used when you guys realize the civilian marksmanship program exists
 
2012-12-29 01:05:16 PM

Frank N Stein: Wolf_Blitzer: Frank N Stein: I'm just pissed that I'm prices out of the AR market until this talk of gun banning nonsense blows over (which it will. This is just a distraction/bargaining chip for fiscal cliff talks)

I guess I'll just have to settle with getting a semi-automatic M1 battle rifle with high power armor piercing rounds shipped directly to my door (and subsidized by the government). Yes, this is a real thing. You mad anti-gunners?

You know what they say about men buying sports cars?

They like sports cars?


Just to repeat what Pincy said, how many times did you orgasm while sharing your gun porn with us?
 
2012-12-29 01:07:03 PM

Silly Jesus: Shhh, personal responsibility is not welcome in these here parts. They will mockingly call you "boot strappy" if you aren't dependent on the government for your every whim and need.


I can't say that I'm really dependent on the government for my need to kill people.
 
2012-12-29 01:07:48 PM
I like how everyone in here, on both sides, is calm, doesn't use inflammatory rhetoric, and uses logical arguments in an educated attempt to persuade the holders of the opposing view.
 
2012-12-29 01:08:21 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: Silly Jesus: Shhh, personal responsibility is not welcome in these here parts. They will mockingly call you "boot strappy" if you aren't dependent on the government for your every whim and need.

I can't say that I'm really dependent on the government for my need to kill people.


Come again?
 
2012-12-29 01:08:57 PM

Tanthalas39: I like how everyone in here, on both sides, is calm, doesn't use inflammatory rhetoric, and uses logical arguments in an educated attempt to persuade the holders of the opposing view.


How many times did you orgasm while writing that?
 
2012-12-29 01:09:27 PM

Kit Fister: Besides, as we've already seen, commonsense legislation has totally stopped drug use, underage drinking, drunk driving, selling tainted medication, preventing robbery, rape, fraud, identity theft, movie piracy, music piracy, undocumented immigration, kiddie rape, etc. WHy would I expect a bloated, incompetent government with understaffed police agencies that show up in the news on an almost daily basis violating the rights of people (or committing crimes etc.) to protect me? Why would I feel SAFER in a culture that, even without the presence of firearms, ignores crimes being committed and fails to report suspicious behavior because they don't want to get involved?


Gun grabbers don't like having that pointed out to them. I wonder what the correlation rate is between people pushing for abolition of guns thinking it will eliminate gun violence, and people who smoke marijuana? Or between people who want guns legally abolished and think guns will magically go away, but still download illegal mp3s or pirated TV shows and movies?

As I've pointed out MANY times, in World War II, the Dutch Resistance made submachine guns with raw metal and basic machine tools, using a bike shop as a secret gunsmith. The plans for such guns are easily available on the internet. With machine tools you could find in any town or city, basic sheet metal and ingots, and a High School Shop Class level of skill you can turn out mediocre, but quite functioning firearms.

It's generally not done now because weapons are easily available through legal channels, but you better believe there are people with those plans who would make them if they had no other choice to get firearms.

I remember when, I, as a teenager, realized you could never ban guns. It was while looking at an exhibit at my State Fair, back in the early 90's. The Kentucky Department of Corrections had a big exhibit of contraband that had been seized from prisoners that year.

There was a wall of shanks and shivs, as you might expect. There was also a very large exhibit, dozens in fact, of zip guns. That is when I realized that if an incarcerated prisoner can make a firearm, you'll never keep them out of the hands of criminals, but you can easily keep them away from the law abiding.
 
2012-12-29 01:09:31 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: Silly Jesus: Shhh, personal responsibility is not welcome in these here parts. They will mockingly call you "boot strappy" if you aren't dependent on the government for your every whim and need.

I can't say that I'm really dependent on the government for my need to kill people.


You have a need to kill people? Please have yourself evaluated by a psychiatrist as you are a danger to yourself and others.
 
2012-12-29 01:09:46 PM

dr-shotgun: We had our Newtown massacre and the country chose to ban general gun ownership. We've been happier since.

Why have you been happier?

Since you banned (most) guns, you've had another massacre in 2010. Your non-gun crime is the highest in Europe and beats the tar out of the US (that's rapes, robberies and assaults).

Oh, and your gun crime? It farking DOUBLED.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5211636.stm


And what is the concern expressed in your link? The failure of gun control laws or a loophole in them?
 
2012-12-29 01:10:54 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: Frank N Stein: Wolf_Blitzer: Frank N Stein: I'm just pissed that I'm prices out of the AR market until this talk of gun banning nonsense blows over (which it will. This is just a distraction/bargaining chip for fiscal cliff talks)

I guess I'll just have to settle with getting a semi-automatic M1 battle rifle with high power armor piercing rounds shipped directly to my door (and subsidized by the government). Yes, this is a real thing. You mad anti-gunners?

You know what they say about men buying sports cars?

They like sports cars?

Just to repeat what Pincy said, how many times did you orgasm while sharing your gun porn with us?


None. I'm just here waiting for the backlash when you guys discover the CMP

/high powered battle rifles!
//SHIPPED TO YOUR HOUSE!!!!
 
2012-12-29 01:11:25 PM

Silly Jesus: Wolf_Blitzer: Silly Jesus: Shhh, personal responsibility is not welcome in these here parts. They will mockingly call you "boot strappy" if you aren't dependent on the government for your every whim and need.

I can't say that I'm really dependent on the government for my need to kill people.

Come again?


All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our own needs. I don't feel that I need to be able to kill someone at any possible moment.
 
2012-12-29 01:12:37 PM

Cyno01: So if i can try to understand the liberal mindset... banning guns is supposed to solve all our societies problems and no one will ever die again ever, but banning drugs has worked out horribly and we should give up the war on drugs completely because laws dont stop criminals. Got it.


You can't storm an elementary school and kill 26 people with a bag of weed.
 
2012-12-29 01:14:40 PM

Frank N Stein: Wolf_Blitzer: Silly Jesus: Shhh, personal responsibility is not welcome in these here parts. They will mockingly call you "boot strappy" if you aren't dependent on the government for your every whim and need.

I can't say that I'm really dependent on the government for my need to kill people.

You have a need to kill people? Please have yourself evaluated by a psychiatrist as you are a danger to yourself and others.


Your the one regaling us with the details of your firearms. You can't exactly build a bridge with a firearm; they're designed to kill. That is their purpose. If you feel it necessary to own a gun, it follows that you want to be prepared to kill someone.
 
2012-12-29 01:15:19 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: Silly Jesus: Wolf_Blitzer: Silly Jesus: Shhh, personal responsibility is not welcome in these here parts. They will mockingly call you "boot strappy" if you aren't dependent on the government for your every whim and need.

I can't say that I'm really dependent on the government for my need to kill people.

Come again?

All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our own needs. I don't feel that I need to be able to kill someone at any possible moment.


Well congrats. I, though, am within 5 miles of a guy who was killed last week by some thugs breaking into his home. I'd like the option to fight back if the same were to happen at my home. Is that "feeling a need to be able to kill someone?"
 
2012-12-29 01:15:20 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: Silly Jesus: Wolf_Blitzer: Silly Jesus: Shhh, personal responsibility is not welcome in these here parts. They will mockingly call you "boot strappy" if you aren't dependent on the government for your every whim and need.

I can't say that I'm really dependent on the government for my need to kill people.

Come again?

All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our own needs. I don't feel that I need to be able to kill someone at any possible moment.


All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our needs. I don't feel the need to be able to put out a fire in my home at any possible moment.

Time to throw out the fire extinguisher.

/why own a fire extinguisher when the fire department will come to put out a fire?
 
2012-12-29 01:15:45 PM
Personal defense kit, under $10:

1. Piece of 1/4" threaded pipe, schedule 80, 12" long;

2. 1/4" pipe cap;

3. 6d nail, clipped off to about 3/8";

4. .25 caliber center fire cartridge.

Drill through the cap with a 1/16" drill, insert the bullet, screw the cap tight. Attach a wooden handle, and a heavy clapper with rubber bands. Point it at the enemy and strike the nail. Do not assemble the device until you really need it. Keep the pieces separate from one another, preferably off your property.

Immediately after use, dismantle the device, and throw the pieces away in several different places.
 
2012-12-29 01:16:59 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: Frank N Stein: Wolf_Blitzer: Silly Jesus: Shhh, personal responsibility is not welcome in these here parts. They will mockingly call you "boot strappy" if you aren't dependent on the government for your every whim and need.

I can't say that I'm really dependent on the government for my need to kill people.

You have a need to kill people? Please have yourself evaluated by a psychiatrist as you are a danger to yourself and others.

Your the one regaling us with the details of your firearms. You can't exactly build a bridge with a firearm; they're designed to kill. That is their purpose. If you feel it necessary to own a gun, it follows that you want to be prepared to kill someone.


Is this why all of those folks from around the world compete in the Olympics in marksmanship events? They are just itching to kill someone?

That's a pretty asinine line of reasoning. You really think that target and clay shooters are just undercover murderers?
 
2012-12-29 01:17:03 PM

GORDON: Vimto: 39 British Subjects agree with subby; 9,763 US Citizens do not.

/The population of the UK is ~20% of that of the US
//Far more likely to have your TV stolen in the UK though, which much be partial consolation for being brutally murdered.

This tells me that if your country gave each and every citizen a free TV, the crime rate would go down.

Also put webcams on the TVs so you can keep an eye on your subjects indoors, too.


I don't think that would work, to be honest, they'd probably still steal them so that someone could have more than one. That would make it an illegal TV, as opposed to a legal one. Think that's ridiculous? It happens with guns too.
 
2012-12-29 01:19:12 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: Frank N Stein: Wolf_Blitzer: Silly Jesus: Shhh, personal responsibility is not welcome in these here parts. They will mockingly call you "boot strappy" if you aren't dependent on the government for your every whim and need.

I can't say that I'm really dependent on the government for my need to kill people.

You have a need to kill people? Please have yourself evaluated by a psychiatrist as you are a danger to yourself and others.

Your the one regaling us with the details of your firearms. You can't exactly build a bridge with a firearm; they're designed to kill. That is their purpose. If you feel it necessary to own a gun, it follows that you want to be prepared to kill someone.


Ill conceed that point. But I suppose that, living in the south side of Chicago, there is a small (but reasonable) chance that one day someone will try to kill me. Hell, we just reached our 500th homicide.

If someone were to attempt to take my life, I would meet that threat with deadly force.
 
2012-12-29 01:19:18 PM

Frank N Stein: All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our needs. I don't feel the need to be able to put out a fire in my home at any possible moment.

Time to throw out the fire extinguisher.

/why own a fire extinguisher when the fire department will come to put out a fire?


This.

Thank you, I am going to remember this one for future use against anti-freedom advocates who oppose the right to bear arms.
 
2012-12-29 01:19:25 PM

Kit Fister: Frank N Stein: Wolf_Blitzer: Frank N Stein: I'm just pissed that I'm prices out of the AR market until this talk of gun banning nonsense blows over (which it will. This is just a distraction/bargaining chip for fiscal cliff talks)

I guess I'll just have to settle with getting a semi-automatic M1 battle rifle with high power armor piercing rounds shipped directly to my door (and subsidized by the government). Yes, this is a real thing. You mad anti-gunners?

You know what they say about men buying sports cars?

They like sports cars?

No, they like pancakes and have to be at the gym in 26 minutes.


I hate pancakes and gyms are for sedentary suit-stuffing.
 
2012-12-29 01:19:27 PM
Any of you liberty loving guntards done anything about the TSA, warrant-less wiretapping, or indefinite detention yet? Oh, what's that? You only care about your right to own toys, not actual liberty from tyrannical government? Thought so.

Dead bolts and window locks are pretty effective means of home defense for us non guntards.
 
2012-12-29 01:21:06 PM
I don't know why we pro gunners keep bringing up the UK. We punched their chocolate starfish centuries ago with some fine French help. If those frigid islanders want to live that way, best of luck.
 
2012-12-29 01:21:08 PM

Frank N Stein: Wolf_Blitzer: Silly Jesus: Wolf_Blitzer: Silly Jesus: Shhh, personal responsibility is not welcome in these here parts. They will mockingly call you "boot strappy" if you aren't dependent on the government for your every whim and need.

I can't say that I'm really dependent on the government for my need to kill people.

Come again?

All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our own needs. I don't feel that I need to be able to kill someone at any possible moment.

All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our needs. I don't feel the need to be able to put out a fire in my home at any possible moment.

Time to throw out the fire extinguisher.

/why own a fire extinguisher when the fire department will come to put out a fire?


If you feel that the risk of a fire is so low that a fire extinguisher is more dangerous to you than a fire, I say go for it. However, fires are pretty common, and home invasions are not. I've examined the statistics and decided that the risk to myself and others from keeping a gun in the house is greater than the risk of not having one.

And the inevitable response: "There is no risk to myself, I'm a responsible gun owner". I'm sure Nancy Lanza said the same thing.
 
2012-12-29 01:21:16 PM

Champion of the Sun: Any of you liberty loving guntards done anything about the TSA, warrant-less wiretapping, or indefinite detention yet? Oh, what's that? You only care about your right to own toys, not actual liberty from tyrannical government? Thought so.

Dead bolts and window locks are pretty effective means of home defense for us non guntards.


Because no one has every committed the crime of breaking and entering.
 
2012-12-29 01:22:42 PM

Silverstaff: Frank N Stein: All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our needs. I don't feel the need to be able to put out a fire in my home at any possible moment.

Time to throw out the fire extinguisher.

/why own a fire extinguisher when the fire department will come to put out a fire?

This.

Thank you, I am going to remember this one for future use against anti-freedom advocates who oppose the right to bear arms.


The next time a kid accidentally kills himself with his dad's fire extingisher, I'll be right there with you, Mr. Manly Freedom Advocate.
 
2012-12-29 01:23:37 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: Frank N Stein: Wolf_Blitzer: Silly Jesus: Wolf_Blitzer: Silly Jesus: Shhh, personal responsibility is not welcome in these here parts. They will mockingly call you "boot strappy" if you aren't dependent on the government for your every whim and need.

I can't say that I'm really dependent on the government for my need to kill people.

Come again?

All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our own needs. I don't feel that I need to be able to kill someone at any possible moment.

All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our needs. I don't feel the need to be able to put out a fire in my home at any possible moment.

Time to throw out the fire extinguisher.

/why own a fire extinguisher when the fire department will come to put out a fire?

If you feel that the risk of a fire is so low that a fire extinguisher is more dangerous to you than a fire, I say go for it. However, fires are pretty common, and home invasions are not. I've examined the statistics and decided that the risk to myself and others from keeping a gun in the house is greater than the risk of not having one.

And the inevitable response: "There is no risk to myself, I'm a responsible gun owner". I'm sure Nancy Lanza said the same thing.


A lot if the risks of owning a firearm are in the form of suicides and children discovering unlocked guns with accessible ammunition.

I'm neither suicidal nor do I have children, so the risk is negligable. I'll take my chance with my gun sitting inertly on my nightstand.
 
2012-12-29 01:24:49 PM
From the Weeners: "Rosey Greer"

/that should strike a chord with the kids
//and anyone else under 50
 
2012-12-29 01:26:03 PM

Champion of the Sun: Any of you liberty loving guntards done anything about the TSA, warrant-less wiretapping, or indefinite detention yet? Oh, what's that? You only care about your right to own toys, not actual liberty from tyrannical government? Thought so.

Dead bolts and window locks are pretty effective means of home defense for us non guntards.


YKHIK you don't follow any gun forums? NDAA 2012 is brought up often as well as the disregard of the 4th and 5thKristina Rose amendments. But really, it's just toys, grown kids, and penises.
 
2012-12-29 01:26:03 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: Frank N Stein: Wolf_Blitzer: Silly Jesus: Wolf_Blitzer: Silly Jesus: Shhh, personal responsibility is not welcome in these here parts. They will mockingly call you "boot strappy" if you aren't dependent on the government for your every whim and need.

I can't say that I'm really dependent on the government for my need to kill people.

Come again?

All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our own needs. I don't feel that I need to be able to kill someone at any possible moment.

All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our needs. I don't feel the need to be able to put out a fire in my home at any possible moment.

Time to throw out the fire extinguisher.

/why own a fire extinguisher when the fire department will come to put out a fire?

If you feel that the risk of a fire is so low that a fire extinguisher is more dangerous to you than a fire, I say go for it. However, fires are pretty common, and home invasions are not. I've examined the statistics and decided that the risk to myself and others from keeping a gun in the house is greater than the risk of not having one.

And the inevitable response: "There is no risk to myself, I'm a responsible gun owner". I'm sure Nancy Lanza said the same thing.


She wasn't responsible. She had a crazy son. The guns should have been locked in a safe with a password that only she knew. Or not accessible to him in some other way. Crazy people shouldn't have guns and responsible gun owners know that.
 
2012-12-29 01:26:41 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: Silverstaff: Frank N Stein: All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our needs. I don't feel the need to be able to put out a fire in my home at any possible moment.

Time to throw out the fire extinguisher.

/why own a fire extinguisher when the fire department will come to put out a fire?

This.

Thank you, I am going to remember this one for future use against anti-freedom advocates who oppose the right to bear arms.

The next time a kid accidentally kills himself with his dad's fire extingisher, I'll be right there with you, Mr. Manly Freedom Advocate.


THINK OF THE CHILDREN

/funny, I grew up in a house where I had access to a shotgun. And from a young age I was taught how to operate, clean, and maintain said firearm.
//it must be a miracle that I didn't accidentally blow my head off.
 
ows
2012-12-29 01:27:01 PM
i'll give you a right kick in the dingleberries i will.
 
2012-12-29 01:27:03 PM
For some reason, I read the link as 'Gruntor.com'

I have no idea what a gruntor is, but after reading this thread, I'm fairly certain some of them are posting here.

Also, this is my new favorite word.  Gruntor.

/gruntor
 
2012-12-29 01:27:19 PM

flsprtsgod:
Relevant to this discussion:
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." -- Mahatma Gandhi



Any one got any more information on the Facebook account that got banned for posting this comment?

Saw it on Drudge. I'd bet there is a lot more to the story than what they are reporting.
 
2012-12-29 01:27:22 PM

Frank N Stein: Champion of the Sun: Any of you liberty loving guntards done anything about the TSA, warrant-less wiretapping, or indefinite detention yet? Oh, what's that? You only care about your right to own toys, not actual liberty from tyrannical government? Thought so.

Dead bolts and window locks are pretty effective means of home defense for us non guntards.

Because no one has every committed the crime of breaking and entering.


So, because cities have been nuked twice in history, I'm sure you keep a supply of potassium iodide on hand.

The opportunity cost of dead bolts and window locks (purchase and installation costs) are low. The opportunity cost of keeping a firearm in the house (high risk of accidental or intentional unlawful usage, with injury or death) is rather higher.
 
2012-12-29 01:29:21 PM

Silly Jesus: She wasn't responsible. She had a crazy son. The guns should have been locked in a safe with a password that only she knew. Or not accessible to him in some other way. Crazy people shouldn't have guns and responsible gun owners know that.


But the question is, was she a True Scotsman?

All gun owners are "responsible" until someone winds up shot.
 
2012-12-29 01:31:15 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: Silly Jesus: She wasn't responsible. She had a crazy son. The guns should have been locked in a safe with a password that only she knew. Or not accessible to him in some other way. Crazy people shouldn't have guns and responsible gun owners know that.

But the question is, was she a True Scotsman?

All gun owners are "responsible" until someone winds up shot.


straws / grasping / etc.
 
2012-12-29 01:32:01 PM

Silly Jesus: Wolf_Blitzer: Silly Jesus: She wasn't responsible. She had a crazy son. The guns should have been locked in a safe with a password that only she knew. Or not accessible to him in some other way. Crazy people shouldn't have guns and responsible gun owners know that.

But the question is, was she a True Scotsman?

All gun owners are "responsible" until someone winds up shot.

straws / grasping / etc.


Evading / goalposts / pathetic / done.
 
2012-12-29 01:33:03 PM
"Bystanders are not to help "

mapage.noos.fr

Marquess of Queensberry rules now, we'll have a good clean fight!
 
2012-12-29 01:33:13 PM
OK - here's how utterly disingenuous and farcically misleading the article is:

"In England doctors have called for a ban on long kitchen knives since 2005" = in 2005 a team of doctors in one hospital suggested that a ban on long kitchen knives would reduce the impact of knives being used in violent crimes.

"The BBC offers this advice for anyone in Britain who is attacked on the street: You are permitted to protect yourself with a briefcase, a handbag, or keys. You should shout 'Call the Police' rather than 'Help.' Bystanders are not to help. They have been taught to leave such matters to the professionals. If you manage to knock your attacker down, you must not hit him again or you risk being charged with assault." = a CATO report from 2004 quotes the BBC without citing a source and (surprise surprise) raises the case of Tony Martin who shot and killed an unarmed boy who was running away from his property. Bystanders ARE allowed to help prevent a crime, whether it is violent or not, in the UK, and can use force to do so.

RickN99: So, you're saying there has been no call to ban long knives, that guns are a welcome part of an Englishman's home, and that vigorous self-defense is applauded by the British police?


Vigorous self-defence is applauded by the British police, or at least is perfectly legal.

"In England and Wales, anyone can use "reasonable" force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime...Victims do not have to wait to be attacked if they are in their home and fear for themselves or others. ..If an intruder flees the scene, then at that moment they might not be presenting a threat to the householder any longer. This means that a householder who chases and attacks could no longer be considered to be acting in self-defence. Reasonable force can still be used to recover property or make a citizen's arrest.

It is still lawful to act in reasonable self-defence, even if the intruder dies as a result. However, prosecution could result from "very excessive and gratuitous force", such as attacking someone who is unconscious. For instance, the CPS decided not to prosecute one woman who snatched a baseball bat from an intruder and smashed him over the head...

Between 1990 and 2005 there were 11 prosecutions of people who attacked intruders. Seven of them related to domestic burglaries. One of the cases that was prosecuted involved a man who lay in wait for an intruder and then beat him, threw him into a pit and set him alight...

What about if someone shoots?

The most recent case was that of Andy and Tracey Ferrie. They were in bed when two burglars entered their home. Mr Ferrie fired his (legally-held) shotgun at the men. The couple were arrested but then released without charge."

Link
 
2012-12-29 01:33:57 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: Frank N Stein: Champion of the Sun: Any of you liberty loving guntards done anything about the TSA, warrant-less wiretapping, or indefinite detention yet? Oh, what's that? You only care about your right to own toys, not actual liberty from tyrannical government? Thought so.

Dead bolts and window locks are pretty effective means of home defense for us non guntards.

Because no one has every committed the crime of breaking and entering.

So, because cities have been nuked twice in history, I'm sure you keep a supply of potassium iodide on hand.

The opportunity cost of dead bolts and window locks (purchase and installation costs) are low. The opportunity cost of keeping a firearm in the house (high risk of accidental or intentional unlawful usage, with injury or death) is rather higher.


"High risk of.... Intentional unlawful usage"

How many guns are in America? About 300 million. How many gun crimes are committed? Find that answer and get back to me on whether or not that constitutes a high risk.

/your nuke example is terrible and you know it. You'd think a stats guy would see there is a much much greater risk of home invasion than getting nuked.
 
2012-12-29 01:33:58 PM

kombat_unit: Champion of the Sun: Any of you liberty loving guntards done anything about the TSA, warrant-less wiretapping, or indefinite detention yet? Oh, what's that? You only care about your right to own toys, not actual liberty from tyrannical government? Thought so.

Dead bolts and window locks are pretty effective means of home defense for us non guntards.

YKHIK you don't follow any gun forums? NDAA 2012 is brought up often as well as the disregard of the 4th and 5thKristina Rose amendments. But really, it's just toys, grown kids, and penises.


WUT?
 
2012-12-29 01:34:48 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: Silly Jesus: Wolf_Blitzer: Silly Jesus: She wasn't responsible. She had a crazy son. The guns should have been locked in a safe with a password that only she knew. Or not accessible to him in some other way. Crazy people shouldn't have guns and responsible gun owners know that.

But the question is, was she a True Scotsman?

All gun owners are "responsible" until someone winds up shot.

straws / grasping / etc.

Evading / goalposts / pathetic / done.


Lol 4/10

Just quit and walk away while you're behind.
 
2012-12-29 01:34:49 PM

Silverstaff: Frank N Stein: All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our needs. I don't feel the need to be able to put out a fire in my home at any possible moment.

Time to throw out the fire extinguisher.

/why own a fire extinguisher when the fire department will come to put out a fire?

This.

Thank you, I am going to remember this one for future use against anti-freedom advocates who oppose the right to bear arms.


I don't advocate banning all gun, nor do most of the other gun control advocates out there I believe. But I don't see any reason anyone needs an assault rifle, and no, home defense is not a particularly good reason. The ideal weapon for home defense is probably a pump action shotgun.
 
2012-12-29 01:35:58 PM
I love reading these threads, not participating mind you, I don't care nearly enough. It is very much like looking at this picture........


24.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-29 01:36:48 PM

ElBarto79: Silverstaff: Frank N Stein: All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our needs. I don't feel the need to be able to put out a fire in my home at any possible moment.

Time to throw out the fire extinguisher.

/why own a fire extinguisher when the fire department will come to put out a fire?

This.

Thank you, I am going to remember this one for future use against anti-freedom advocates who oppose the right to bear arms.

I don't advocate banning all gun, nor do most of the other gun control advocates out there I believe. But I don't see any reason anyone needs an assault rifle, and no, home defense is not a particularly good reason. The ideal weapon for home defense is probably a pump action shotgun.


What is it about an assault rifle that leads you to that conclusion? Many other guns fire similar rounds at similar fps and frequency. Why have you picked that particular weapon? The name?
 
2012-12-29 01:38:32 PM
And what is the concern expressed in your link? The failure of gun control laws or a loophole in them?

The article in my link is irrelevant. The graph is. The UK essentially banned firearms and gun crime doubled.

You punished hundreds of thousands of good, law abiding citizens. You made them line up and turn in their handguns. Beyond that, you've criminalized the very concept of self defense to the point where you arrest, jail and prosecute folks who dare harm those who initiate violence against them for profit. The UK has essentially made every citizen into a subject, totally and completely dependent on the state for your personal protection and security.

The result? Crimes with a gun didn't go down... they doubled. Rapes, robberies and assaults are at or near the top of the charts for the EU. An entire criminal class in the UK essentially goes about it's business with absolute confidence that the average citizen will never be able to stand up to them, that the police are too overtaxed to catch them and in the unlikely event that they are apprehended, punishment will be extraordinarily light.

And yet, limp wristed UK gobbers like to post on forums about "American Guntards" and go on epic rants about how unenlightened we are here in the United States. I'm thinking it isn't elitism; it is (like American gun-grabbers) a totally misinformed view fueled by American movies and television shows.

America does have a murder problem - one that has declined by 40% since the 1990s. It's primary epicenter is to be found in major urban centers where drug gangs shoot one another. Remove those from the 10,000 gun murders a year, and our gun murder rate declines to be far more in-line with England's (roughly 2000 firearm murders). This will happen over time as we begin winding down our drug war - cocaine use in the US is down by half since 2006, heroin use has trickled down and held steady at extremely low numbers, meth peaked 10 years ago and is on the decline and we are on the cusp of simply legalizing marijuana.

As far as the rest of the gun crimes? Hundreds of thousands of Americans defend themselves with a firearm every year. Some reports say that 2.5 Million Americans use a firearm in self defense (most never shoot- the crime ends when the criminal is confronted by an armed citizen), other reports say the number is more like 800,000 uses a year. Let's use the most pessimistic number from the Brady Campaign (the most vocal anti-gun group in the US) of 108,000.

So if the Brady Campaign had their way and turned the US into a "gun free" utopia the way the UK has, by their own numbers, the equivalent of the population of a small city would become victims of rape, assault, robbery or murder. Fantastic!

The only benefit the UK's gun laws have had on that country is to allow UK subjects to hold their noses up and call Americans unenlightened barbarians. For that, you've empowered a massive criminal class, increased your crime rate, doubled your gun crime and removed the basic human right of self defense from those in your boarders.
 
2012-12-29 01:40:05 PM

ElBarto79: Cyno01: So if i can try to understand the liberal mindset... banning guns is supposed to solve all our societies problems and no one will ever die again ever, but banning drugs has worked out horribly and we should give up the war on drugs completely because laws dont stop criminals. Got it.

You can't storm an elementary school and kill 26 people with a bag of weed.


Of course you can't storm an elementary school with a bag of weed. Bags of weed have been illegal for decades. They no longer exist. As soon as we make guns illegal, they also will no longer exist and everybody will be safer.
 
2012-12-29 01:41:01 PM

ElBarto79: Silverstaff: Frank N Stein: All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our needs. I don't feel the need to be able to put out a fire in my home at any possible moment.

Time to throw out the fire extinguisher.

/why own a fire extinguisher when the fire department will come to put out a fire?

This.

Thank you, I am going to remember this one for future use against anti-freedom advocates who oppose the right to bear arms.

I don't advocate banning all gun, nor do most of the other gun control advocates out there I believe. But I don't see any reason anyone needs an assault rifle, and no, home defense is not a particularly good reason. The ideal weapon for home defense is probably a pump action shotgun.


But the 2A isn't about merely fending off a burglar.

I don't care what Woody Guthrie's guitar says, it ain't a machine that can kill fascists.
 
2012-12-29 01:44:55 PM

Silly Jesus: ElBarto79: Silverstaff: Frank N Stein: All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our needs. I don't feel the need to be able to put out a fire in my home at any possible moment.

Time to throw out the fire extinguisher.

/why own a fire extinguisher when the fire department will come to put out a fire?

This.

Thank you, I am going to remember this one for future use against anti-freedom advocates who oppose the right to bear arms.

I don't advocate banning all gun, nor do most of the other gun control advocates out there I believe. But I don't see any reason anyone needs an assault rifle, and no, home defense is not a particularly good reason. The ideal weapon for home defense is probably a pump action shotgun.

What is it about an assault rifle that leads you to that conclusion? Many other guns fire similar rounds at similar fps and frequency. Why have you picked that particular weapon? The name?


No, it's designed for killing lots of people and, as evidenced by numerous recent events, is quite effective at doing so. I don't see any reason that kind of weapon needs to be in civilian hands.
 
2012-12-29 01:51:56 PM

ElBarto79: Silly Jesus: ElBarto79: Silverstaff: Frank N Stein: All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our needs. I don't feel the need to be able to put out a fire in my home at any possible moment.

Time to throw out the fire extinguisher.

/why own a fire extinguisher when the fire department will come to put out a fire?

This.

Thank you, I am going to remember this one for future use against anti-freedom advocates who oppose the right to bear arms.

I don't advocate banning all gun, nor do most of the other gun control advocates out there I believe. But I don't see any reason anyone needs an assault rifle, and no, home defense is not a particularly good reason. The ideal weapon for home defense is probably a pump action shotgun.

What is it about an assault rifle that leads you to that conclusion? Many other guns fire similar rounds at similar fps and frequency. Why have you picked that particular weapon? The name?

No, it's designed for killing lots of people and, as evidenced by numerous recent events, is quite effective at doing so. I don't see any reason that kind of weapon needs to be in civilian hands.


How, specifically, is it "designed for killing lots of people?" I honestly don't understand how it's designed for that more so than any other gun other than that's what the media has been repeating over and over.
 
2012-12-29 01:55:46 PM

Bomb Head Mohammed: The_Sponge: snuff3r: TFA: "the british problem"

You know what you stupid American guntards, have you considered the fact that there a quite a few countries out there where the vast majority don't actually WANT people running around with guns. If you lot want to run around like asstard cowboys, have farking fun. If you seriously want to link gun ownership to freedom, youre a farking moron. Freedom is not being scared that someone is going to blow your head off whilst youre at the cinema. Freedom is not having to be constantly feeling that you're split seconds from having to defend yourselves.

We had our Newtown massacre and the country chose to ban general gun ownership. We've been happier since.
For those of us who own guns, the long and tedious process we have to go through is worth it.
Freedom is having the means to protect yourself, your family, and your property.
Just because you guys gave up your rights, don't expect us to do the same,

Ah, the usual "freedom" BS. If you want freedom, move to somalia: no taxes, perfect unregulated capitalist economy, and all the guns you want.

Face up to it: you want guns because you want guns because you want guns. If you were truly concerned about 'safety' for you and your family, you'd be for sensible gun control and regulation laws and for stronger laws against illegal posession. but you're not. you're for guns because you like guns, and because ultimately you're a bit of sociopath -- and i mean that in technical, not pejorative sense. Like some anti-vaccination eedjit, you'd rather have a bit of false security for you even if it is at the expense of society as a whole. And make no mistake: it is at the expense of society as a whole.

To be clear: I am not against private ownership of guns if that occurs in a regulated, sensible way. Heck, I'm even all for letting private citizens shoot full automatics and even artillery if it's done at sanctioned, licensed, and regulated private ranges and clubs with the ammo stored under lock and key in a sensble, regulted, secure way. this would be the best solution for the USA.. but, eedjits like you arent proposing that. instead, the NRA fights against even the most commonsense reforms to gun laws and selfish, sociopathic morans push the 'safety' myth to rationalize what must ultimately be called their greed.

it has nothing whatsoever to do with 'freedom.'


You called it. Having debated extensively with gun nuts over the last week or so, they want their toys and don't give a flying fark about the 5k-10k additional murders that result (by comparison to murder rates in first tier Western nations with gun control).
 
2012-12-29 01:56:09 PM

Cyno01: So if i can try to understand the liberal mindset... banning guns is supposed to solve all our societies problems and no one will ever die again ever, but banning drugs has worked out horribly and we should give up the war on drugs completely because laws dont stop criminals. Got it.


Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
 
2012-12-29 01:57:34 PM

Mrbogey: Vimto: 39 British Subjects agree with subby; 9,763 US Citizens do not.

/The population of the UK is ~20% of that of the US
//Far more likely to have your TV stolen in the UK though, which much be partial consolation for being brutally murdered.

The US has always had several times the crime than the UK since the creation of the US of A. Also, you're only citing gun crime. You really think it's better to be beat or stabbed to death than shot? How does the math work on that?


The UK also has a murder rate 1/5th that of the USA, and so on down for other violent crimes. It has much broader reporting rules than the USA since Dunblane, hence the odd stats.
 
2012-12-29 01:57:41 PM
It's as simple as this:

With freedom (in this case, the ability to defend yourself and your family) comes risk. The UK, generally, decided not to accept the risk and lose the freedom. In the US, we still would prefer to have the freedom knowing the risks.

Then there's this: by some accounts governments killed 100 million people in the last century. Some say it's as many as 250 million. In the big picture, that's a pretty hefty risk. It seems that some of the founders knew that risk which is why they penned the 2nd amendment (which, by the way, didn't grant the right to own a gun but rather said that preexisting right could not be taken away, which is interesting in itself).

There are those who say that because governments have more/bigger guns and therefore the point is beyond discussion. In a practical sense, that argument may have legs. When you think about it as an uneasy detente, though, it makes more sense.

Finally, have a look at Meyer's book called, "They Thought They Were Free". It deals rather well with incrementalism and the notion that, "it can't happen here".

Finally, it might be really, really instructive to talk to someone who is a survivor of a weapons purge and get their take. For me, it was a Cambodian refugee. It will make you rethink defense as a basic human right.
 
2012-12-29 01:57:44 PM

Silly Jesus: ElBarto79: Silly Jesus: ElBarto79: Silverstaff: Frank N Stein: All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our needs. I don't feel the need to be able to put out a fire in my home at any possible moment.

Time to throw out the fire extinguisher.

/why own a fire extinguisher when the fire department will come to put out a fire?

This.

Thank you, I am going to remember this one for future use against anti-freedom advocates who oppose the right to bear arms.

I don't advocate banning all gun, nor do most of the other gun control advocates out there I believe. But I don't see any reason anyone needs an assault rifle, and no, home defense is not a particularly good reason. The ideal weapon for home defense is probably a pump action shotgun.

What is it about an assault rifle that leads you to that conclusion? Many other guns fire similar rounds at similar fps and frequency. Why have you picked that particular weapon? The name?

No, it's designed for killing lots of people and, as evidenced by numerous recent events, is quite effective at doing so. I don't see any reason that kind of weapon needs to be in civilian hands.

How, specifically, is it "designed for killing lots of people?" I honestly don't understand how it's designed for that more so than any other gun other than that's what the media has been repeating over and over.


You answered your own question. The media told him what to believe. But hey, when a significant chunk of the media is in collusion with a significant chunk of the government with the message "civilians can't be trusted with X" who are you to question it?
 
2012-12-29 01:58:45 PM
Kit Fister: Bomb He

You are completely and totally full of it.

Every day you are kept safe by the commonsense regulation of the highway system. In the UK, where the regulation is better, accident rates are lower. In Russia, where regulation is a joke, accident rates are much higher.

Every day you are kept safe by commonsense and good regulation of the food you eat and the medicine you use. Compare with: third world hellholes.

Your example of 'drugs' is ridiculous. Illegal drugs are not sensibly regulated. Their completely banned under a system that does not work, just like clearly the current US system of gun regulation is quite broken.

Really. Get your head out of your backside.
 
2012-12-29 01:59:21 PM
I don't advocate banning all gun, nor do most of the other gun control advocates out there I believe. But I don't see any reason anyone needs an assault rifle, and no, home defense is not a particularly good reason. The ideal weapon for home defense is probably a pump action shotgun.

The ideal weapon for home defense is an AR-15.

The myth that the pump action shotgun is the best gun for home defense is just that, a myth. Here is why:

1- People think that shotguns are a blunderbuss, where the pellets spread wide and make inaccurate aiming irrelevant. This is untrue. Shotgun pellets only spread about 1" for every yard of distance. So in a hallway or across a living room, we're only talking a 3-4" spread.

2- 00 buck and slugs tend to penetrate walls while continuing to carry a lot of velocity and staying relatively intact. That means they are still potentially lethal after going through 2-3 walls. The 5.56mm ammo out of an AR is very fast, but the bullet is lightweight, so when it hits any solid object, it begins to tumble and break apart (in human bodies, this is what allows the tiny bullet to be so effective). When you shoot a wall with a 5.56mm round, it will go through, but it also has a tendency to break apart and not be very lethal. This is why most SWAT teams switched from 9mm HK MP5s to M4 carbines; less potential collateral damage.

3- Capacity. The typical pump action shotgun holds 5 rounds, 7 with an extended tube. It takes *substantial* practice to be able to reliably reload one in an active gunfight when the adrenaline in your body turns your fingers into flippers. Even the police only have a 13% overall hit rate when engaging criminals. A citizen, with limited training and stress inoculation is going to fair nowhere near as well as a trained cop who has a lot of experience with adrenaline effects during fights. The 30 round magazine in the AR is life on your side. Nobody who ever survived a gunfight with a bad guy ever said "Gee, I wish I didn't have all this ammo!"

4- Recoil. Most people who pick up a shotgun and fire full-power ammo through it find the experience farking miserable. I'm guessing that the non-gun people who buy a shotgun for home defense shoot it once and throw it in the closet as a magical talisman to ward off evil. An AR-15 has very little recoil and is absolutely fun to shoot. A 5' grandma can effectively shoot one. Your wife can effectively shoot one. You will enjoy shooting it enough that you might go to the range and become competent with it. A firearm you don't practice with regularly is next to useless in a self defense scenario.

My Noveske N4 carbine sits right in the closet by my bed with a topped off mag, one in the chamber, safety on, Aimpoint on and fresh CR123s in the SureFire light. Things that go bump in the night at our house don't bother me at all.

(and yes, it is somewhat ironic how I just put-down shotguns for home defense, given my screen name. I'm pretty good with my Benelli and my KSG, but the AR is the better weapon for everything)
 
2012-12-29 02:01:16 PM

ParaHandy: You called it. Having debated extensively with gun nuts over the last week or so, they want their toys and don't give a flying fark about the 5k-10k additional murders that result (by comparison to murder rates in first tier Western nations with gun control).


And you anti-gun nuts continue to ignore the obvious facts that most of those "Additional" murders are actually suicides and/or drug-related, carried out by criminals.

So, let's cut the crap, because as long as we keep screaming each other while ignoring the salient points, we get nowhere.
 
2012-12-29 02:01:56 PM
No, it's designed for killing lots of people and, as evidenced by numerous recent events, is quite effective at doing so. I don't see any reason that kind of weapon needs to be in civilian hands.

If the AR-15 is designed for "killing lots of people" than why do most police cars in the country now have one upfront or in the trunk?

Must be for all that "killing lots of people" the police do...
 
2012-12-29 02:03:06 PM

ParaHandy: Bomb Head Mohammed: The_Sponge: snuff3r: TFA: "the british problem"

You know what you stupid American guntards, have you considered the fact that there a quite a few countries out there where the vast majority don't actually WANT people running around with guns. If you lot want to run around like asstard cowboys, have farking fun. If you seriously want to link gun ownership to freedom, youre a farking moron. Freedom is not being scared that someone is going to blow your head off whilst youre at the cinema. Freedom is not having to be constantly feeling that you're split seconds from having to defend yourselves.

We had our Newtown massacre and the country chose to ban general gun ownership. We've been happier since.
For those of us who own guns, the long and tedious process we have to go through is worth it.
Freedom is having the means to protect yourself, your family, and your property.
Just because you guys gave up your rights, don't expect us to do the same,

Ah, the usual "freedom" BS. If you want freedom, move to somalia: no taxes, perfect unregulated capitalist economy, and all the guns you want.

Face up to it: you want guns because you want guns because you want guns. If you were truly concerned about 'safety' for you and your family, you'd be for sensible gun control and regulation laws and for stronger laws against illegal posession. but you're not. you're for guns because you like guns, and because ultimately you're a bit of sociopath -- and i mean that in technical, not pejorative sense. Like some anti-vaccination eedjit, you'd rather have a bit of false security for you even if it is at the expense of society as a whole. And make no mistake: it is at the expense of society as a whole.

To be clear: I am not against private ownership of guns if that occurs in a regulated, sensible way. Heck, I'm even all for letting private citizens shoot full automatics and even artillery if it's done at sanctioned, licensed, and regulated private ranges and clu ...


Because you can directly compare the U.S. and other countries simply by murder numbers without consideration for any other variables such as culture etc. Good jerb.
 
2012-12-29 02:05:46 PM

dr-shotgun: No, it's designed for killing lots of people and, as evidenced by numerous recent events, is quite effective at doing so. I don't see any reason that kind of weapon needs to be in civilian hands.

If the AR-15 is designed for "killing lots of people" than why do most police cars in the country now have one upfront or in the trunk?

Must be for all that "killing lots of people" the police do...


Even full auto M16s in the military are not used for killing lots of people in the way that he thinks. That function is mainly for suppressive fire.

It's like these people think fire fights are exactly like Rambo movies.
 
2012-12-29 02:05:55 PM

Silly Jesus: No, it's designed for killing lots of people and, as evidenced by numerous recent events, is quite effective at doing so. I don't see any reason that kind of weapon needs to be in civilian hands.

How, specifically, is it "designed for killing lots of people?" I honestly don't understand how it's designed for that more so than any other gun other than that's what the media has been repeating over and over.


Assault rifles were designed for military use, period. Every feature and function of them is designed to maximize killing power. If you can't see any difference between an assault rifle and say, a bolt action .22 then you really are ignorant.

I would spin it around though, if assault rifles are no different from other guns then why are they so popular? What is it about them that makes the Rambo wannabes get wood?
 
2012-12-29 02:06:28 PM

Silverstaff: snuff3r: If you seriously want to link gun ownership to freedom, youre a farking moron.

Gee, your enlightened, polite, reasonable argument is SO persuasive.

Why is it that when we look at other cultures, the left tries to encourage us to not pass judgment on their values and mores under the idea of cultural relativism, but if those values include the idea that the right to bear arms is a civil right, then suddenly they are barbaric bad guys?

Mao Tse-Tung rather famously declared that all political power ultimately flows from the barrel of a gun. While orthodox US political theory holds that political power flows from the will of the people, Mao's idea that having force to back up that will of the people holds a little merit. It's a lot harder to steal from somebody who can respond with lethal force. Nobody wants violence, but in this country, we have

Also, note that the pro-gun lobby in the US had a great deal of scorn for British gun control, since the whole original reason we have a Constitutional right to bear arms was as a direct response to British oppression in the 1760's and 1770's. Our two nations have a special relationship, but bringing up anything that brings back memories of the Revolution will make things unpleasant, and gun control is one of those things.

I think TFA is propaganda, pure and simple, and I'd only believe that if I saw it from some reputable source, however, the referenced BBC article Link is real and says exactly what the article does. A proposed ban on kitchen knives?



No, a ban on long pointed kitchen knives. How often does a chef have to stab something? Most knives I use in the kitchen are for slicing and chopping. The only time I can think of using the pointed end to stab something was trying to open some packaging, and a small pointed knife, which they are not calling to be banned, would actually be easier to use for that.

No ban on short pointed knives or carving and chopping knives with a rounded or flat end.

For self defence, which UK law does allow, I have my fathers old army swagger stick that comes apart to reveal an 18 inch long very pointed and very sharp blade....
 
2012-12-29 02:07:06 PM

RickN99: Via Infinito: Right subs. I'm sure the "information" provided by guntutor.com is completely true and not a large pile of horse shiat.

So, you're saying there has been no call to ban long knives, that guns are a welcome part of an Englishman's home, and that vigorous self-defense is applauded by the British police?


TFA cites this article for "the BBC says" but they quote the BBC without a cite of their own. They also say Tony Martin was jailed for shooting two burglars but fail to mention he shot them while they were running away, a fact that changes the story somewhat. Is it legal in the US to shoot a burglar while he is running away?
 
2012-12-29 02:07:06 PM

Pert: OK - here's how utterly disingenuous and farcically misleading the article is:

"In England doctors have called for a ban on long kitchen knives since 2005" = in 2005 a team of doctors in one hospital suggested that a ban on long kitchen knives would reduce the impact of knives being used in violent crimes.

"The BBC offers this advice for anyone in Britain who is attacked on the street: You are permitted to protect yourself with a briefcase, a handbag, or keys. You should shout 'Call the Police' rather than 'Help.' Bystanders are not to help. They have been taught to leave such matters to the professionals. If you manage to knock your attacker down, you must not hit him again or you risk being charged with assault." = a CATO report from 2004 quotes the BBC without citing a source and (surprise surprise) raises the case of Tony Martin who shot and killed an unarmed boy who was running away from his property. Bystanders ARE allowed to help prevent a crime, whether it is violent or not, in the UK, and can use force to do so.

RickN99: So, you're saying there has been no call to ban long knives, that guns are a welcome part of an Englishman's home, and that vigorous self-defense is applauded by the British police?

Vigorous self-defence is applauded by the British police, or at least is perfectly legal.

"In England and Wales, anyone can use "reasonable" force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime...Victims do not have to wait to be attacked if they are in their home and fear for themselves or others. ..If an intruder flees the scene, then at that moment they might not be presenting a threat to the householder any longer. This means that a householder who chases and attacks could no longer be considered to be acting in self-defence. Reasonable force can still be used to recover property or make a citizen's arrest.

It is still lawful to act in reasonable self-defence, even if the intruder dies as a result. However, prosecution could result from "very excessive and gratuitous force", such as attacking someone who is unconscious. For instance, the CPS decided not to prosecute one woman who snatched a baseball bat from an intruder and smashed him over the head...

Between 1990 and 2005 there were 11 prosecutions of people who attacked intruders. Seven of them related to domestic burglaries. One of the cases that was prosecuted involved a man who lay in wait for an intruder and then beat him, threw him into a pit and set him alight...

What about if someone shoots?

The most recent case was that of Andy and Tracey Ferrie. They were in bed when two burglars entered their home. Mr Ferrie fired his (legally-held) shotgun at the men. The couple were arrested but then released without charge."

Link


i.e. in the UK you can't shoot a kid with Skittles for walking round the nieghbourhood, nor can you blow someone away for merely being present on your property but not in the curtilege (a guy in the last thread said he plans to take out anyone who sets foot on his land from his front porch with his AR15 ... maybe he nicked the census man?)
 
2012-12-29 02:07:59 PM

ElBarto79: Silly Jesus: No, it's designed for killing lots of people and, as evidenced by numerous recent events, is quite effective at doing so. I don't see any reason that kind of weapon needs to be in civilian hands.

How, specifically, is it "designed for killing lots of people?" I honestly don't understand how it's designed for that more so than any other gun other than that's what the media has been repeating over and over.

Assault rifles were designed for military use, period. Every feature and function of them is designed to maximize killing power. If you can't see any difference between an assault rifle and say, a bolt action .22 then you really are ignorant.

I would spin it around though, if assault rifles are no different from other guns then why are they so popular? What is it about them that makes the Rambo wannabes get wood?


"Assault rifle"

Inigo_Montoya.jpg
 
2012-12-29 02:09:01 PM

dr-shotgun: No, it's designed for killing lots of people and, as evidenced by numerous recent events, is quite effective at doing so. I don't see any reason that kind of weapon needs to be in civilian hands.

If the AR-15 is designed for "killing lots of people" than why do most police cars in the country now have one upfront or in the trunk?

Must be for all that "killing lots of people" the police do...


This is Fark, they legitimately think that that is the sole purpose of the police. That and getting rich.
 
2012-12-29 02:09:21 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: Frank N Stein: Champion of the Sun: Any of you liberty loving guntards done anything about the TSA, warrant-less wiretapping, or indefinite detention yet? Oh, what's that? You only care about your right to own toys, not actual liberty from tyrannical government? Thought so.

Dead bolts and window locks are pretty effective means of home defense for us non guntards.

Because no one has every committed the crime of breaking and entering.

So, because cities have been nuked twice in history, I'm sure you keep a supply of potassium iodide on hand.

The opportunity cost of dead bolts and window locks (purchase and installation costs) are low. The opportunity cost of keeping a firearm in the house (high risk of accidental or intentional unlawful usage, with injury or death) is rather higher.


Used to work for Mrs Queen at a nuclear licensed facility, and I still have my stash of KI pills, so getting a kick ...

/ just a souvenir
 
2012-12-29 02:10:35 PM

ElBarto79: Silly Jesus: No, it's designed for killing lots of people and, as evidenced by numerous recent events, is quite effective at doing so. I don't see any reason that kind of weapon needs to be in civilian hands.

How, specifically, is it "designed for killing lots of people?" I honestly don't understand how it's designed for that more so than any other gun other than that's what the media has been repeating over and over.

Assault rifles were designed for military use, period. Every feature and function of them is designed to maximize killing power. If you can't see any difference between an assault rifle and say, a bolt action .22 then you really are ignorant.

I would spin it around though, if assault rifles are no different from other guns then why are they so popular? What is it about them that makes the Rambo wannabes get wood?


Read the above summary by dr-shotgun for your answer.

Also, no gun is "designed for killing people." That sentence doesn't make any sense. They are designed to fire a projectile. You can aim it at people or a target. Your attempt at inflammatory language is falling short.
 
2012-12-29 02:10:59 PM

Flint Ironstag: Silverstaff: snuff3r: If you seriously want to link gun ownership to freedom, youre a farking moron.

Gee, your enlightened, polite, reasonable argument is SO persuasive.

Why is it that when we look at other cultures, the left tries to encourage us to not pass judgment on their values and mores under the idea of cultural relativism, but if those values include the idea that the right to bear arms is a civil right, then suddenly they are barbaric bad guys?

Mao Tse-Tung rather famously declared that all political power ultimately flows from the barrel of a gun. While orthodox US political theory holds that political power flows from the will of the people, Mao's idea that having force to back up that will of the people holds a little merit. It's a lot harder to steal from somebody who can respond with lethal force. Nobody wants violence, but in this country, we have

Also, note that the pro-gun lobby in the US had a great deal of scorn for British gun control, since the whole original reason we have a Constitutional right to bear arms was as a direct response to British oppression in the 1760's and 1770's. Our two nations have a special relationship, but bringing up anything that brings back memories of the Revolution will make things unpleasant, and gun control is one of those things.

I think TFA is propaganda, pure and simple, and I'd only believe that if I saw it from some reputable source, however, the referenced BBC article Link is real and says exactly what the article does. A proposed ban on kitchen knives?



No, a ban on long pointed kitchen knives. How often does a chef have to stab something? Most knives I use in the kitchen are for slicing and chopping. The only time I can think of using the pointed end to stab something was trying to open some packaging, and a small pointed knife, which they are not calling to be banned, would actually be easier to use for that.

No ban on short pointed knives or carving and chopping knives with a rounded or flat end.

For self defence, which UK law does allow, I have my fathers old army swagger stick that comes apart to reveal an 18 inch long very pointed and very sharp blade....


Holy fark are you really saying that you need to be protected from pointy objects. Hahahahaha!

Also, do you know how I know that you've never butchered and dressed an animal?
 
2012-12-29 02:11:45 PM

Bomb Head Mohammed: Kit Fister: Bomb He

You are completely and totally full of it.

Every day you are kept safe by the commonsense regulation of the highway system. In the UK, where the regulation is better, accident rates are lower. In Russia, where regulation is a joke, accident rates are much higher.

Every day you are kept safe by commonsense and good regulation of the food you eat and the medicine you use. Compare with: third world hellholes.

Your example of 'drugs' is ridiculous. Illegal drugs are not sensibly regulated. Their completely banned under a system that does not work, just like clearly the current US system of gun regulation is quite broken.

Really. Get your head out of your backside.


Really? Common sense regulations on the highway system? You're going with that? As to the food I eat, a lot of it comes from local farms or what I hunt. So, regulations keep me safe from what i kill and butcher, or harvest out of my garden?

Medicine -- really? Those regulations stopped the sale of those drugs that infected hundreds and killed 30+ people with a strain of Meningitis?

So, you're going to tell me that our regulations are the ONLY thing that have anything to do with our safety on the roads, of food and medicine?

It's also disingenuous to suggest that an established framework of laws that act and work at a macro level extend and apply to the micro level. At a macro level, corporations operate (as far as anyone cares to observe) within the boundaries of those regulations. But as BP proved in the gulf, the pharmacy proved with the meningitis outbreak, and the numerous safety recalls in automotive history prove, those regulations don't do shiat to prevent much of anything, they simply reduce the frequency, sometimes.

Also, prohibitive regulations have yet to stop things like Ponzi schemes in the financial industry, or the million-to-billion dollar industry that is the illegal drug trade in this country.

Finally, harsh rules about murder don't seem to stop people from killing each other, harsh rules about rape seems to fail to prevent people from getting raped, and harsh rules about molesting kids doesn't stop people from farking children.

At a micro level, you may make it harder for the honest person to commit a crime, but someone intent on committing the crime will do it, and the only way we find out is if they manage to get caught.

Now, Mr. Kettle, Show me solid proof and not simply knee-jerk statements that contain neither direct relevance nor data supporting the premise you are advancing, and we'll talk.
 
2012-12-29 02:12:19 PM

ParaHandy: Pert: OK - here's how utterly disingenuous and farcically misleading the article is:

"In England doctors have called for a ban on long kitchen knives since 2005" = in 2005 a team of doctors in one hospital suggested that a ban on long kitchen knives would reduce the impact of knives being used in violent crimes.

"The BBC offers this advice for anyone in Britain who is attacked on the street: You are permitted to protect yourself with a briefcase, a handbag, or keys. You should shout 'Call the Police' rather than 'Help.' Bystanders are not to help. They have been taught to leave such matters to the professionals. If you manage to knock your attacker down, you must not hit him again or you risk being charged with assault." = a CATO report from 2004 quotes the BBC without citing a source and (surprise surprise) raises the case of Tony Martin who shot and killed an unarmed boy who was running away from his property. Bystanders ARE allowed to help prevent a crime, whether it is violent or not, in the UK, and can use force to do so.

RickN99: So, you're saying there has been no call to ban long knives, that guns are a welcome part of an Englishman's home, and that vigorous self-defense is applauded by the British police?

Vigorous self-defence is applauded by the British police, or at least is perfectly legal.

"In England and Wales, anyone can use "reasonable" force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime...Victims do not have to wait to be attacked if they are in their home and fear for themselves or others. ..If an intruder flees the scene, then at that moment they might not be presenting a threat to the householder any longer. This means that a householder who chases and attacks could no longer be considered to be acting in self-defence. Reasonable force can still be used to recover property or make a citizen's arrest.

It is still lawful to act in reasonable self-defence, even if the intruder dies as a result. However, prosecu ...


In the UK Zimmerman would be dead for the offense of asking a kid what he's up to. Thanks for proving our point for us.

If some thug wants to assault me, I'd like the opportunity to not die.
 
2012-12-29 02:12:20 PM

calbert: where is Bathia_Mapes?

this article uses the BBC knife-ban article from 2005, and another article from the BBC in 2004 as 2 of its 3 sources.

old news.

/I'm calling for her because she correctly identified these as old articles when they were submitted on 12-26 and 12-27.


I did indeed. Not sure why the "author" of the article is using them as a reference point either, especially since the 2005 long pointed knife ban request never went anywhere.
 
2012-12-29 02:12:55 PM

Frank N Stein: Also, do you know how I know that you've never butchered and dressed an animal?


Because you can't hunt on the queen's land? They'll draw and quarter you for that shiat. I've seen as much in the old Robbin Hood movies.
 
2012-12-29 02:13:00 PM

ElBarto79: Silverstaff: Frank N Stein: All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our needs. I don't feel the need to be able to put out a fire in my home at any possible moment.

Time to throw out the fire extinguisher.

/why own a fire extinguisher when the fire department will come to put out a fire?

This.

Thank you, I am going to remember this one for future use against anti-freedom advocates who oppose the right to bear arms.

I don't advocate banning all gun, nor do most of the other gun control advocates out there I believe. But I don't see any reason anyone needs an assault rifle, and no, home defense is not a particularly good reason. The ideal weapon for home defense is probably a pump action shotgun.


Not probably, definitely. All the pros like gun instructors say so. There is a particularly thorough analysis on Quora from an ex-marine who work their and teaches CCW and such.

Also, unless you live in the hood, you are safer with no gun at all. The only armed and unauthorized intruders I've ever had in my house were Austin PD.
 
2012-12-29 02:14:21 PM

HighlanderRPI: Ah Britain, the country whose citizenry turned their guns to plowshares after WWI and had to come crying to the US for small arms to defend themselves from an invasion after the Luftwaffe came calling.


No, Britain managed to stop Hitler's invasion plans with the Battle Of Britain in 1940, a year before the US joined the war. Small arms didn't feature much in that battle...

/Britain also had a large reserve of battlefield weapons kept in storage from WWI. Many WWII actions in North Africa and Italy were fought, and won, with WWI artillery.
 
2012-12-29 02:15:54 PM

dr-shotgun: [citation not from TFA needed]


I'll bite: Americans are just bumfark retarded. European countries with guns have tiny crime-rates compared to you whackjobs. Scaling populations still embarrasses you, the homicide rate is truly disturbing to me. Go farking google "firearms homicide rates", pick your country of choice, and enjoy the citations. The firearm-related death rate is 40 times higher in the US than the UK. Oh, and your overall murder rates discounting those are four times higher too. Still feel safer? Oh I won't cherry-pick though, let's try a country where it's law for conscription-age men to own at home an assault-rifle and a semi-automatic handgun. Whoops, US citizens are still shooting and killing each other 3 times more than that (Switzerland fyi) Don't forget these are rates btw, so you're not allowed to b-b-but population-size.

So given the name, you're either a troll with paragraph-investment time on your hands (in which case gg) or you're just that thick, in which case please go and play with your toys and have an accident in a secure enclosed space so you don't hurt anyone else on the way out, unlike the psychopaths your cavalier attitudes have so freely and easily armed to come after everyone else.
/walk softly and carry an old heavy-duty maglite, perfectly legal to brain someone with
 
2012-12-29 02:16:35 PM

ElBarto79: Silly Jesus: No, it's designed for killing lots of people and, as evidenced by numerous recent events, is quite effective at doing so. I don't see any reason that kind of weapon needs to be in civilian hands.

How, specifically, is it "designed for killing lots of people?" I honestly don't understand how it's designed for that more so than any other gun other than that's what the media has been repeating over and over.

Assault rifles were designed for military use, period. Every feature and function of them is designed to maximize killing power. If you can't see any difference between an assault rifle and say, a bolt action .22 then you really are ignorant.

I would spin it around though, if assault rifles are no different from other guns then why are they so popular? What is it about them that makes the Rambo wannabes get wood?


World War I and World War II, before the advent of battle rifles using detachable magazines with "high capacity", combat effectiveness: 1 kill per 10,000 rounds fired, on average.

Viet Nam era to present, after the advent of rifles using detachable magazines, lower-recoil, lighter-weight ammo, and better man-portibility of weaponry (M16/AR-15, etc.): 1 kill per 100,000 rounds fired.

By statistics alone, modern "Assault rifles" are less deadly than their predecessors. So, there goes that theory.
 
2012-12-29 02:17:34 PM

Silly Jesus: dr-shotgun: No, it's designed for killing lots of people and, as evidenced by numerous recent events, is quite effective at doing so. I don't see any reason that kind of weapon needs to be in civilian hands.

If the AR-15 is designed for "killing lots of people" than why do most police cars in the country now have one upfront or in the trunk?

Must be for all that "killing lots of people" the police do...

This is Fark, they legitimately think that that is the sole purpose of the police. That and getting rich.


There are times when an armed response from trained professionals is necessary. In the UK the equivalen of SWAT is the Police Area Car, a sports sedan which has 2-3 sharpshooters and a trunk safe with long rifles and machine guns. This works better than arming the rank and file.
 
2012-12-29 02:17:44 PM

farkmedown: snuff3r: TFA: "the british problem"

You know what you stupid American guntards, have you considered the fact that there a quite a few countries out there where the vast majority don't actually WANT people running around with guns.

Enjoy your police state.


Which country are you forced to carry your ID while driving? Which country are you forced (in many states) to tell a cop your name if he asks? Which country allows its police to lie to you during questioning?

Hint: It's not the UK.

/I love the US and visit often, but the myth that Americans have rights that no one else has is just that, a myth.
 
2012-12-29 02:17:48 PM

ParaHandy: ElBarto79: Silverstaff: Frank N Stein: All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our needs. I don't feel the need to be able to put out a fire in my home at any possible moment.

Time to throw out the fire extinguisher.

/why own a fire extinguisher when the fire department will come to put out a fire?

This.

Thank you, I am going to remember this one for future use against anti-freedom advocates who oppose the right to bear arms.

I don't advocate banning all gun, nor do most of the other gun control advocates out there I believe. But I don't see any reason anyone needs an assault rifle, and no, home defense is not a particularly good reason. The ideal weapon for home defense is probably a pump action shotgun.

Not probably, definitely. All the pros like gun instructors say so. There is a particularly thorough analysis on Quora from an ex-marine who work their and teaches CCW and such.

Also, unless you live in the hood, you are safer with no gun at all. The only armed and unauthorized intruders I've ever had in my house were Austin PD.


So you're fine with folks in major cities owning weapons for self defense?
 
2012-12-29 02:18:01 PM

ParaHandy: Not probably, definitely. All the pros like gun instructors say so. There is a particularly thorough analysis on Quora from an ex-marine who work their and teaches CCW and such.

Also, unless you live in the hood, you are safer with no gun at all. The only armed and unauthorized intruders I've ever had in my house were Austin PD.


Because of course your personal opinion and experience outweigh reality.
 
2012-12-29 02:20:56 PM

shArkh: dr-shotgun: [citation not from TFA needed]

I'll bite: Americans are just bumfark retarded. European countries with guns have tiny crime-rates compared to you whackjobs. Scaling populations still embarrasses you, the homicide rate is truly disturbing to me. Go farking google "firearms homicide rates", pick your country of choice, and enjoy the citations. The firearm-related death rate is 40 times higher in the US than the UK. Oh, and your overall murder rates discounting those are four times higher too. Still feel safer? Oh I won't cherry-pick though, let's try a country where it's law for conscription-age men to own at home an assault-rifle and a semi-automatic handgun. Whoops, US citizens are still shooting and killing each other 3 times more than that (Switzerland fyi) Don't forget these are rates btw, so you're not allowed to b-b-but population-size.

So given the name, you're either a troll with paragraph-investment time on your hands (in which case gg) or you're just that thick, in which case please go and play with your toys and have an accident in a secure enclosed space so you don't hurt anyone else on the way out, unlike the psychopaths your cavalier attitudes have so freely and easily armed to come after everyone else.
/walk softly and carry an old heavy-duty maglite, perfectly legal to brain someone with


causation / correlation / derp

Perhaps there is a difference in the cultures of the countries that you are comparing.

During Hurricane Katrina the folks all raided the stores and raped and pillaged. During the Japanese Tsunami the folks actually took extra food that they had at home to the grocery store so that others could have some.

That's culture, my friend. Throw some guns at both groups of people and who do you think will kill one another with haste? That's not the fault of the gun, that's a problem with the people.
 
2012-12-29 02:21:46 PM

dr-shotgun: I don't advocate banning all gun, nor do most of the other gun control advocates out there I believe. But I don't see any reason anyone needs an assault rifle, and no, home defense is not a particularly good reason. The ideal weapon for home defense is probably a pump action shotgun.

The ideal weapon for home defense is an AR-15.

The myth that the pump action shotgun is the best gun for home defense is just that, a myth. Here is why:

1- People think that shotguns are a blunderbuss, where the pellets spread wide and make inaccurate aiming irrelevant. This is untrue. Shotgun pellets only spread about 1" for every yard of distance. So in a hallway or across a living room, we're only talking a 3-4" spread.

2- 00 buck and slugs tend to penetrate walls while continuing to carry a lot of velocity and staying relatively intact. That means they are still potentially lethal after going through 2-3 walls. The 5.56mm ammo out of an AR is very fast, but the bullet is lightweight, so when it hits any solid object, it begins to tumble and break apart (in human bodies, this is what allows the tiny bullet to be so effective). When you shoot a wall with a 5.56mm round, it will go through, but it also has a tendency to break apart and not be very lethal. This is why most SWAT teams switched from 9mm HK MP5s to M4 carbines; less potential collateral damage.


You don't need to use buckshot for home defense. Birdshot is absolutely devastating at short ranges, will give greater spread and will not penetrate your neighbors house across the street. You can get something like an 8" spread at 15 ft with a short barrel and birdshot.
 
2012-12-29 02:22:11 PM
This is what I post every time someone goes on about how we (UK) are not allowed to defend ourselves in event of attack

It's only against the law to use excessive force. People in Britain who have legally owned guns have used them to shoot home invaders. Sure they get arrested since the police have to investigate but once its confirmed that you weren't shooting at them as they were fleeing they let you go.

The big no no is harming people when your life isn't in danger. There was a recent case where a gang broke into a family home held the family hostage while they ransacked the place. After the crooks left, the family got a large group of adults to chase them down. One of the crooks was beaten so hard with a cricket bat he ended up brain damaged.

They went to jail

Its all about proportion If they come at you with a lethal weapon or if there is significant risk to your well being due to the numbers attacking you can use lethal force to protect you.
 
2012-12-29 02:22:18 PM

ParaHandy: Silly Jesus: dr-shotgun: No, it's designed for killing lots of people and, as evidenced by numerous recent events, is quite effective at doing so. I don't see any reason that kind of weapon needs to be in civilian hands.

If the AR-15 is designed for "killing lots of people" than why do most police cars in the country now have one upfront or in the trunk?

Must be for all that "killing lots of people" the police do...

This is Fark, they legitimately think that that is the sole purpose of the police. That and getting rich.

There are times when an armed response from trained professionals is necessary. In the UK the equivalen of SWAT is the Police Area Car, a sports sedan which has 2-3 sharpshooters and a trunk safe with long rifles and machine guns. This works better than arming the rank and file.


Only if the citizenry is unarmed.

Do you have a plan for confiscating 300 million guns?
 
2012-12-29 02:22:25 PM

ParaHandy: There are times when an armed response from trained professionals is necessary. In the UK the equivalen of SWAT is the Police Area Car, a sports sedan which has 2-3 sharpshooters and a trunk safe with long rifles and machine guns. This works better than arming the rank and file.


Average police response time for violent crime reports here where I live: 10-20 minutes. I suppose the average person intent on beating/stabbing/raping/whatever is going to wait politely to commence their crime to give the police a head start?

Of course, it takes me less than 5 seconds to deploy and employ my firearm from a holster.

But, I guess it's wrong and impolite to defend myself against an attacker, I should just let him do his thing while I squeeze my eyes shut and think of Mother Mary until the police manage to mosey on by.
 
2012-12-29 02:23:47 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: Silverstaff: Frank N Stein: All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our needs. I don't feel the need to be able to put out a fire in my home at any possible moment.

Time to throw out the fire extinguisher.

/why own a fire extinguisher when the fire department will come to put out a fire?

This.

Thank you, I am going to remember this one for future use against anti-freedom advocates who oppose the right to bear arms.

The next time a kid accidentally kills himself with his dad's fire extinguisher, I'll be right there with you, Mr. Manly Freedom Advocate.


Time begin the "Save the Children from IN-Ground Pools" campaign.

/you act like every person who realizes they might need a gun is some gun polishing wacko.
//live in the big city... be ready to protect yourself
///also have a spare tire in my car. I suppose that makes me a tire polisher?
 
2012-12-29 02:24:34 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: Silverstaff: Frank N Stein: All this talk about taking "personal responsibility" for our needs. I don't feel the need to be able to put out a fire in my home at any possible moment.

Time to throw out the fire extinguisher.

/why own a fire extinguisher when the fire department will come to put out a fire?

This.

Thank you, I am going to remember this one for future use against anti-freedom advocates who oppose the right to bear arms.

The next time a kid accidentally kills himself with his dad's fire extingisher, I'll be right there with you, Mr. Manly Freedom Advocate.


Well, let's see, I grew up in a household surrounded by firearms. I was taught at a very young age that they are not toys, and are not things to play around with. At the age of 8, my grandfather took me hunting with him so I could see that guns kill, and aren't toys. By the age of 10 I was being taught to shoot by myself, including being taught gun safety.

Firearms have been a tradition for many generations, and kids dying in firearms accidents wasn't a big problem until parents tried to treat guns as a dirty, dark secret to be hidden away and kept away from the kids at all costs, while at the same time popular culture treated them as glamorous and powerful (or funny, in the case of old cartoons). That was a deadly mixture. Teach kids to respect them, and you've got a whole different issue.

I have many firearms in my house, and I have a 7 year old son. He knows guns are dangerous, and not toys, and to avoid them if he sees them. Except for my police duty sidearm and my wife's personal self-defense pistol, the guns are all locked up and unloaded, and we know where our personal pistols are at all times. Next year, I plan to take him shooting so he can see the destruction that guns do, and in a few years, teach him to shoot by himself.

ElBarto79: I don't advocate banning all gun, nor do most of the other gun control advocates out there I believe. But I don't see any reason anyone needs an assault rifle, and no, home defense is not a particularly good reason. The ideal weapon for home defense is probably a pump action shotgun.


Why should you be able to make the decision on what gun is allowed for home defense for other people?

Under existing legal precedent, the Miller, Heller and McDonald cases, the main test of if a gun can be banned is two pronged: is it in "common use", and does it have a valid legal use (self defense included). One reason for the strict restrictions already in place on fully automatic weapons is there isn't much valid legal use to a machine gun, as opposed to a semi-automatic weapon like an AR-15. Miller implied that being in common military use counts as "common use", which is why short-barred shotguns were upheld as heavily restricted/de-facto banned under the NFA, since they were not allowed for military use.

If I want to defend my home with a Glock 22, it's my right. If I want an AR-15 in a configuration mimicing an M-4 Carbine, that works too, that's a standard weapon used in urban warfare by the military and in urban tactical situations by law enforcement.

What's so bad about "assault rifles". Is it the name? That big scary 5.56 mm round? You know, they come in little .22 plinkers that are still legally "assault rifles". Is it the scary black color and how they look like military weapons? Is it having a detachable magazine?

I never got how people thought controlling magazine sizes does anything than inconvenience the law-abiding. Millions of full-size magazines already in circulation, and they can be made with metalworking tools and some time and effort. Never mind the perfectly legal use of those magazines in sporting use (target shooting).
 
2012-12-29 02:25:28 PM

shArkh: dr-shotgun: [citation not from TFA needed]

I'll bite: Americans are just bumfark retarded. European countries with guns have tiny crime-rates compared to you whackjobs. Scaling populations still embarrasses you, the homicide rate is truly disturbing to me. Go farking google "firearms homicide rates", pick your country of choice, and enjoy the citations. The firearm-related death rate is 40 times higher in the US than the UK. Oh, and your overall murder rates discounting those are four times higher too. Still feel safer? Oh I won't cherry-pick though, let's try a country where it's law for conscription-age men to own at home an assault-rifle and a semi-automatic handgun. Whoops, US citizens are still shooting and killing each other 3 times more than that (Switzerland fyi) Don't forget these are rates btw, so you're not allowed to b-b-but population-size.

So given the name, you're either a troll with paragraph-investment time on your hands (in which case gg) or you're just that thick, in which case please go and play with your toys and have an accident in a secure enclosed space so you don't hurt anyone else on the way out, unlike the psychopaths your cavalier attitudes have so freely and easily armed to come after everyone else.
/walk softly and carry an old heavy-duty maglite, perfectly legal to brain someone with


If you look at the actual causes of murders, there are a couple of common ones:

- Suicide inflates our numbers by comprising about 60-70% of gun deaths.
- Drug-related firearms deaths comprise close to 80% of non-suicides.

Let's take one of these European countries you like to point out and introduce a healthy drug habit and criminal infrastructure selling the same, and change the social and cultural attitudes to ones such that Suicide became a much greater choice, and see how their numbers look, hmm?
 
2012-12-29 02:26:39 PM

shArkh: Oh I won't cherry-pick though, let's try a country where it's law for conscription-age men to own at home an assault-rifle and a semi-automatic handgun. Whoops, US citizens are still shooting and killing each other 3 times more than that (Switzerland fyi) Don't forget these are rates btw, so you're not allowed to b-b-but population-size.


So what you're saying is that increased or mandatory gun ownership, of assault rifles no less, does not translate to more murder. Interesting.

Link
 
2012-12-29 02:27:47 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: Frank N Stein: Champion of the Sun: Any of you liberty loving guntards done anything about the TSA, warrant-less wiretapping, or indefinite detention yet? Oh, what's that? You only care about your right to own toys, not actual liberty from tyrannical government? Thought so.

Dead bolts and window locks are pretty effective means of home defense for us non guntards.

Because no one has every committed the crime of breaking and entering.

So, because cities have been nuked twice in history, I'm sure you keep a supply of potassium iodide on hand.

The opportunity cost of dead bolts and window locks (purchase and installation costs) are low. The opportunity cost of keeping a firearm in the house (high risk of accidental or intentional unlawful usage, with injury or death) is rather higher.


Luckily these options for home security aren't mutually exclusive.

/there is no pending legislation forcing you to carry a weapon or keep one in your home. Why so interested in what I do?
 
2012-12-29 02:31:13 PM

shArkh: dr-shotgun: [citation not from TFA needed]

I'll bite: Americans are just bumfark retarded. European countries with guns have tiny crime-rates compared to you whackjobs. Scaling populations still embarrasses you, the homicide rate is truly disturbing to me. Go farking google "firearms homicide rates", pick your country of choice, and enjoy the citations. The firearm-related death rate is 40 times higher in the US than the UK. Oh, and your overall murder rates discounting those are four times higher too. Still feel safer? Oh I won't cherry-pick though, let's try a country where it's law for conscription-age men to own at home an assault-rifle and a semi-automatic handgun. Whoops, US citizens are still shooting and killing each other 3 times more than that (Switzerland fyi) Don't forget these are rates btw, so you're not allowed to b-b-but population-size.

So given the name, you're either a troll with paragraph-investment time on your hands (in which case gg) or you're just that thick, in which case please go and play with your toys and have an accident in a secure enclosed space so you don't hurt anyone else on the way out, unlike the psychopaths your cavalier attitudes have so freely and easily armed to come after everyone else.
/walk softly and carry an old heavy-duty maglite, perfectly legal to brain someone with


Oh, America does have a huge murder problem... And our population is, in fact, full of people who went full retard the moment they laid foot here.

I think, if you dig beyond the machismo rhetoric from many of us on the pro-gun side, you'll find that we all agree that this is a violent, stupid country.

Here is why I am pro-gun: I live in a violent place and I have zero faith in the protective abilities of the police. There is a trite saying in the gun community: when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

And I honestly have no problem with regulation. I own many guns (I enjoy collecting them, learning about them and shooting them in competition) and even *I* find it preposterous that I can walk into a gun store and walk out with a Colt 6920 inside of 15 minutes.

I encourage laws that require mandatory weapons training. I encourage laws that call for stringent background checks. I encourage laws that put some weight behind gun owners living up to their responsibility for secure storage.

Where I vehemently disagree with the gun-grabber crowd is in bans. Citizens in this country should have a universal path to the responsible ownership of nearly any kind of firearm they deem necessary for their protection. As long as our nation has an active criminal class of thugs looking to pray on decent people, good citizens should have regulated access to the absolute best tools for defending themselves.
 
2012-12-29 02:31:16 PM

Kit Fister: ElBarto79: Silly Jesus: No, it's designed for killing lots of people and, as evidenced by numerous recent events, is quite effective at doing so. I don't see any reason that kind of weapon needs to be in civilian hands.

How, specifically, is it "designed for killing lots of people?" I honestly don't understand how it's designed for that more so than any other gun other than that's what the media has been repeating over and over.

Assault rifles were designed for military use, period. Every feature and function of them is designed to maximize killing power. If you can't see any difference between an assault rifle and say, a bolt action .22 then you really are ignorant.

I would spin it around though, if assault rifles are no different from other guns then why are they so popular? What is it about them that makes the Rambo wannabes get wood?

World War I and World War II, before the advent of battle rifles using detachable magazines with "high capacity", combat effectiveness: 1 kill per 10,000 rounds fired, on average.

Viet Nam era to present, after the advent of rifles using detachable magazines, lower-recoil, lighter-weight ammo, and better man-portibility of weaponry (M16/AR-15, etc.): 1 kill per 100,000 rounds fired.

By statistics alone, modern "Assault rifles" are less deadly than their predecessors. So, there goes that theory.


I'd wager the kill rate went down because the rate of fire went up. You guys don't even care to have any kind of reasoned discussion do you? You want your toys and you don't give a crap what you have to say to have them or who dies because of them.
 
2012-12-29 02:35:43 PM

dr-shotgun: No, it's designed for killing lots of people and, as evidenced by numerous recent events, is quite effective at doing so. I don't see any reason that kind of weapon needs to be in civilian hands.

If the AR-15 is designed for "killing lots of people" than why do most police cars in the country now have one upfront or in the trunk?

Must be for all that "killing lots of people" the police do...


Are you being sarcastic? What purpose does a police officers assault rifle serve if not to kill people? My understanding was police started issuing these weapons because they were outmatched by the increased firepower of criminals.
 
2012-12-29 02:36:24 PM
There are times when an armed response from trained professionals is necessary. In the UK the equivalen of SWAT is the Police Area Car, a sports sedan which has 2-3 sharpshooters and a trunk safe with long rifles and machine guns. This works better than arming the rank and file.

Does it now?

Does your proclamation come from significant time in tactical training classes? How long have you been a sworn law enforcement officer for? Studied terminal ballistics and gunfight dynamics?

Or have you done an exhaustive study of police response times to violent crimes in progress and developed your hypothesis based on that?

Have you ever put on a uniform and carried a weapon in the defense of *anything*?

I'm guessing your statement is based on an exhaustive study that consisted of watching a lot of Luthor and that new Skyfall film....
 
2012-12-29 02:36:46 PM

Frank N Stein: No, a ban on long pointed kitchen knives. How often does a chef have to stab something? Most knives I use in the kitchen are for slicing and chopping. The only time I can think of using the pointed end to stab something was trying to open some packaging, and a small pointed knife, which they are not calling to be banned, would actually be easier to use for that.

No ban on short pointed knives or carving and chopping knives with a rounded or flat end.

For self defence, which UK law does allow, I have my fathers old army swagger stick that comes apart to reveal an 18 inch long very pointed and very sharp blade....

Holy fark are you really saying that you need to be protected from pointy objects. Hahahahaha!

Also, do you know how I know that you've never butchered and dressed an animal?


How often do most people butcher and dress a carcase in their kitchen? We have supermarkets around here that sell meat nicely prepared. The law here allows people to carry knives if they can show a need, like they are on their way to fish or their job as a chef. If you prepare whole animals then I assume they'd allow you to have the suitable tools.

Remember this is only a proposal from a handful of doctors at one hospital, not a serious policy from a major party let alone the government in power. Do you want me to list every single crackpot suggestion made in the US? At least we have birth control facilities that don't have to worry about being attacked.

As for 'defence against pointed objects' yes, being stabbed is fairly serious.

/BTW I am a British citizen but am also range qualified firearm instructor. We may not have handguns anymore but rifles and shotguns are still available.
 
2012-12-29 02:38:37 PM

ElBarto79: I'd wager the kill rate went down because the rate of fire went up. You guys don't even care to have any kind of reasoned discussion do you? You want your toys and you don't give a crap what you have to say to have them or who dies because of them.


What's reasonable about using sensationalism to demonize a rifle? More people have died in the past year because of flu, drunk driving, and food-releated heart disease than have died from firearms. The number of people killed using a s-called assault rifle in the past 20 *years* is sub-2k.

And yet, you continue to try and act like every single person who even TOUCHES these rifles turns into a raving, murdering lunatic. If the hype about these rifles were even remotely true, we'd have 5-6x the body count in the US than we do.

So, why should we try to have a "Reasoned discussion" with you when you refuse to consider anything other than "OOOG BLACK RIFLE BAD!"?
 
2012-12-29 02:43:09 PM

ElBarto79: Are you being sarcastic? What purpose does a police officers assault rifle serve if not to kill people? My understanding was police started issuing these weapons because they were outmatched by the increased firepower of criminals.


Partly true. Historically speaking, as the drug trade increased in value and sophistication, drug cartels better armed their distribution points in the US in order to protect their criminal enterprises. Plus, after the famed Hollywood shootout, the police reacted and uparmed and uparmored themselves.

The police do not up-arm and up-armor themselves based on day to day criminals, nor do they employ such weaponry in anything close to a frequent basis. SWAT teams are the exception as they are called in most often nowadays to serve warrants in drug cases where a violent, armed response is far more likely than in any other type of warrant-serving situation.

Also, isn't it a bit dishonest to compare or equate the use of FULLY AUTOMATIC firearms in the hands of police with the use of SEMIAUTOMATIC weapons in the hands of a civilian sports shooter?
 
2012-12-29 02:46:54 PM

Kit Fister: ParaHandy: There are times when an armed response from trained professionals is necessary. In the UK the equivalen of SWAT is the Police Area Car, a sports sedan which has 2-3 sharpshooters and a trunk safe with long rifles and machine guns. This works better than arming the rank and file.

Average police response time for violent crime reports here where I live: 10-20 minutes. I suppose the average person intent on beating/stabbing/raping/whatever is going to wait politely to commence their crime to give the police a head start?

Of course, it takes me less than 5 seconds to deploy and employ my firearm from a holster.

But, I guess it's wrong and impolite to defend myself against an attacker, I should just let him do his thing while I squeeze my eyes shut and think of Mother Mary until the police manage to mosey on by.


The law in the UK has no problem with you defending yourself, even if your attacker ends up in the hospital or the morgue, as long as you didn't go all psycho and carry on hitting him when he was unconscious or shoot him while he was running away. I don't think US law is too happy about you doing stuff like that.

But here the chances of a random attacker, burglar, violent spouse, drunken neighbour, road rage driver etc having a gun is tiny. You can defend yourself far more easily by closing a door or just walking away and if it comes to physical confrontation both sides are far less likely to suffer serious harm.

No system is perfect and like seatbelts there will always be specific examples where you might be better off but the statistics clearly show that the UK is far safer when it comes to homicides.
 
2012-12-29 02:48:34 PM

Kit Fister: And yet, you continue to try and act like every single person who even TOUCHES these rifles turns into a raving, murdering lunatic. If the hype about these rifles were even remotely true, we'd have 5-6x the body count in the US than we do.

So, why should we try to have a "Reasoned discussion" with you when you refuse to consider anything other than "OOOG BLACK RIFLE BAD!"?


it's also very hard to have a "reasoned discussion" when a lot of anti-gun advocates make it clear they oppose the very right to bear arms. Their idea of "reasoned discussion" is getting pro-gun people to agree with them on abolition of firearms, or at least doing it one tiny step at a time until guns are completely gone.

You know those Republicans who with regards to the budget and taxes assume negotiation means "getting you to agree with me completely"? Gun control is a similar issue to Democrats: "Reasoned discussion" about gun control means you agreeing with us that more gun control is needed and it's a step towards banning guns.

Look at our fellow Farkers who have advocated for a repeal of the Second Amendment, or to politicians like Gov. Cuomo of New York or Sen. Feinstein of California who are calling for forcible confiscation of currently legal weapons. People who know nothing about guns are trying to make big sweeping decisions about them based on alarmist propaganda.
 
2012-12-29 02:51:11 PM
BTW I don't think guns in the US should be banned. There are simply far too many out there and the only people who would surrender their weapons would be the law abiding citizens leaving the criminals fully armed.
 
2012-12-29 02:52:06 PM
Are you being sarcastic? What purpose does a police officers assault rifle serve if not to kill people? My understanding was police started issuing these weapons because they were outmatched by the increased firepower of criminals.

No, the statement I was referring to was this absurd notion that the AR-15 is designed to "kill lots of people." Like the ONLY reason to own one is because you wanna walk into a room and shoot everybody That is just pure movie bullshiat.

All guns are derived from military weapons in one way or another. All guns have their design roots in a mandate for more efficiently "killing people." The AR-15's only sin is that it is an especially efficient tool.

That efficacy works both ways. The AR-15 is simply the finest implement that the good guys (cops and citizens) can use to defend themselves from criminals. Cops carry them because they are easy to use, reliable, the terminal ballistics inside of most police shooting distances are devastating, they are accurate and the 30 round magazine requires much less weapon manipulation during a high-stress gunfight. All those points also make the AR-15 the perfect tool for a citizen to defend him/herself with.

Interestingly, that efficiency has FAR less meaning to mass shooters. Frankly, an AR-15 was an irrelevant tool in the Newton shooting - he was in that school for 10 minutes and fired 100 rounds (hardly a machine gun pace). He could have used a pump action shotgun. Honestly, the kind of weapon used in shooting a bunch of cowering children doesn't matter nearly as much as people unfamiliar with firearms like to believe.

Also, the biggest mass shooting in US history (Virginia Tech) was committed with a pair of handguns (one of them, a .22).

In the end, these so called "assault rifles" have little actual bearing in crime. They don't actually make mass shooters any more lethal and they are only used in 0.4% of firearm homicides. Gun-control advocates only go after them because they look evil. It would be like road safety advocates calling for a ban on Ferraris. Well, they LOOK like they go fast, and speed kills, so we should ban them!
 
2012-12-29 03:00:26 PM

Kit Fister: Also, isn't it a bit dishonest to compare or equate the use of FULLY AUTOMATIC firearms in the hands of police with the use of SEMIAUTOMATIC weapons in the hands of a civilian sports shooter?


I believe most police departments are using semi-automatic weapons. SWAT teams may have full auto weapons. Full auto would be a bad idea in almost all situations....
 
2012-12-29 03:06:09 PM
I believe most police departments are using semi-automatic weapons. SWAT teams may have full auto weapons. Full auto would be a bad idea in almost all situations....

My company makes specialty rifle sling mounts for police and military users. We have outfitted quite a few SWAT teams, patrol officers and special operations units.

None of them use full auto. All the police guns tend to be Colt 6920s or (for departments with crap budgets) Bushmasters. Even the super secret military guys; while they have full-auto M4s and HK416s, it is never used. For providing cover fire to keep the bad guy's heads down to move, it's all semi-auto.
 
2012-12-29 03:08:41 PM

Rising Ape: Silverstaff: At least we have a written Constitution which acts as a bulwark against the political fad of the day, instead of a Parliament which can choose to throw out a millennium of tradition with a simple majority vote if it wants.

The downside of that is that you're placing the opinions of a few long dead people over those of the current population, which is rather undemocratic. Was the US constitution voted on by the public at large?


Why yes. Yes it was. It was sent back to the states for ratification even then, just as Amendments are today. Our "grand little experiment," as Europe likes to call it, has worked exactly the same for about 236 years now (going by the date of the Declaration of Independence), give or take.

On September 17, 1787, a majority of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention approved the documents over which they had labored since May. After a farewell banquet, delegates swiftly returned to their homes to organize support, most for but some against the proposed charter. Before the Constitution could become the law of the land, it would have to withstand public scrutiny and debate. The document was "laid before the United States in Congress assembled" on September 20. For 2 days, September 26 and 27, Congress debated whether to censure the delegates to the Constitutional Convention for exceeding their authority by creating a new form of government instead of simply revising the Articles of Confederation. They decided to drop the matter. Instead, on September 28, Congress directed the state legislatures to call ratification conventions in each state. Article VII stipulated that nine states had to ratify the Constitution for it to go into effect.

Nine, by the way, is roughly 3/4 of thirteen. Today, the standard for ratification is 2/3 -- far lower. Originally, they wanted a unanimous ratification, until they realized how impossible that would be, to get every single person in the newly-formed nation to agree.

Source (one of many, because Google really is your friend):http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/constitution-day/ra tificatio n.html
 
2012-12-29 03:26:12 PM
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people." - The NRA

"I think the gun sort of helps." - Eddie Izzard

"Poverty causes crime." - The NAACP

"Crime creates poverty." - P.J. O'Rourke

See, technologies come and go. We have, however, constantly refined and improved upon things in the weapons, communications and transportation sectors.

I don't see the toothpaste going back into the tube any time soon. And so, we arrive, as we always do, at the only logical cut point of this circular argument. The one simple rule we can't seem to follow.

"Don't be a dick".

Call me once we've sorted that out.
 
2012-12-29 03:35:53 PM

ElBarto79: Kit Fister: Also, isn't it a bit dishonest to compare or equate the use of FULLY AUTOMATIC firearms in the hands of police with the use of SEMIAUTOMATIC weapons in the hands of a civilian sports shooter?

I believe most police departments are using semi-automatic weapons. SWAT teams may have full auto weapons. Full auto would be a bad idea in almost all situations....


Police-issued ARs are Full AUto-capable weapons, not Semi-Auto.
 
2012-12-29 03:36:57 PM

dr-shotgun: I believe most police departments are using semi-automatic weapons. SWAT teams may have full auto weapons. Full auto would be a bad idea in almost all situations....

My company makes specialty rifle sling mounts for police and military users. We have outfitted quite a few SWAT teams, patrol officers and special operations units.

None of them use full auto. All the police guns tend to be Colt 6920s or (for departments with crap budgets) Bushmasters. Even the super secret military guys; while they have full-auto M4s and HK416s, it is never used. For providing cover fire to keep the bad guy's heads down to move, it's all semi-auto.


They don't SHOOT full-auto, but at the very least every cop I know of on SWAT teams, have FA-capable weapons.
 
2012-12-29 03:37:43 PM

bunner: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." - The NRA

"I think the gun sort of helps." - Eddie Izzard

"Poverty causes crime." - The NAACP

"Crime creates poverty." - P.J. O'Rourke

See, technologies come and go. We have, however, constantly refined and improved upon things in the weapons, communications and transportation sectors.

I don't see the toothpaste going back into the tube any time soon. And so, we arrive, as we always do, at the only logical cut point of this circular argument. The one simple rule we can't seem to follow.

"Don't be a dick".

Call me once we've sorted that out.


A-farking-men!
 
2012-12-29 04:25:38 PM

Flint Ironstag: No, Britain managed to stop Hitler's invasion plans with the Battle Of Britain in 1940, a year before the US joined the war.


In 1940, Britain had no way of knowing that - at the time, the battle merely caused Hitler to postpone Operation Sea Lion (for what turned out to be indefinitely). Combined with the equipment losses of the Battle of Dunkirk - they were up a creek. Their Home Guard (aka the Local Defense Volunteers) were drilling with broomsticks & looting museums trying to get weapons so they could train for national defense purposes.
 
2012-12-29 04:28:05 PM

Xaneidolon: Finally, it might be really, really instructive to talk to someone who is a survivor of a weapons purge and get their take. For me, it was a Cambodian refugee. It will make you rethink defense as a basic human right.


Ask an Israeli Holocaust survivor about his gun rights.
 
2012-12-29 04:32:03 PM

Frank N Stein: I guess I'll just have to settle with getting a semi-automatic M1 battle rifle with high power armor piercing rounds shipped directly to my door (and subsidized by the government). Yes, this is a real thing. You mad anti-gunners?


No, I'm just sad that we're having a mass murder problem and you seem to think its yet another fine moment to stick it to the 'libs.' Resentment Over Society.
 
2012-12-29 04:37:09 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Frank N Stein: I guess I'll just have to settle with getting a semi-automatic M1 battle rifle with high power armor piercing rounds shipped directly to my door (and subsidized by the government). Yes, this is a real thing. You mad anti-gunners?

No, I'm just sad that we're having a mass murder problem and you seem to think its yet another fine moment to stick it to the 'libs.' Resentment Over Society.


I like how you quoted "libs" as if I actually said that. Methinks you have a persecution complex.
 
2012-12-29 04:43:29 PM

bikkurikun: The_Sponge:

Freedom is having the means to protect yourself, your family, and your property.

Just because you guys gave up your rights, don't expect us to do the same,

Protect against who? Protection against the government is useless, because the government will always have more, bigger and better guns. This isn't the 1800's anymore. This is why even small town police in the US has and needs military grade weapons. If anything, you are turning your country in a less free, autocratic, militaristic, police state, as the government will put in more effort to control the gun-owning citizens.

For protection against other citizens you wouldn't need guns if there are no guns in society.

In short, the only thing gun ownership in a society like the US leads to, is more violent crimes, gun accidents and a police state where people have a very misguided sense of what 'liberty' actually means.


Yeah, but we can hold out way longer and take more of a stand if we are armed.

The police state would be happening anyway (ever been to Britain?)
 
2012-12-29 04:58:53 PM
You are not grabbing them!
When you get tired of spouting all the testiments to fear, ignorance and stupidity, just suck on it.
 
2012-12-29 05:22:44 PM

dr-shotgun: shArkh: dr-shotgun: [citation not from TFA needed]

I'll bite: Americans are just bumfark retarded. European countries with guns have tiny crime-rates compared to you whackjobs. Scaling populations still embarrasses you, the homicide rate is truly disturbing to me. Go farking google "firearms homicide rates", pick your country of choice, and enjoy the citations. The firearm-related death rate is 40 times higher in the US than the UK. Oh, and your overall murder rates discounting those are four times higher too. Still feel safer? Oh I won't cherry-pick though, let's try a country where it's law for conscription-age men to own at home an assault-rifle and a semi-automatic handgun. Whoops, US citizens are still shooting and killing each other 3 times more than that (Switzerland fyi) Don't forget these are rates btw, so you're not allowed to b-b-but population-size.

So given the name, you're either a troll with paragraph-investment time on your hands (in which case gg) or you're just that thick, in which case please go and play with your toys and have an accident in a secure enclosed space so you don't hurt anyone else on the way out, unlike the psychopaths your cavalier attitudes have so freely and easily armed to come after everyone else.
/walk softly and carry an old heavy-duty maglite, perfectly legal to brain someone with

Oh, America does have a huge murder problem... And our population is, in fact, full of people who went full retard the moment they laid foot here.

I think, if you dig beyond the machismo rhetoric from many of us on the pro-gun side, you'll find that we all agree that this is a violent, stupid country.

Here is why I am pro-gun: I live in a violent place and I have zero faith in the protective abilities of the police. There is a trite saying in the gun community: when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

And I honestly have no problem with regulation. I own many guns (I enjoy collecting them, learning about them and shooting them ...


Now you've done it. A reasonable, non-confrontational post that makes sense. Prepare your flame-proof suit.
 
2012-12-29 05:23:44 PM
No, I meant what I said ... there are about 30k firearms deaths annually in the US, about 11k of which are murders(1). The murder rate is 5x that of the UK. The ubiquity of guns is not the sole problem, obviously a number of murderers would have used other methods, but a major factor in the difference is the fact than guns make murder much easier.

Gang banger murders over drug turf are still murders, though they are business rather than personal. Over here, drug turf wars involve beatings, stabbings and hospitilizations rather than gun murders - partly because it's hard to get guns, partly because the relative rarity of murders means than each one will bring down a much more thorough investigation than e.g. LAPD can afford to mount.

The easiest lives to save a crimes of passion ... Bubba gets tired of just beating Shaniqua and shoots her in a drunken rage. No nightstand Sat night special, no death.

My best guess is that stricter gun controls which make it not worth the trouble for Bubba to deal with will save about 5k lives a year.

There is a strong correlation between gun ownership and murders, e.g. if you take 1st tier Western countries and rank them by murder rate, it goes:

1. USA
2. Switzerland
3. France
4. Canada
....

If you rank them by gun onwership, it's the same list.

(1) most murders carried out by US police on duty are written up as good kills, I'm assuming that's a smal enough number not to bother with for back of the envelope stuff.
 
2012-12-29 05:25:22 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: Silly Jesus: She wasn't responsible. She had a crazy son. The guns should have been locked in a safe with a password that only she knew. Or not accessible to him in some other way. Crazy people shouldn't have guns and responsible gun owners know that.

But the question is, was she a True Scotsman?

All gun owners are "responsible" until someone winds up shot.


As an actual Scotsman, I resent that imputation ;)
 
2012-12-29 05:36:56 PM

dr-shotgun: And what is the concern expressed in your link? The failure of gun control laws or a loophole in them?

The article in my link is irrelevant. The graph is. The UK essentially banned firearms and gun crime doubled.

You punished hundreds of thousands of good, law abiding citizens. You made them line up and turn in their handguns. Beyond that, you've criminalized the very concept of self defense to the point where you arrest, jail and prosecute folks who dare harm those who initiate violence against them for profit. The UK has essentially made every citizen into a subject, totally and completely dependent on the state for your personal protection and security.

The result? Crimes with a gun didn't go down... they doubled. Rapes, robberies and assaults are at or near the top of the charts for the EU. An entire criminal class in the UK essentially goes about it's business with absolute confidence that the average citizen will never be able to stand up to them, that the police are too overtaxed to catch them and in the unlikely event that they are apprehended, punishment will be extraordinarily light.

And yet, limp wristed UK gobbers like to post on forums about "American Guntards" and go on epic rants about how unenlightened we are here in the United States. I'm thinking it isn't elitism; it is (like American gun-grabbers) a totally misinformed view fueled by American movies and television shows.

America does have a murder problem - one that has declined by 40% since the 1990s. It's primary epicenter is to be found in major urban centers where drug gangs shoot one another. Remove those from the 10,000 gun murders a year, and our gun murder rate declines to be far more in-line with England's (roughly 2000 firearm murders). This will happen over time as we begin winding down our drug war - cocaine use in the US is down by half since 2006, heroin use has trickled down and held steady at extremely low numbers, meth peaked 10 years ago and is on the decline and we are on the cusp of simply legalizing marijuana.

As far as the rest of the gun crimes? Hundreds of thousands of Americans defend themselves with a firearm every year. Some reports say that 2.5 Million Americans use a firearm in self defense (most never shoot- the crime ends when the criminal is confronted by an armed citizen), other reports say the number is more like 800,000 uses a year. Let's use the most pessimistic number from the Brady Campaign (the most vocal anti-gun group in the US) of 108,000.

So if the Brady Campaign had their way and turned the US into a "gun free" utopia the way the UK has, by their own numbers, the equivalent of the population of a small city would become victims of rape, assault, robbery or murder. Fantastic!

The only benefit the UK's gun laws have had on that country is to allow UK subjects to hold their noses up and call Americans unenlightened barbarians. For that, you've empowered a massive criminal class, increased your crime rate, doubled your gun crime and removed the basic human right of self defense from those in your boarders.


You gun guys need to get this right and stop quoting the falsehood about violent crime statistics in the UK.

The UK did NOT have an increase in violent crime; it changed its method of reporting violent crime. Any report of feeling threatened by a member of the public is now recorded as a violent crime

Let me spell this out for you real carefully:

- the USA has a higher level of all types of violent crime than the UK, including murder
- the UK has a much lower bar for reporting an incident as violent crime

To put it another way: the UK's knife controls are as ineffective as the USA's firearm controls in terms of keeping sharp things out of tha hands of undesirables. Before Dunblane, chavs carried blades. After Dunblane, chavs still carry blades.

Do you seriously believe the chavs are now carrying out 10x the violent attacks they did before, but not accidentally killing people and adding to the body count?

Every time the NRA or its proxies bring out some "data" to show gun control doesn't work, scratch the surface and it's total BS.

I will offer you a bet ... I will walk through Mosside (Manchester M62) unarmed and you can walk through Compton (east LA) with your CCW and we'll see who gets home unharmed.
 
2012-12-29 05:47:41 PM

ElBarto79: Kit Fister: Also, isn't it a bit dishonest to compare or equate the use of FULLY AUTOMATIC firearms in the hands of police with the use of SEMIAUTOMATIC weapons in the hands of a civilian sports shooter?

I believe most police departments are using semi-automatic weapons. SWAT teams may have full auto weapons. Full auto would be a bad idea in almost all situations....


I don't get the big distinction, other than the US gun posession laws. Full auto is a waste of ammunition unless the shiat is really hitting the fan.

To have a meaningful effect on mass shooters we'd have to ban any multishot gun with a clip, magazine or whatever it's called (I don't want to debate gun nerd vocabulary; the thing with 8 to 100 rounds that slides in the bottom or side of the gun and can be switched out rapidly for a full one) but that's not where the big public safety opportunity lies.
 
2012-12-29 05:49:15 PM

Atypical Person Reading Fark: bikkurikun: The_Sponge:

Freedom is having the means to protect yourself, your family, and your property.

Just because you guys gave up your rights, don't expect us to do the same,

Protect against who? Protection against the government is useless, because the government will always have more, bigger and better guns. This isn't the 1800's anymore. This is why even small town police in the US has and needs military grade weapons. If anything, you are turning your country in a less free, autocratic, militaristic, police state, as the government will put in more effort to control the gun-owning citizens.

For protection against other citizens you wouldn't need guns if there are no guns in society.

In short, the only thing gun ownership in a society like the US leads to, is more violent crimes, gun accidents and a police state where people have a very misguided sense of what 'liberty' actually means.

Yeah, but we can hold out way longer and take more of a stand if we are armed.

The police state would be happening anyway (ever been to Britain?)


The USA is a lot more of a police state than the UK, starting with the fact that it has 5x the proportion of cops.
 
2012-12-29 05:52:53 PM

snuff3r: We had our Newtown massacre and the country chose to ban general gun ownership. We've been happier since.


Happier with the 40% increase in gun crime? Sounds like a freaking blast.

Care to cite any evidence that Lawful CCW holders in the USA are engaging in wild-west shootouts to see who has the biggest piecker? Of course not. You dont have any. Because it doesn't exist.
 
2012-12-29 05:53:24 PM

ParaHandy: No, I meant what I said ... there are about 30k firearms deaths annually in the US, about 11k of which are murders(1). The murder rate is 5x that of the UK. The ubiquity of guns is not the sole problem, obviously a number of murderers would have used other methods, but a major factor in the difference is the fact than guns make murder much easier.

Gang banger murders over drug turf are still murders, though they are business rather than personal. Over here, drug turf wars involve beatings, stabbings and hospitilizations rather than gun murders - partly because it's hard to get guns, partly because the relative rarity of murders means than each one will bring down a much more thorough investigation than e.g. LAPD can afford to mount.

The easiest lives to save a crimes of passion ... Bubba gets tired of just beating Shaniqua and shoots her in a drunken rage. No nightstand Sat night special, no death.

My best guess is that stricter gun controls which make it not worth the trouble for Bubba to deal with will save about 5k lives a year.

There is a strong correlation between gun ownership and murders, e.g. if you take 1st tier Western countries and rank them by murder rate, it goes:

1. USA
2. Switzerland
3. France
4. Canada
....

If you rank them by gun onwership, it's the same list.

(1) most murders carried out by US police on duty are written up as good kills, I'm assuming that's a smal enough number not to bother with for back of the envelope stuff.


We have 300 million guns here currently. How, exactly, do you propose getting rid of them? Your entire argument falls flat unless you can come up with a way to confiscate them. Start there.

Furthermore, I don't think that the UK has gangs comparable to the Chicago and LA gangs, just to name a few. Our drug / gang / etc. cultures impact our murder rates. Sure, if we didn't have guns then they would just stab one another as they evidently do in the UK, but that brings us back to my original question, how are you going to get rid of 300 million guns?
 
2012-12-29 05:55:44 PM

Frank N Stein: Wolf_Blitzer: Frank N Stein: Wolf_Blitzer: Silly Jesus: Shhh, personal responsibility is not welcome in these here parts. They will mockingly call you "boot strappy" if you aren't dependent on the government for your every whim and need.

I can't say that I'm really dependent on the government for my need to kill people.

You have a need to kill people? Please have yourself evaluated by a psychiatrist as you are a danger to yourself and others.

Your the one regaling us with the details of your firearms. You can't exactly build a bridge with a firearm; they're designed to kill. That is their purpose. If you feel it necessary to own a gun, it follows that you want to be prepared to kill someone.

Ill conceed that point. But I suppose that, living in the south side of Chicago, there is a small (but reasonable) chance that one day someone will try to kill me. Hell, we just reached our 500th homicide.

If someone were to attempt to take my life, I would meet that threat with deadly force.


I have a serious question ... for a typical suburban US neigbourhood like mine, intruders are so rare that it's statistically safer for the average person NOT to have a gun which might escalate a situation.

Clearly, there are neighbourhoods where it's safer to be armed, like S Chicago or E LA.

I am curious to know where the breakpoint is.

Rural areas with no police are kinda different - people
are 100s of times more likely to have long guns and know how to use them, and I suspect much less prone to incidents of poor gun managament and tragic misuse than e.g. that crazy white trash biatch in CT.
 
2012-12-29 06:00:16 PM

Silly Jesus: In the UK Zimmerman would be dead for the offense of asking a kid what he's up to. Thanks for proving our point for us.


That's right - because every time you ask someone what they're doing they kill you.

So much better to live in a society where someone can arm himself, go out and play vigilante, follow and interrogate a teenager in direct contravention of police instructions and then kill the teenager with the gun when the teenager has the audacity to defend himself from an aggressive man confronting him at night.
 
2012-12-29 06:07:28 PM
A picture of what trying to discuss anything with ParaHandy looks like:

www.cybersalt.org
 
2012-12-29 06:07:37 PM

Pert: Silly Jesus: In the UK Zimmerman would be dead for the offense of asking a kid what he's up to. Thanks for proving our point for us.

That's right - because every time you ask someone what they're doing they kill you.

So much better to live in a society where someone can arm himself, go out and play vigilante, follow and interrogate a teenager in direct contravention of police instructions and then kill the teenager with the gun when the teenager has the audacity to defend himself from an aggressive man confronting him at night.


Hahahaha 2/10

That was horrible. I can't even count high enough to total up the incorrect information in that statement.
 
2012-12-29 06:08:06 PM

Pert: So much better to live in a society where someone can arm himself, go out and play vigilante, follow and interrogate a teenager in direct contravention of police instructions and then kill the teenager with the gun when the teenager has the audacity to defend himself from an aggressive man confronting him at night.


yes, because that's totally what happened...wait, no it's not.
 
2012-12-29 06:13:40 PM

Silly Jesus: ParaHandy: No, I meant what I said ... there are about 30k firearms deaths annually in the US, about 11k of which are murders(1). The murder rate is 5x that of the UK. The ubiquity of guns is not the sole problem, obviously a number of murderers would have used other methods, but a major factor in the difference is the fact than guns make murder much easier.

Gang banger murders over drug turf are still murders, though they are business rather than personal. Over here, drug turf wars involve beatings, stabbings and hospitilizations rather than gun murders - partly because it's hard to get guns, partly because the relative rarity of murders means than each one will bring down a much more thorough investigation than e.g. LAPD can afford to mount.

The easiest lives to save a crimes of passion ... Bubba gets tired of just beating Shaniqua and shoots her in a drunken rage. No nightstand Sat night special, no death.

My best guess is that stricter gun controls which make it not worth the trouble for Bubba to deal with will save about 5k lives a year.

There is a strong correlation between gun ownership and murders, e.g. if you take 1st tier Western countries and rank them by murder rate, it goes:

1. USA
2. Switzerland
3. France
4. Canada
....

If you rank them by gun onwership, it's the same list.

(1) most murders carried out by US police on duty are written up as good kills, I'm assuming that's a smal enough number not to bother with for back of the envelope stuff.

We have 300 million guns here currently. How, exactly, do you propose getting rid of them? Your entire argument falls flat unless you can come up with a way to confiscate them. Start there.

Furthermore, I don't think that the UK has gangs comparable to the Chicago and LA gangs, just to name a few. Our drug / gang / etc. cultures impact our murder rates. Sure, if we didn't have guns then they would just stab one another as they evidently do in the UK, but that brings us back to my original question, how are you going to get rid of 300 million guns?


Slowly :) Voluntary amnesties, mandatory registration.

The average law abiding citizen, including every gun owner and enthusiast I know IRL, has absolutely no problem with switching to a system where every gun owner must be licensed, there is mandatory positive vetting of mental health, every gun must be registered and get an annual ownership confirmation and safety inspection, and where there is mandatory range time and refresher safety classes to keep your licence.

The cops can then roll up on any gang banger, drug safehouse or whatever, and simply take their guns, as it will be a federal offence for them to own them. The noise of a gunshot is now probable cause for a warrant.

This is not a quick fix. It will take a couple of decades. However, the data supports the following:

- Less legally owned guns means less murders
- Less legally owned guns means less illegal guns
- Sensible American gun owners have no problem with introducing gun tracking and licensing

The people we need to worry about are the people who say things like "I can't register my guns, or the government will come take them" or have some dream of overthrowing DC or think George III is still around and that the British Army might decide to invade and try to reconquer the USA with redcoats and rifles (we have Eurofighters and nukes :)

Even among the NRA membership, gun nuts as described above are a minority (alas, not in their leadership)
 
2012-12-29 06:15:17 PM

snuff3r: TFA: "the british problem"

You know what you stupid American guntards, have you considered the fact that there a quite a few countries out there where the vast majority don't actually WANT people running around with guns. If you lot want to run around like asstard cowboys, have farking fun. If you seriously want to link gun ownership to freedom, youre a farking moron. Freedom is not being scared that someone is going to blow your head off whilst youre at the cinema. Freedom is not having to be constantly feeling that you're split seconds from having to defend yourselves.

We had our Newtown massacre and the country chose to ban general gun ownership. We've been happier since.

For those of us who own guns, the long and tedious process we have to go through is worth it.


I'm pretty sure we kicked your asses in a couple of wars so we didn't have to hear the British lecture us about how we go about our lives....
 
2012-12-29 06:24:33 PM
All of that advice makes just as much sense as telling women how they should dress or behave in order to avoid sexual assault.
 
2012-12-29 06:28:14 PM
I will offer you a bet ... I will walk through Mosside (Manchester M62) unarmed and you can walk through Compton (east LA) with your CCW and we'll see who gets home unharmed.

My CCW permit is no good in Compton. In fact, California is as close to a legislatively Gun Free Utopia as you will find in the US. Assault weapons? Banned. High capacity magazines? Banned. Mandatory training, testing, background checks for all purchases and waiting periods? All mandatory. CCW permits? Must certify 'good cause' and be granted permission (so, politically connected and/or rich).

Effect of all this? Zero.

Headline: Criminals Intrinsically Do Not Adhere To Laws

And really, you think that a criminal organization that specializes in retailing an illicit substance that travels by the metric tonne would have much trouble importing illegal firearms from the global arms trade?
 
2012-12-29 06:29:02 PM

Kit Fister: Pert: So much better to live in a society where someone can arm himself, go out and play vigilante, follow and interrogate a teenager in direct contravention of police instructions and then kill the teenager with the gun when the teenager has the audacity to defend himself from an aggressive man confronting him at night.

yes, because that's totally what happened...wait, no it's not.


If the same situation had played out in the UK, Zimmerman would have been unarmed(1) had at worst a black eye, a broken nose, and a wee gash on his head, and a quick trip to Casualty (the ER) and Martin would have gone down for 3-6 months for Assault GBH.

Don't conflate Zimmerman's claim to have been afraid with the hypothetical that Martin might have actually killed him. The former is likely given his psychology, the latter a vanishingly small possibility.

However, not being armed in the first place, there is no way a cheese dick coward like Zimmerman would be following anyone, he'd have stayed in his car.

I once myself confronted and chased off a couple of actual chavs (we say schemies in Scotland) who were walking up my street in Edinburgh trying car door handles. I jumped in the car and followed them for about 15 blocks towards their hood, which happened to go past a police station, and I then let the cops take up chase with a panda car. They denied it all and didn't have any stolen goods on them so that was it. Property was protected, crime prevented, and no-one died. My flatmate pointed out they probably had knives, but at no time was I afraid.

You can argue with our methods in the UK, but not the results - less violence, less escalation, less death

(1) a punk like Zimmerman would never have passed a UK gun license background check
 
2012-12-29 06:33:13 PM

ParaHandy: Slowly :) Voluntary amnesties, mandatory registration.

Criminals won't volunteer.


The average law abiding citizen, including every gun owner and enthusiast I know IRL, has absolutely no problem with switching to a system where every gun owner must be licensed, there is mandatory positive vetting of mental health, every gun must be registered and get an annual ownership confirmation and safety inspection, and where there is mandatory range time and refresher safety classes to keep your licence.

Sounds fine, but might be hard to get the gang bangers to comply.

The cops can then roll up on any gang banger, drug safehouse or whatever, and simply take their guns, as it will be a federal offence for them to own them. The noise of a gunshot is now probable cause for a warrant.

That won't fly. We like our 4th amendment.

This is not a quick fix. It will take a couple of decades. However, the data supports the following:

- Less legally owned guns means less murders
- Less legally owned guns means less illegal guns
- Sensible American gun owners have no problem with introducing gun tracking and licensing

The people we need to worry about are the people who say things like "I can't register my guns, or the government will come take them" or have some dream of overthrowing DC or think George III is still around and that the British Army might decide to invade and try to reconquer the USA with redcoats and rifles (we have Eurofighters and nukes :)

Even among the NRA membership, gun nuts as described above are a minority (alas, not in their leadership)

You also need to account for metal smiths and people who can make zip guns out of scrap. You can also print guns now with 3D printers. And the black market from Mexico etc. I think that your proposal is very naive and idealistic. That's not to say that I wouldn't prefer it, largely, but I just don't see it as possible. 300 million guns with thousands more being made every day plus the ability to make them at home plus a porous border makes for an insurmountable task.

 
2012-12-29 06:36:12 PM

ParaHandy: Kit Fister: Pert: So much better to live in a society where someone can arm himself, go out and play vigilante, follow and interrogate a teenager in direct contravention of police instructions and then kill the teenager with the gun when the teenager has the audacity to defend himself from an aggressive man confronting him at night.

yes, because that's totally what happened...wait, no it's not.

If the same situation had played out in the UK, Zimmerman would have been unarmed(1) had at worst a black eye, a broken nose, and a wee gash on his head, and a quick trip to Casualty (the ER) and Martin would have gone down for 3-6 months for Assault GBH.

Don't conflate Zimmerman's claim to have been afraid with the hypothetical that Martin might have actually killed him. The former is likely given his psychology, the latter a vanishingly small possibility.

However, not being armed in the first place, there is no way a cheese dick coward like Zimmerman would be following anyone, he'd have stayed in his car.

I once myself confronted and chased off a couple of actual chavs (we say schemies in Scotland) who were walking up my street in Edinburgh trying car door handles. I jumped in the car and followed them for about 15 blocks towards their hood, which happened to go past a police station, and I then let the cops take up chase with a panda car. They denied it all and didn't have any stolen goods on them so that was it. Property was protected, crime prevented, and no-one died. My flatmate pointed out they probably had knives, but at no time was I afraid.

You can argue with our methods in the UK, but not the results - less violence, less escalation, less death

(1) a punk like Zimmerman would never have passed a UK gun license background check


I'd argue that the gun saved his life. What makes you think that Martin would have stopped bashing his face/head in if not for being shot?
 
2012-12-29 06:38:27 PM

ParaHandy: Kit Fister: Pert: So much better to live in a society where someone can arm himself, go out and play vigilante, follow and interrogate a teenager in direct contravention of police instructions and then kill the teenager with the gun when the teenager has the audacity to defend himself from an aggressive man confronting him at night.

yes, because that's totally what happened...wait, no it's not.

If the same situation had played out in the UK, Zimmerman would have been unarmed(1) had at worst a black eye, a broken nose, and a wee gash on his head, and a quick trip to Casualty (the ER) and Martin would have gone down for 3-6 months for Assault GBH.

Don't conflate Zimmerman's claim to have been afraid with the hypothetical that Martin might have actually killed him. The former is likely given his psychology, the latter a vanishingly small possibility.

However, not being armed in the first place, there is no way a cheese dick coward like Zimmerman would be following anyone, he'd have stayed in his car.

I once myself confronted and chased off a couple of actual chavs (we say schemies in Scotland) who were walking up my street in Edinburgh trying car door handles. I jumped in the car and followed them for about 15 blocks towards their hood, which happened to go past a police station, and I then let the cops take up chase with a panda car. They denied it all and didn't have any stolen goods on them so that was it. Property was protected, crime prevented, and no-one died. My flatmate pointed out they probably had knives, but at no time was I afraid.

You can argue with our methods in the UK, but not the results - less violence, less escalation, less death

(1) a punk like Zimmerman would never have passed a UK gun license background check


Well, you do things your way, we do things our way. That's not to say that there isn't room to improve our process. However, I find your positions that involve bans and restrictions along with any improvements that might help to be unpaletteable and distasteful. Further, while our 2A is open to reasonable restriction, and even open for reasonable limitation on what is available, I doubt a complete ban on popular sporting rifles would fly.

I withhold my thoughts on other aspects of the discussion since it gives me pause for thought, however I won't accept that we classify and ban firearms simply based on appearance alone, or that we expect that somehow restricting over 70 Million people who are safe and lawful would make as much of a dent in the crime rate as you claim. Not even any experts on the topic agree with you.
 
2012-12-29 06:41:20 PM

dr-shotgun: I will offer you a bet ... I will walk through Mosside (Manchester M62) unarmed and you can walk through Compton (east LA) with your CCW and we'll see who gets home unharmed.

My CCW permit is no good in Compton. In fact, California is as close to a legislatively Gun Free Utopia as you will find in the US. Assault weapons? Banned. High capacity magazines? Banned. Mandatory training, testing, background checks for all purchases and waiting periods? All mandatory. CCW permits? Must certify 'good cause' and be granted permission (so, politically connected and/or rich).

Effect of all this? Zero.

Headline: Criminals Intrinsically Do Not Adhere To Laws

And really, you think that a criminal organization that specializes in retailing an illicit substance that travels by the metric tonne would have much trouble importing illegal firearms from the global arms trade?


1. Unless it changed recently, Calfornia still has the private sale problem, i.e. "gun show loophole" and "straw buyers"

2. California has an open border with Nevada which has no gun laws at all. I'm proposing a federal solution. Canada does not have an open border with Nevada and gets less spillover.

3. Drug cartels in the UK also import their wares by the metric shiatload, and have no problem doing so with guns. However, it's still a lot harder for them to get guns, since they have to import them, and it's unusual for regional distributors and below to be armed. Again, due to general lack of guns they don't feel the need.

The guy who ran the entire heroin trade for the county where I'm from (Fife, pop 350k) back in the 90's was known as The Colonel by his team. I've never seen or heard of any of them having guns or carrying out more than a "doin'" (Assault GBH with baseball bats). He wouldn't even allow his guys to stab people because he didn't want to risk a bleed out and a murder inquiry.

Don't reject the UK solution because it's merely 97.5% effective; a factor of 50 reduction in armed gang bangers is huge progress.
 
2012-12-29 06:43:39 PM
Its a good thing the UK has all those gun laws.... otherwise you might have some idiot throwing grenades at the cops and shooting at them
 
2012-12-29 06:45:17 PM

ParaHandy:

The police state would be happening anyway (ever been to Britain?)

The USA is a lot more of a police state than the UK, starting with the fact that it has 5x the proportion of cops.


Cite? Because Wikipedia and other sources say the US has 256 cops per 100k citizens while the UK has 307. Hardly "five times the proportion" you claim.

As for "police state", as I posted earlier on if you are comparing the UK and the US it is not in the UK that you are forced to carry ID while driving, forced (in many states) to tell an officer your name and address if he asks you or where an officer is allowed to lie to you when questioning you.

Funny that there are many CSBs from US Farkers about run ins with cops where they were threatened, arrested for BS reasons etc. The UK police isn't perfect, and every experience I have had with US cops has been very positive, but at least here if a cop shoots someone it is front page national news rather than a couple of column inches on page seven of the local paper.
 
2012-12-29 06:47:04 PM

Ontos: I'm pretty sure we kicked your asses in a couple of wars so we didn't have to hear the British lecture us about how we go about our lives....


Heck, we weren't even the only British colonies having that problem:

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest" - Mahatma Gandhi, from his book Gandhi, an Autobiography.

It's clear that the British culture abhors guns, and their government loves to take guns from those whom they govern. We aren't British, haven't been for well over 200 years.

Our overall culture is fairly similar to our cousins across the Atlantic, and most of the time and on most issues we are good friends, but with regards to guns, it's completely different, and we are not too tolerant of being lectured to about how we don't need guns, by the very people that we codified a right to bear arms in response to. Leave us be on this issue, or risk substantial public scorn (like Piers Morgan is discovering).
 
2012-12-29 06:48:41 PM

Flint Ironstag: ParaHandy:

The police state would be happening anyway (ever been to Britain?)

The USA is a lot more of a police state than the UK, starting with the fact that it has 5x the proportion of cops.

Cite? Because Wikipedia and other sources say the US has 256 cops per 100k citizens while the UK has 307. Hardly "five times the proportion" you claim.

As for "police state", as I posted earlier on if you are comparing the UK and the US it is not in the UK that you are forced to carry ID while driving, forced (in many states) to tell an officer your name and address if he asks you or where an officer is allowed to lie to you when questioning you.

Funny that there are many CSBs from US Farkers about run ins with cops where they were threatened, arrested for BS reasons etc. The UK police isn't perfect, and every experience I have had with US cops has been very positive, but at least here if a cop shoots someone it is front page national news rather than a couple of column inches on page seven of the local paper.


img.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-29 06:49:37 PM

Flint Ironstag: ParaHandy:

The police state would be happening anyway (ever been to Britain?)

The USA is a lot more of a police state than the UK, starting with the fact that it has 5x the proportion of cops.

Cite? Because Wikipedia and other sources say the US has 256 cops per 100k citizens while the UK has 307. Hardly "five times the proportion" you claim.

As for "police state", as I posted earlier on if you are comparing the UK and the US it is not in the UK that you are forced to carry ID while driving, forced (in many states) to tell an officer your name and address if he asks you or where an officer is allowed to lie to you when questioning you.

Funny that there are many CSBs from US Farkers about run ins with cops where they were threatened, arrested for BS reasons etc. The UK police isn't perfect, and every experience I have had with US cops has been very positive, but at least here if a cop shoots someone it is front page national news rather than a couple of column inches on page seven of the local paper.


May bad, misread what you posted and was actually agreeing with you. Maybe I should read before I bash the keyboard with my fists and head....
 
2012-12-29 06:50:51 PM

ParaHandy: Don't reject the UK solution because it's merely 97.5% effective; a factor of 50 reduction in armed gang bangers is huge progress.


We dont reject the UK solution because it is 97.5 effective, we reject it because it is completely ineffective, with gun crime rising 40% after ownership was made illegal
 
2012-12-29 07:04:54 PM

Silly Jesus: ParaHandy: Slowly :) Voluntary amnesties, mandatory registration.

Criminals won't volunteer.

The average law abiding citizen, including every gun owner and enthusiast I know IRL, has absolutely no problem with switching to a system where every gun owner must be licensed, there is mandatory positive vetting of mental health, every gun must be registered and get an annual ownership confirmation and safety inspection, and where there is mandatory range time and refresher safety classes to keep your licence.

Sounds fine, but might be hard to get the gang bangers to comply.

The cops can then roll up on any gang banger, drug safehouse or whatever, and simply take their guns, as it will be a federal offence for them to own them. The noise of a gunshot is now probable cause for a warrant.

That won't fly. We like our 4th amendment.

This is not a quick fix. It will take a couple of decades. However, the data supports the following:

- Less legally owned guns means less murders
- Less legally owned guns means less illegal guns
- Sensible American gun owners have no problem with introducing gun tracking and licensing

The people we need to worry about are the people who say things like "I can't register my guns, or the government will come take them" or have some dream of overthrowing DC or think George III is still around and that the British Army might decide to invade and try to reconquer the USA with redcoats and rifles (we have Eurofighters and nukes :)

Even among the NRA membership, gun nuts as described above are a minority (alas, not in their leadership)

You also need to account for metal smiths and people who can make zip guns out of scrap. You can also print guns now with 3D printers. And the black market from Mexico etc. I think that your proposal is very naive and idealistic. That's not to say that I wouldn't prefer it, largely, but I just don't see it as possible. 300 million guns with thousands more being made every day plus the ability to make them at home plus a porous border makes for an insurmountable task.


1. I don't expect the gang bangers to comply. However, if their supply of guns dries up, eventually they will have less of them. Guns break. Guns fired in crimes have to be tossed.

2. If a gunshot goes off and it's not at a licensed range or designated hunting area, police should have the right to demand a report and explanation from the gun owner. If a gunshot goes off and there is no explanation, that should be PC for a search, and in any case the cops will just enter the premises and claim duy of care or some other exemption.

3. 3D printers and metal lathes also exist in Europe. Yes, anyone with sufficient time and determination can make arms from readily available materials, even in a prison. I used to make homemade explosives(a) as a kid. However, this is a much higher bar of difficulty than simply paying $300 in used twenties to your friendly Nevadan straw buyer for one of the case of cheap handguns in his trunk.

(a) I don't mean bottle rockets, I mean actual pipe bombs with gunpowder, nitrogen tri-iodide or nitrocellulose. Yes, I was a dangerous wee pyro :)

You need to stop thinking in absolutes, and think in terms of influencing behaviour and statistical measures. If we can reduce the number of guns by 90%, and have most of those in the hands of responsible, licensed gun owners, and an active tracking mechanism to prevent under the table sales, we will reduce the violence a lot.
 
2012-12-29 07:12:02 PM

Silly Jesus: ParaHandy: Kit Fister: Pert: So much better to live in a society where someone can arm himself, go out and play vigilante, follow and interrogate a teenager in direct contravention of police instructions and then kill the teenager with the gun when the teenager has the audacity to defend himself from an aggressive man confronting him at night.

yes, because that's totally what happened...wait, no it's not.

If the same situation had played out in the UK, Zimmerman would have been unarmed(1) had at worst a black eye, a broken nose, and a wee gash on his head, and a quick trip to Casualty (the ER) and Martin would have gone down for 3-6 months for Assault GBH.

Don't conflate Zimmerman's claim to have been afraid with the hypothetical that Martin might have actually killed him. The former is likely given his psychology, the latter a vanishingly small possibility.

However, not being armed in the first place, there is no way a cheese dick coward like Zimmerman would be following anyone, he'd have stayed in his car.

I once myself confronted and chased off a couple of actual chavs (we say schemies in Scotland) who were walking up my street in Edinburgh trying car door handles. I jumped in the car and followed them for about 15 blocks towards their hood, which happened to go past a police station, and I then let the cops take up chase with a panda car. They denied it all and didn't have any stolen goods on them so that was it. Property was protected, crime prevented, and no-one died. My flatmate pointed out they probably had knives, but at no time was I afraid.

You can argue with our methods in the UK, but not the results - less violence, less escalation, less death

(1) a punk like Zimmerman would never have passed a UK gun license background check

I'd argue that the gun saved his life. What makes you think that Martin would have stopped bashing his face/head in if not for being shot?


Do you disagree with my assessment that:
a. Someone with Zimmerman's record and mental capcity would. Have been denied a gun license in any European country, and
b. an unarmed Zimmerman would have avoided a confrontation in the first place?

The presence of that gun that night saved no lives, in fact it took one and ruined another. The murder of Trayvon Martin is exactly the kind of escalation tragedy that a scarcity of guns avoids.
 
2012-12-29 07:18:24 PM

Silverstaff: Ontos: I'm pretty sure we kicked your asses in a couple of wars so we didn't have to hear the British lecture us about how we go about our lives....

Heck, we weren't even the only British colonies having that problem:

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest" - Mahatma Gandhi, from his book Gandhi, an Autobiography.

It's clear that the British culture abhors guns, and their government loves to take guns from those whom they govern. We aren't British, haven't been for well over 200 years.

Our overall culture is fairly similar to our cousins across the Atlantic, and most of the time and on most issues we are good friends, but with regards to guns, it's completely different, and we are not too tolerant of being lectured to about how we don't need guns, by the very people that we codified a right to bear arms in response to. Leave us be on this issue, or risk substantial public scorn (like Piers Morgan is discovering).


You keep using the term "we" yet I'm an American and think our gun laws are too permissive.
 
2012-12-29 07:19:05 PM

Ontos: snuff3r: TFA: "the british problem"

You know what you stupid American guntards, have you considered the fact that there a quite a few countries out there where the vast majority don't actually WANT people running around with guns. If you lot want to run around like asstard cowboys, have farking fun. If you seriously want to link gun ownership to freedom, youre a farking moron. Freedom is not being scared that someone is going to blow your head off whilst youre at the cinema. Freedom is not having to be constantly feeling that you're split seconds from having to defend yourselves.

We had our Newtown massacre and the country chose to ban general gun ownership. We've been happier since.

For those of us who own guns, the long and tedious process we have to go through is worth it.

I'm pretty sure we kicked your asses in a couple of wars so we didn't have to hear the British lecture us about how we go about our lives....


I'll be a US citizen by the time any gun control laws that come out of the Biden commission are voted on. In fact, it's a serious incentive to file the paperwork. If you don't like it, you'll have to come to Texas and bring a gun :)

I also plan to buy an AR15 by private sale when I get back just so I can document how appallingly easy it is for a non-citizen with no documented firearms safety training.

As the USA's parent country, it is enitrely our place to tell our brash little teen when he's being hotheaded and not wise, even if he can take us in a fight.
 
2012-12-29 07:20:05 PM

Silly Jesus: So much better to live in a society where someone can arm himself, go out and play vigilante, follow and interrogate a teenager in direct contravention of police instructions and then kill the teenager with the gun when the teenager has the audacity to defend himself from an aggressive man confronting him at night.

Hahahaha 2/10

That was horrible. I can't even count high enough to total up the incorrect information in that statement.


What do you believe is incorrect?

- that Zimmerman was armed?
- that Zimmerman decided to follow and confront a supposed suspicious character (ie: "play vigilante")?
- that Zimmerman followed Trayvon?
- that he did so despite being told by the police dispatcher that it was not necessary?
- that he killed Trayvon with his gun?
- that Trayvon, like anyone being followed by an armed person, had a right to defend themselves?

Which of these do you dispute?
 
2012-12-29 07:22:27 PM

ElBarto79: Silverstaff: Ontos: I'm pretty sure we kicked your asses in a couple of wars so we didn't have to hear the British lecture us about how we go about our lives....

Heck, we weren't even the only British colonies having that problem:

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest" - Mahatma Gandhi, from his book Gandhi, an Autobiography.

It's clear that the British culture abhors guns, and their government loves to take guns from those whom they govern. We aren't British, haven't been for well over 200 years.

Our overall culture is fairly similar to our cousins across the Atlantic, and most of the time and on most issues we are good friends, but with regards to guns, it's completely different, and we are not too tolerant of being lectured to about how we don't need guns, by the very people that we codified a right to bear arms in response to. Leave us be on this issue, or risk substantial public scorn (like Piers Morgan is discovering).

You keep using the term "we" yet I'm an American and think our gun laws are too permissive.


Also, I defy you to find anyone in the UK who doesn't think that Piers Morgan is the worst kind of bottom dwelling scum feeder imaginable. I am trying to think of someone in public life in the USA who is as much of a prick - I'd have to go with Fred Phelps or Wayne LaPierre.
 
2012-12-29 07:31:18 PM

shArkh: dr-shotgun: [citation not from TFA needed]

I'll bite: Americans are just bumfark retarded. European countries with guns have tiny crime-rates compared to you whackjobs. Scaling populations still embarrasses you, the homicide rate is truly disturbing to me. Go farking google "firearms homicide rates", pick your country of choice, and enjoy the citations. The firearm-related death rate is 40 times higher in the US than the UK. Oh, and your overall murder rates discounting those are four times higher too. Still feel safer? Oh I won't cherry-pick though, let's try a country where it's law for conscription-age men to own at home an assault-rifle and a semi-automatic handgun. Whoops, US citizens are still shooting and killing each other 3 times more than that (Switzerland fyi) Don't forget these are rates btw, so you're not allowed to b-b-but population-size.

So given the name, you're either a troll with paragraph-investment time on your hands (in which case gg) or you're just that thick, in which case please go and play with your toys and have an accident in a secure enclosed space so you don't hurt anyone else on the way out, unlike the psychopaths your cavalier attitudes have so freely and easily armed to come after everyone else.
/walk softly and carry an old heavy-duty maglite, perfectly legal to brain someone with


Just to be clear, Swiss conscripts do have the guns you described, but ALL the ammo is under lock and key at a government armory.
 
2012-12-29 07:34:45 PM

o5iiawah: ParaHandy: Don't reject the UK solution because it's merely 97.5% effective; a factor of 50 reduction in armed gang bangers is huge progress.

We dont reject the UK solution because it is 97.5 effective, we reject it because it is completely ineffective, with gun crime rising 40% after ownership was made illegal


1. Guns were already heavily restricted in the UK before 1997, including in fact every single measure I have proposed implementing in the US in the last few threads. This does highlight the fact that mass shootings are almost impossible to completely prevent, but also the fact that gun control works well for the more common problems - Zimmerman, the Philly dog shiat murder.

2. Even if there was a 40% rise (references? I suspect an artefact due to the change in data policy again) it was from a much lower baseline. Gun violence here today is one fortieth of what it is in the USA. The murder rate is one fifth. I don't think Americans (Kit Fister notwithstanding ;) are inherently that much more violent than we are.
 
2012-12-29 07:40:00 PM

ParaHandy: o5iiawah: ParaHandy: Don't reject the UK solution because it's merely 97.5% effective; a factor of 50 reduction in armed gang bangers is huge progress.

We dont reject the UK solution because it is 97.5 effective, we reject it because it is completely ineffective, with gun crime rising 40% after ownership was made illegal

1. Guns were already heavily restricted in the UK before 1997, including in fact every single measure I have proposed implementing in the US in the last few threads. This does highlight the fact that mass shootings are almost impossible to completely prevent, but also the fact that gun control works well for the more common problems - Zimmerman, the Philly dog shiat murder.

2. Even if there was a 40% rise (references? I suspect an artefact due to the change in data policy again) it was from a much lower baseline. Gun violence here today is one fortieth of what it is in the USA. The murder rate is one fifth. I don't think Americans (Kit Fister notwithstanding ;) are inherently that much more violent than we are.


And just what makes me violent, the fact that I think you're an annoying, pretentious douchebag notwithstanding?
 
2012-12-29 07:43:34 PM

ParaHandy: Ontos: snuff3r: TFA: "the british problem"

You know what you stupid American guntards, have you considered the fact that there a quite a few countries out there where the vast majority don't actually WANT people running around with guns. If you lot want to run around like asstard cowboys, have farking fun. If you seriously want to link gun ownership to freedom, youre a farking moron. Freedom is not being scared that someone is going to blow your head off whilst youre at the cinema. Freedom is not having to be constantly feeling that you're split seconds from having to defend yourselves.

We had our Newtown massacre and the country chose to ban general gun ownership. We've been happier since.

For those of us who own guns, the long and tedious process we have to go through is worth it.

I'm pretty sure we kicked your asses in a couple of wars so we didn't have to hear the British lecture us about how we go about our lives....

I'll be a US citizen by the time any gun control laws that come out of the Biden commission are voted on. In fact, it's a serious incentive to file the paperwork. If you don't like it, you'll have to come to Texas and bring a gun :)

I also plan to buy an AR15 by private sale when I get back just so I can document how appallingly easy it is for a non-citizen with no documented firearms safety training.

As the USA's parent country, it is enitrely our place to tell our brash little teen when he's being hotheaded and not wise, even if he can take us in a fight.


Okay, so you're planning to buy an AR15 by private sale as a non-citizen (though it's completely legal for you to do so as a permanent resident non-citizen with a green card), and this proves, what? That private citizens can buy and sell their own possessions? I don't call that "appallingly" easy. Also, doesn't it strike you as both prudent and the responsibility of the seller to verify citizenship and legal right to own (Not that i'm inherently against opening up NICS systems to allow private sales to use background checks and requiring them).

Also, no, it's not your place to tell us anything. We are our own country, and we are separate from you, with a couple hundred years of independent development to prove it.
 
2012-12-29 07:43:51 PM

ParaHandy:
I also plan to buy an AR15 by private sale when I get back just so I can document how appallingly easy it is for a non-citizen with no documented firearms safety training.


good luck with that... bring lots and lots of cash.
 
2012-12-29 07:44:33 PM

Silverstaff: Ontos: I'm pretty sure we kicked your asses in a couple of wars so we didn't have to hear the British lecture us about how we go about our lives....

Heck, we weren't even the only British colonies having that problem:

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest" - Mahatma Gandhi, from his book Gandhi, an Autobiography.

It's clear that the British culture abhors guns, and their government loves to take guns from those whom they govern. We aren't British, haven't been for well over 200 years.

Our overall culture is fairly similar to our cousins across the Atlantic, and most of the time and on most issues we are good friends, but with regards to guns, it's completely different, and we are not too tolerant of being lectured to about how we don't need guns, by the very people that we codified a right to bear arms in response to. Leave us be on this issue, or risk substantial public scorn (like Piers Morgan is discovering).


Given that Ghandi's goal was to overthrow colonial rule, I'm sure some guns would have made the process quicker, but the collapse of the Empire was inevitable, and he got his wish.

The last time the USA's territories were invaded was iirc the Aleutian Islands by the Japanese in WW2, and while the 2nd-amendmently-armed islanders could not stop them, the USA's official forces did. The Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands in 1982 played out the
same way.

/ your "well regulated militia" is neither well regulated nor effective
// the real discussion is private citizens' right to use guns responsibly balanced with other private citizens' right to life
 
2012-12-29 07:46:51 PM

ParaHandy: 1. I don't expect the gang bangers to comply. However, if their supply of guns dries up, eventually they will have less of them. Guns break. Guns fired in crimes have to be tossed.

2. If a gunshot goes off and it's not at a licensed range or designated hunting area, police should have the right to demand a report and explanation from the gun owner. If a gunshot goes off and there is no explanation, that should be PC for a search, and in any case the cops will just enter the premises and claim duy of care or some other exemption.


1. They don't exactly break very often. Quite the opposite. Why do guns fired in crimes have to be tossed?

2. Please tell me how the police are going to locate the exact location of the gunshot?
 
2012-12-29 07:48:22 PM

Xaneidolon: With freedom (in this case, the ability to defend yourself and your family) comes risk. The UK, generally, decided not to accept the risk and lose the freedom. In the US, we still would prefer to have the freedom knowing the risks.


But only when it comes to guns, funnily. The one "risk" you're willing to have in exchange for "freedom" is the toys that let little boys with masturbatory hero fantasies run around with woods in fatigues.

You scramble over yourselves to give up ANY OTHER FREEDOM because you don't want "risk". You stand like sheep to the slaughter in your airports, being groped and radiated. You allow your tyrannical government warrantless invasion of your privacy. You let them declare people outside Constitutional protection. You let them get away with torture and indefinite detention of people never proven guilty of a crime. You actually defend your government flagrantly establishing religion everywhere in public life.

But as long as you have your guns, you'll let all your other freedoms go without a fight. Because you have your GUNS! So you're FREE!

Your fantasies of defending yourself from your government with your guns are nothing but that - fantasies.
/How about you defend yourself by being a conscientious and politically active good citizen
 
2012-12-29 07:49:08 PM

Benjamin Orr: ParaHandy:
I also plan to buy an AR15 by private sale when I get back just so I can document how appallingly easy it is for a non-citizen with no documented firearms safety training.


good luck with that... bring lots and lots of cash.


I am thinking about $3k or less with a couple of clips, or am I way off?

I know it's 100% legal in TX, I checked with a friend in Austin who is a picture postcard model of a responsible gun owner (and not a member of the NRA); he did at least refuse to sell me his :)
 
2012-12-29 07:55:03 PM

ParaHandy: Benjamin Orr: ParaHandy:
I also plan to buy an AR15 by private sale when I get back just so I can document how appallingly easy it is for a non-citizen with no documented firearms safety training.


good luck with that... bring lots and lots of cash.

I am thinking about $3k or less with a couple of clips, or am I way off?

I know it's 100% legal in TX, I checked with a friend in Austin who is a picture postcard model of a responsible gun owner (and not a member of the NRA); he did at least refuse to sell me his :)


I am sure he decided not to sell you his AR because he thinks you are crazy and not because he wants to keep it and the value is steadily climbing.

3k or less depends on the exact model, the timing of when the sale is and what happens between now and then.
 
2012-12-29 07:59:08 PM

flsprtsgod: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" -- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good" -- George Washington

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188


Those quotes are only valid when considered in the time they were spoken. When there was no standing army and the government had to request volunteer "militias" to action when needed, their words made sense. Today, with a modern standing army with all the high tech equipment such a force is equipped with, their words are out of date and ludicrous.
 
2012-12-29 08:04:34 PM

Benjamin Orr: ParaHandy: 1. I don't expect the gang bangers to comply. However, if their supply of guns dries up, eventually they will have less of them. Guns break. Guns fired in crimes have to be tossed.

2. If a gunshot goes off and it's not at a licensed range or designated hunting area, police should have the right to demand a report and explanation from the gun owner. If a gunshot goes off and there is no explanation, that should be PC for a search, and in any case the cops will just enter the premises and claim duy of care or some other exemption.

1. They don't exactly break very often. Quite the opposite. Why do guns fired in crimes have to be tossed?

2. Please tell me how the police are going to locate the exact location of the gunshot?


1. I am not a gang banger, but iirc if the police recover shell casings from a crime scene, they will use ballistics to accuse you of that crime if they tie you to a later crime in which the same gun is used. Since guns are so easy to get, no sensible gangster keeps a tainted weapon. Do you know different?

2. Sometimes they won't. Sometimes there will be witnesses. Don't get hung up on it though, it wasn't a major point but rather something I observed as an aside ... once all gun owners are licensed, the gang bangers stand out more and it gives the police other legitimate lines of inquiry "No-one at your address has a gun license, so where'd the gunshot come from".

A similar side effect of guns being individually registered would be that cops would no longer be able to use planters. I'd be interested to know if you see that as a positive or not.

Personally, I don't trust American cops. I have had my 4th amendment rights infringed by APD, and I have been threatened with abuse of my rights by USCIS in Houston. There are countless examples of US cops committing felonies "under color of law" **on video** and not being charged with a crime. The famous "don't taze me bro" happened right here in Austin, and the cop wasn't even fired.

OTOH my ex wife went through a phase of driving through E Austin buying drugs from the street hoppers. In a silver Mercedes E430. Never once was she even yelled at. I kinda trust the bangers to keep the white folks out of it.
 
2012-12-29 08:06:31 PM

Bendal: flsprtsgod: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" -- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good" -- George Washington

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

Those quotes are only valid when considered in the time they were spoken. When there was no standing army and the government had to request volunteer "militias" to action when needed, their words made sense. Today, with a modern standing army with all the high tech equipment such a force is equipped with, their words are out of date and ludicrous.


Thank you for your opinion, though on that point we will agree to vehemently disagree.
 
2012-12-29 08:20:52 PM

ParaHandy:
1. I am not a gang banger, but iirc if the police recover shell casings from a crime scene, they will use ballistics to accuse you of that crime if they tie you to a later crime in which the same gun is used. Since guns are so easy to get, no sensible gangster keeps a tainted weapon. Do you know different?

2. Sometimes they won't. Sometimes there will be witnesses. Don't get hung up on it though, it wasn't a major point but rather something I observed as an aside ... once all gun owners are licensed, the gang bangers stand out more and it gives the police other legitimate lines of inquiry "No-one at your address has a gun license, so where'd the gunshot come from".

A similar side effect of guns being individually registered would be that cops would no longer be able to use planters. I'd be interested to know if you see that as a positive or not.

Personally, I don't trust American cops. I have had my 4th amendment rights infringed by APD, and I have been threatened with abuse of my rights by USCIS in Houston. There are countless examples of US cops committing felonies "under color of law" **on video** and not being charged with a crime. The famous "don't taze me bro" happened right here in Austin, and the cop wasn't eve ...


1a. You have been watching too many CSI shows on TV. Shell casings will tell you what kind of shell it was. Most of the time they can tell a range of guns that is was fired for. Several labs have been shut down for accuracy issues and flat out lying that they matched it to a specific gun. Of course they have to actually catch you with the gun first.

1b,. Guess you agree that guns last for a really long time now?

2. I guess all I can say is lol at this. Gunfire isn't that common even in the shiatholes of the US and they can't tell where it came from. The idea that this would ever help is pretty ludicrous.

Assuming that all of the guns would be registered is a huge assumption. Every time there has been a buyback/confiscation the vast majority of guns don't get turned in or registered (including the UK, Australia and Europe) Link

image from link

www.examiner.com
 
2012-12-29 08:25:06 PM

Benjamin Orr: ParaHandy: Benjamin Orr: ParaHandy:
I also plan to buy an AR15 by private sale when I get back just so I can document how appallingly easy it is for a non-citizen with no documented firearms safety training.


good luck with that... bring lots and lots of cash.

I am thinking about $3k or less with a couple of clips, or am I way off?

I know it's 100% legal in TX, I checked with a friend in Austin who is a picture postcard model of a responsible gun owner (and not a member of the NRA); he did at least refuse to sell me his :)

I am sure he decided not to sell you his AR because he thinks you are crazy and not because he wants to keep it and the value is steadily climbing.

3k or less depends on the exact model, the timing of when the sale is and what happens between now and then.


He knows I'm not crazy, and I did ask in a tongue-in-cheeck manner knowing he'd say no. His personal policy is to only sell guns via FFL's and then only to people who've had what he considers adequate training. His voluntary standards are what I'd like to see adopted as federal law. Kit Fister would have apoplexy at what my red blooded CCW holding barbecue eating range rat Texan colleague considers appropriate gun controls.

I'm sadly aware that the US gun market goes into overdrive after each massacre.

However, you do accept the point that at the present time, it's fairly easy for an unlicensed non-citizen in Texas with no training to obtain such a weapon without any kind of background or mental health checks.

The point of debate is whether that's a good thing or not. How about no?
 
2012-12-29 08:28:58 PM

Kit Fister: Bendal: flsprtsgod: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government" -- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good" -- George Washington

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

Those quotes are only valid when considered in the time they were spoken. When there was no standing army and the government had to request volunteer "militias" to action when needed, their words made sense. Today, with a modern standing army with all the high tech equipment such a force is equipped with, their words are out of date and ludicrous.

Thank you for your opinion, though on that point we will agree to vehemently disagree.


Care to elaborate on your statement? Please explain to me where my comments are incorrect. At the time the Bill of Rights was written, the US had no standing army nor was there any framework to create one in the Constitution. An armed citizenry was necessary in lieu of a permanent standing army if the government ever needed to field a ground military force again. Except, soon after the Constitution was ratified, the government began funding for the cadre of a small standing army, and expanded on that from then onward.

So, where's the justification for the 2nd Amendment when we've got two modern armies (USArmy & Marines) here to protect the country? Or do you think your home-owned pistols and rifles will overturn the government one day if necessary?
 
2012-12-29 08:31:34 PM
Fairly easily is entirely dependent on what you want to buy and who wants to sell them. The truth is people that want to cause harm are the extremely tiny minority and they will find a way to get guns. Either by theft or just getting them illegally off the street.

The number of people with legally purchased firearms that commit crimes is extremely low... it happens obviously but for the most part the person involved has in someway skirted the laws already on the books.

Yes there are things we can put in place like making all (legal) person to person sales go through a FFL. Still not going to stop most of these nutjobs since they already ignore most of the laws.
 
2012-12-29 08:36:20 PM

Bendal:
Care to elaborate on your statement? Please explain to me where my comments are incorrect. At the time the Bill of Rights was written, the US had no standing army nor was there any framework to create one in the Constitution. An armed citizenry was necessary in lieu of a permanent standing army if the government ever needed to field a ground military force again. Except, soon after the Constitution was ratified, the government began funding for the cadre of a small standing army, and expanded on that from then onward.

So, where's the justification for the 2nd Amendment when we've got two modern armies (USArmy & Marines) here to protect the country? Or do you think your home-owned pistols and rifles will overturn the government one day if necessary?


And yet all during the time that the government was creating the armed forces and then the national guard... they never attempted to abolish or change the 2nd amendment. Strange isn't it?

And we have all of the people who wrote the 2nd amendment on record saying that the people should be armed and that should never be taken away. Also very strange.
 
2012-12-29 08:39:07 PM

Benjamin Orr: ParaHandy:
1. I am not a gang banger, but iirc if the police recover shell casings from a crime scene, they will use ballistics to accuse you of that crime if they tie you to a later crime in which the same gun is used. Since guns are so easy to get, no sensible gangster keeps a tainted weapon. Do you know different?

2. Sometimes they won't. Sometimes there will be witnesses. Don't get hung up on it though, it wasn't a major point but rather something I observed as an aside ... once all gun owners are licensed, the gang bangers stand out more and it gives the police other legitimate lines of inquiry "No-one at your address has a gun license, so where'd the gunshot come from".

A similar side effect of guns being individually registered would be that cops would no longer be able to use planters. I'd be interested to know if you see that as a positive or not.

Personally, I don't trust American cops. I have had my 4th amendment rights infringed by APD, and I have been threatened with abuse of my rights by USCIS in Houston. There are countless examples of US cops committing felonies "under color of law" **on video** and not being charged with a crime. The famous "don't taze me bro" happened right here in Austin, and the cop wasn't eve ...

1a. You have been watching too many CSI shows on TV. Shell casings will tell you what kind of shell it was. Most of the time they can tell a range of guns that is was fired for. Several labs have been shut down for accuracy issues and flat out lying that they matched it to a specific gun. Of course they have to actually catch you with the gun first.

1b,. Guess you agree that guns last for a really long time now?

2. I guess all I can say is lol at this. Gunfire isn't that common even in the shiatholes of the US and they can't tell where it came from. The idea that this would ever help is pretty ludicrous.

Assuming that all of the guns would be registered is a huge assumption. Every time there has been a buyback/confiscation the vast majority of guns don't get turned in or registered (including the UK, Australia and Europe) Link

image from link


There seem to be 2-3 arguments against improving gun control:

1. It won't work in the USA ... we have too many guns already, buybacks don't work, etc. While there are no perfect solutions, it is not credible to suggest that every single one of these will have no positive effect at all.

2. It's my RIGHT to own guns, and even though I am a responsible gun owner, I demand that guns continue to be readily available to me (and hence also to irresponsible or dangerous people) without limitation, regardless of necessity or. the consequences.

3. I need my guns to overthrow the goverment in DC / a hypothetical invading force. This one is just delusional.

I only know one person in the UK with an illegal handgun. It's an old Webley revolver and he's 75 and lives in Belfast, and it hasn't ever been loaded.
 
2012-12-29 08:48:29 PM

Bendal: Care to elaborate on your statement? Please explain to me where my comments are incorrect. At the time the Bill of Rights was written, the US had no standing army nor was there any framework to create one in the Constitution. An armed citizenry was necessary in lieu of a permanent standing army if the government ever needed to field a ground military force again. Except, soon after the Constitution was ratified, the government began funding for the cadre of a small standing army, and expanded on that from then onward.

So, where's the justification for the 2nd Amendment when we've got two modern armies (USArmy & Marines) here to protect the country? Or do you think your home-owned pistols and rifles will overturn the government one day if necessary?


You presume the 2nd Amendment is merely about rising up against the government. It's not. The point of the 2nd Amendment also includes providing for the common defense of society -- that is, playing a role in defending one's home, self, and loved ones, as well as use in hunting.

The founding fathers never envisioned (and in point of fact went out of their way to make every attempt to prevent) a full time standing army, nor a militarized police force. This as a concept was neither considered nor even remotely dreamed of by the founding fathers. Whether or not the Unorganized Militia (as defined by the US Code) is the primary defense force of the US is irrelevant. A standing army, whether raised during time of war or kept standing by the government, provides for the *external defense* of the US, but is barred from acting within the US by the Posse Comitatus act (and I'm sure I spelled that wrong).

Internal defense until 1902 when the National Guard was formed, was provided by State organized Militias, and by the individual citizens themselves.

I would posit that the National Guard would fulfill the Organized Militia component of the US code, and armed Civilians as part of the Unorganized Militia.

Presuming the worst, should civil unrest or outbreak of violence happen here at home, as it did in LA in 92, while Police were stretched thin in their attempts to quell the riots, and before the National Guard could be put in place, in many neighborhoods, armed civilians provided for their own security (This is well documented in the form of news stories about Korean shop owners who held off looters from their shops, and from residents of LA during the riots). Neither the Police nor the National Guard were on hand and in force to provide 100% security to all sections of the city, and their goals were much more focused on larger urban areas and not protection of individual neighborhoods.

It is within this context, and the context of the US code, that the 2nd Amendment remains both viable AND prescient even today.

As another point of reference: Following Katrina with widespread looting and disorganization, along with a police force that had either fled or been immobilized, citizens again were required to provide for their own defense (until the cleanup operations started and the Mayor ordered firearms confiscation from lawful owners -- which was defeated in court.)

Other states and locales have recognized this right -- and duty -- of the inidividual citizen, and have passed supplementary laws regarding disposition of CCW permits and the like during declared emergencies.
 
2012-12-29 08:49:59 PM

ParaHandy: There seem to be 2-3 arguments against improving gun control:

1. It won't work in the USA ... we have too many guns already, buybacks don't work, etc. While there are no perfect solutions, it is not credible to suggest that every single one of these will have no positive effect at all.

2. It's my RIGHT to own guns, and even though I am a responsible gun owner, I demand that guns continue to be readily available to me (and hence also to irresponsible or dangerous people) without limitation, regardless of necessity or. the consequences.

3. I need my guns to overthrow the goverment in DC / a hypothetical invading force. This one is just delusional.

I only know one person in the UK with an illegal handgun. It's an old Webley revolver and he's 75 and lives in Belfast, and it hasn't ever been loaded.


The main issue is the definition of what improving gun control means. To a lot of people it means outright bans or heavy restrictions that will only impact law abiding citizens. To some it means enforcing the laws we already have on the books. In my opinion (and a lot of others apparently) - restricting lawful use will not impact the number of deaths.

The reality is that the drug war and the income inequality in the US cause quite a bit of the violence and homicides that people love to use to try and justify banning guns... usually when a mass shooting happens by a crazy person. Everybody is apparently okay with gang members shooting other gang members... which happens all the time and counts for most of the issue.

Even though other "civilized" countries have their fair share of illegal guns already they never had as many as the US. They also don't have our drug war (civilized countries), our generations of people that are okay with killing others or our massive porous borders.
 
2012-12-29 08:50:28 PM

Benjamin Orr: Fairly easily is entirely dependent on what you want to buy and who wants to sell them. The truth is people that want to cause harm are the extremely tiny minority and they will find a way to get guns. Either by theft or just getting them illegally off the street.

The number of people with legally purchased firearms that commit crimes is extremely low... it happens obviously but for the most part the person involved has in someway skirted the laws already on the books.

Yes there are things we can put in place like making all (legal) person to person sales go through a FFL. Still not going to stop most of these nutjobs since they already ignore most of the laws.


I also want positive tracking, so that people "skirting laws already on the books" find it harder to obtain and retain firearms.

JN1AR5F429X22347 uniquely indetifies a car that traces directly back to me in government records, and not its original owner in Ohio. I have to account for its whereabouts annually and produce it for a safety inspection. If I dispose of it by private sale I have to report the new owner's info to the government.

Doing the same with guns will not stop a determined nut job, but will keep a lot of them out of the hands of casual idiots. Again, it's not a black and white 100-0 thing, it's about saving a meaningful number of lives through reasoned measures in an actuarially sane manner.
 
2012-12-29 08:55:08 PM

ParaHandy: There seem to be 2-3 arguments against improving gun control:

1. It won't work in the USA ... we have too many guns already, buybacks don't work, etc. While there are no perfect solutions, it is not credible to suggest that every single one of these will have no positive effect at all.

2. It's my RIGHT to own guns, and even though I am a responsible gun owner, I demand that guns continue to be readily available to me (and hence also to irresponsible or dangerous people) without limitation, regardless of necessity or. the consequences.

3. I need my guns to overthrow the goverment in DC / a hypothetical invading force. This one is just delusional.

I only know one person in the UK with an illegal handgun. It's an old Webley revolver and he's 75 and lives in Belfast, and it hasn't ever been loaded.


You continue to make this mistake. Most gun owners are not against improvements to the methods by which guns are controlled and made available, as has been stated repeatedly in other threads. What we're against is the type of draconian measures you push for along with improved controls, such as arbitrarily limiting the type and calibers of firearms available. This is what we do not agree with.

We are happy to work with more stringent requirements and controls (provided that existing laws and controls on the books are more stringently enforced, including the increased frequency of prosecution of criminals violating existing laws), but we are not willing to accept arbitrary limitations set by those not familiar with firearms.

We have accepted the implementation of the NFA act and controls, which restrict certain types of weapons and control others, because we recognize those specialized weapons and items (With the blatant exception of a suppressor) are items that should be controlled. We have accepted the NICS system, and we push hard for improving both the reporting process AND the availability of data from states for inclusion in the NICS system to prevent criminals from buying guns.

I'm sure we're pretty much all on the same page with better methods of tracking weapons (I don't understand why the ATF can't simply make the 4473 paperwork an online form that saves all the pertinent data on the form into a database that is then searchable by serial number of firearm...). Makes it faster for me because then I don't have to deal with all sorts of paperwork and whatnot, plus it eliminates the tons of stored records that I have to keep on file until the dissolution of my business.

So, why is it so hard for you to accept that maybe there are ways of improving controls that don;'t involve restrictions on type and caliber?
 
2012-12-29 08:58:47 PM
And just in case ParaHandy has me on ignore, once again for his benefit:

You continue to make this mistake. Most gun owners are not against improvements to the methods by which guns are controlled and made available, as has been stated repeatedly in other threads. What we're against is the type of draconian measures you push for along with improved controls, such as arbitrarily limiting the type and calibers of firearms available. This is what we do not agree with.

We are happy to work with more stringent requirements and controls (provided that existing laws and controls on the books are more stringently enforced, including the increased frequency of prosecution of criminals violating existing laws), but we are not willing to accept arbitrary limitations set by those not familiar with firearms.

We have accepted the implementation of the NFA act and controls, which restrict certain types of weapons and control others, because we recognize those specialized weapons and items (With the blatant exception of a suppressor) are items that should be controlled. We have accepted the NICS system, and we push hard for improving both the reporting process AND the availability of data from states for inclusion in the NICS system to prevent criminals from buying guns.

I'm sure we're pretty much all on the same page with better methods of tracking weapons (I don't understand why the ATF can't simply make the 4473 paperwork an online form that saves all the pertinent data on the form into a database that is then searchable by serial number of firearm...). Makes it faster for me because then I don't have to deal with all sorts of paperwork and whatnot, plus it eliminates the tons of stored records that I have to keep on file until the dissolution of my business.

So, why is it so hard for you to accept that maybe there are ways of improving controls that don;'t involve restrictions on type and caliber?
 
2012-12-29 09:00:48 PM

ParaHandy: Benjamin Orr: Fairly easily is entirely dependent on what you want to buy and who wants to sell them. The truth is people that want to cause harm are the extremely tiny minority and they will find a way to get guns. Either by theft or just getting them illegally off the street.

The number of people with legally purchased firearms that commit crimes is extremely low... it happens obviously but for the most part the person involved has in someway skirted the laws already on the books.

Yes there are things we can put in place like making all (legal) person to person sales go through a FFL. Still not going to stop most of these nutjobs since they already ignore most of the laws.

I also want positive tracking, so that people "skirting laws already on the books" find it harder to obtain and retain firearms.

JN1AR5F429X22347 uniquely indetifies a car that traces directly back to me in government records, and not its original owner in Ohio. I have to account for its whereabouts annually and produce it for a safety inspection. If I dispose of it by private sale I have to report the new owner's info to the government.

Doing the same with guns will not stop a determined nut job, but will keep a lot of them out of the hands of casual idiots. Again, it's not a black and white 100-0 thing, it's about saving a meaningful number of lives through reasoned measures in an actuarially sane manner.


Casual idiots are not the problem... they are not shooting up schools/malls/etc. Its the criminals and nutjobs that we have to worry about. The ones that already have no legal right to own the guns that they use.

Getting people to report everything to the government is just a lost cause. The only people that will abide by that are the people who are never going to cause problems. You will also have a relatively large percentage of people who just ignore registration efforts since they are almost always followed up by confiscation.
 
2012-12-29 09:01:27 PM

Benjamin Orr: ParaHandy: There seem to be 2-3 arguments against improving gun control:

1. It won't work in the USA ... we have too many guns already, buybacks don't work, etc. While there are no perfect solutions, it is not credible to suggest that every single one of these will have no positive effect at all.

2. It's my RIGHT to own guns, and even though I am a responsible gun owner, I demand that guns continue to be readily available to me (and hence also to irresponsible or dangerous people) without limitation, regardless of necessity or. the consequences.

3. I need my guns to overthrow the goverment in DC / a hypothetical invading force. This one is just delusional.

I only know one person in the UK with an illegal handgun. It's an old Webley revolver and he's 75 and lives in Belfast, and it hasn't ever been loaded.

The main issue is the definition of what improving gun control means. To a lot of people it means outright bans or heavy restrictions that will only impact law abiding citizens. To some it means enforcing the laws we already have on the books. In my opinion (and a lot of others apparently) - restricting lawful use will not impact the number of deaths.

The reality is that the drug war and the income inequality in the US cause quite a bit of the violence and homicides that people love to use to try and justify banning guns... usually when a mass shooting happens by a crazy person. Everybody is apparently okay with gang members shooting other gang members... which happens all the time and counts for most of the issue.

Even though other "civilized" countries have their fair share of illegal guns already they never had as many as the US. They also don't have our drug war (civilized countries), our generations of people that are okay with killing others or our massive porous borders.


Our drug laws are almost as asinine as yours. The current UK Conservative government wants to reclassify weed back up from C to B (cf speed, acid), on the argument that imported Dutch strains are strong enough to be hallucinogenic. The civilian government science advisory panel resigned en masse calling it bullshiat and saying that the facts were ignored (they were). "Negroes will rape your white women" marketing is alive and well in the spavined minds of the right here too.

The War on Drugs(tm) is indeed the fuel for much violence. Legalize, regulate, tax. No brainer. Mentally, I was taking that as a given, and focusing on non-gang related gun violence. We agree 100% here.

I also think US society would be improved if the class and poverty gap was reduced - it's far larger than in any European country that still has an aristorcracy.
 
2012-12-29 09:03:18 PM

Benjamin Orr: ParaHandy: Benjamin Orr: Fairly easily is entirely dependent on what you want to buy and who wants to sell them. The truth is people that want to cause harm are the extremely tiny minority and they will find a way to get guns. Either by theft or just getting them illegally off the street.

The number of people with legally purchased firearms that commit crimes is extremely low... it happens obviously but for the most part the person involved has in someway skirted the laws already on the books.

Yes there are things we can put in place like making all (legal) person to person sales go through a FFL. Still not going to stop most of these nutjobs since they already ignore most of the laws.

I also want positive tracking, so that people "skirting laws already on the books" find it harder to obtain and retain firearms.

JN1AR5F429X22347 uniquely indetifies a car that traces directly back to me in government records, and not its original owner in Ohio. I have to account for its whereabouts annually and produce it for a safety inspection. If I dispose of it by private sale I have to report the new owner's info to the government.

Doing the same with guns will not stop a determined nut job, but will keep a lot of them out of the hands of casual idiots. Again, it's not a black and white 100-0 thing, it's about saving a meaningful number of lives through reasoned measures in an actuarially sane manner.

Casual idiots are not the problem... they are not shooting up schools/malls/etc. Its the criminals and nutjobs that we have to worry about. The ones that already have no legal right to own the guns that they use.

Getting people to report everything to the government is just a lost cause. The only people that will abide by that are the people who are never going to cause problems. You will also have a relatively large percentage of people who just ignore registration efforts since they are almost always followed up by confiscation.


Substitute "Nancy Lanza" for casual idiot.
 
2012-12-29 09:04:41 PM

Kit Fister: I would posit that the National Guard would fulfill the Organized Militia component of the US code, and armed Civilians as part of the Unorganized Militia.


The Militia Act of 1903 agrees with you. The National Guard is the Organized Militia, the Unorganized Militia is all male citizens and permanent residents between the ages of 17 and 45, as well as all females who are members of the National Guard.

However, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), has made it clear that in US Constitutional Law, the right to bear arms is separate from service in a militia.
 
2012-12-29 09:04:51 PM
I have yet to have any motor vehicle confiscated by any government, albeit there have been cops of both sides of the Atlantic who wanted to :)
 
2012-12-29 09:06:12 PM

ParaHandy: Substitute "Nancy Lanza" for casual idiot.


And what exact law would you propose that would have stopped her from getting those guns? And what law would have prevented her son from killing her and taking those guns?
 
2012-12-29 09:07:38 PM

ParaHandy: I have yet to have any motor vehicle confiscated by any government, albeit there have been cops of both sides of the Atlantic who wanted to :)


:)

You know that I meant firearms registration. It has already happened many times in the US and people aren't very trusting when they say it will never happen again.
 
2012-12-29 09:11:32 PM

ParaHandy: Our drug laws are almost as asinine as yours. The current UK Conservative government wants to reclassify weed back up from C to B (cf speed, acid), on the argument that imported Dutch strains are strong enough to be hallucinogenic. The civilian government science advisory panel resigned en masse calling it bullshiat and saying that the facts were ignored (they were). "Negroes will rape your white women" marketing is alive and well in the spavined minds of the right here too.

The War on Drugs(tm) is indeed the fuel for much violence. Legalize, regulate, tax. No brainer. Mentally, I was taking that as a given, and focusing on non-gang related gun violence. We agree 100% here.

I also think US society would be improved if the class and poverty gap was reduced - it's far larger than in any European country that still has an aristorcracy.


The problem is the US is currently a nation of extremes and most of the people that see the sense in legalizing drugs (or fixing the poverty gap) are for heavy gun control/bans.... and most of the people that are for the drug war are against gun bans (and fixing the poverty gap).
 
2012-12-29 09:20:17 PM

Benjamin Orr: ParaHandy: Our drug laws are almost as asinine as yours. The current UK Conservative government wants to reclassify weed back up from C to B (cf speed, acid), on the argument that imported Dutch strains are strong enough to be hallucinogenic. The civilian government science advisory panel resigned en masse calling it bullshiat and saying that the facts were ignored (they were). "Negroes will rape your white women" marketing is alive and well in the spavined minds of the right here too.

The War on Drugs(tm) is indeed the fuel for much violence. Legalize, regulate, tax. No brainer. Mentally, I was taking that as a given, and focusing on non-gang related gun violence. We agree 100% here.

I also think US society would be improved if the class and poverty gap was reduced - it's far larger than in any European country that still has an aristorcracy.

The problem is the US is currently a nation of extremes and most of the people that see the sense in legalizing drugs (or fixing the poverty gap) are for heavy gun control/bans.... and most of the people that are for the drug war are against gun bans (and fixing the poverty gap).


Well, how about we start a pro-gun, pro-weed party? I'd be OK with that.
 
2012-12-29 09:26:51 PM

Bravo Two: And just in case ParaHandy has me on ignore, once again for his benefit:

You continue to make this mistake. Most gun owners are not against improvements to the methods by which guns are controlled and made available, as has been stated repeatedly in other threads. What we're against is the type of draconian measures you push for along with improved controls, such as arbitrarily limiting the type and calibers of firearms available. This is what we do not agree with.

We are happy to work with more stringent requirements and controls (provided that existing laws and controls on the books are more stringently enforced, including the increased frequency of prosecution of criminals violating existing laws), but we are not willing to accept arbitrary limitations set by those not familiar with firearms.

We have accepted the implementation of the NFA act and controls, which restrict certain types of weapons and control others, because we recognize those specialized weapons and items (With the blatant exception of a suppressor) are items that should be controlled. We have accepted the NICS system, and we push hard for improving both the reporting process AND the availability of data from states for inclusion in the NICS system to prevent criminals from buying guns.

I'm sure we're pretty much all on the same page with better methods of tracking weapons (I don't understand why the ATF can't simply make the 4473 paperwork an online form that saves all the pertinent data on the form into a database that is then searchable by serial number of firearm...). Makes it faster for me because then I don't have to deal with all sorts of paperwork and whatnot, plus it eliminates the tons of stored records that I have to keep on file until the dissolution of my business.

So, why is it so hard for you to accept that maybe there are ways of improving controls that don;'t involve restrictions on type and caliber?


I've been switching focus toward advocating more for controls and less for gun types; my gut reaction to Newtow was "no-one NEEDS a smei-automatic machine gun" but I see the private sale loophole as a far bigger priority. I still want to know how French farmers control feral hogs :)

I had thought you were against registration, on the "government will come for my guns" grounds.

I still would also like to see some realistic attempt at mitigating massacres like Newtown; UK gun controls would have in this case, as Nancy Lanza would not have been allowed to have any guns. In the general case, if there are legal firearms (and I think we all agree there will be) then the only way to mitigate is to control weapon type. Limiting clips to 10 rounds won't cut it, we'd have to go down to single shot systems like bolt actions and traditional shotguns, and that would be a hard sell.

More murders in the USA are carried out with handguns than all other means from AR15's to arsenic combined, and that is a large opportunity to improve.

I had looked at the bottom up approach of saying "what's the minimum amount of gun types that will cover sporting uses" and concluded that shotguns, bolt actions and single-load target carbines would cover it, but alas it will be a long time before we get to the point where the idea of a firearm for home defence in the USA becomes as obsolete as the 2nd amendment purpose.

The assault weapons ban was pointless
 
2012-12-29 09:30:13 PM
PS I don't have an ignore list, on principle :)

One thing about the assault weapon ban: it occurred to me one possible goal was to make guns less cool and hence reduce the appeal to the Rambo wannabees. Is this the case?
 
2012-12-29 09:37:05 PM

ParaHandy: I still would also like to see some realistic attempt at mitigating massacres like Newtown; UK gun controls would have in this case, as Nancy Lanza would not have been allowed to have any guns. In the general case, if there are legal firearms (and I think we all agree there will be) then the only way to mitigate is to control weapon type. Limiting clips to 10 rounds won't cut it, we'd have to go down to single shot systems like bolt actions and traditional shotguns, and that would be a hard sell.


Why do you think that? The Cumbria mass shooting took place in 2010... well after the more restrictive UK gun control laws were passed... and yet he still killed 12 people and injured 11. He could have killed a lot more but he screwed around between shootings.

Both of the guns (shotgun and rifle) he used were legally owned and registered.
 
2012-12-29 09:38:51 PM

Benjamin Orr: ParaHandy: I have yet to have any motor vehicle confiscated by any government, albeit there have been cops of both sides of the Atlantic who wanted to :)

:)

You know that I meant firearms registration. It has already happened many times in the US and people aren't very trusting when they say it will never happen again.


I know what you meant - I was making the example that just because something is registered doesn't mean the government de facto plans to seize it later.

I'd like to see the level of violent crimes in the USA reduced to the point where you and my colleague James would both be thinking "I really don't need this AR15 in my home"

Btw, he got into guns at age 25 when he was an up close and personal witness to an armed robbery. Having never had a gun pointed at me, I can't second guess his fears. He has made a positive hobby out of it, for sure. He does keep guns in the house, but they are secured and he doesn't have children.
 
2012-12-29 09:39:57 PM

ParaHandy: PS I don't have an ignore list, on principle :)

One thing about the assault weapon ban: it occurred to me one possible goal was to make guns less cool and hence reduce the appeal to the Rambo wannabees. Is this the case?


Nope. The point of the gun ban was a knee-jerk reaction by the Clintons et al and had little if anything to do with their being "cool" and trying to dispel that idea. It was merely a gut reaction.

I've stated what I'm OK with, and I think there are a lot of gun owners who agree with me. However we will never agree to the types of limitations you propose, and if our choices are to move away from groups like the NRA and end up with people passing laws like the kind you favor, or supporting the NRA and how they approach things to mitigate that, then we'll just keep supporting the NRA.

This is, again, the point we try to get across: we are all in favor of controlling access in some ways, but we're not about to accept a deep restriction on the types of firearms.

Besides, your list of sporting purposes fails to include:

- High Power Rifle long range competition
- 3Gun competition
- IDPA/IPSC handgun competition
- Bullseye Handgun competition
- SAS Competition
- Cowboy Mounted Action Shooting

and a host of other sporting events that use firearms that would not be included in your types of guns allowed.
 
2012-12-29 09:42:10 PM

ParaHandy: PS I don't have an ignore list, on principle :)

One thing about the assault weapon ban: it occurred to me one possible goal was to make guns less cool and hence reduce the appeal to the Rambo wannabees. Is this the case?


Not really... they didn't actually ban the look, just some exact models (which people just made "new" models of that were legal) and some specific features that did not change how lethal the guns were. Yes it theoretically "limited" magazine capacity... but since every one that previously existed was still legal the real impact was non-existent.

Like you have already said the vast majority of gun deaths are caused by handguns (and social/economic issues) and the AWB did little to nothing to address that.
 
2012-12-29 09:43:30 PM

Benjamin Orr: ParaHandy: I still would also like to see some realistic attempt at mitigating massacres like Newtown; UK gun controls would have in this case, as Nancy Lanza would not have been allowed to have any guns. In the general case, if there are legal firearms (and I think we all agree there will be) then the only way to mitigate is to control weapon type. Limiting clips to 10 rounds won't cut it, we'd have to go down to single shot systems like bolt actions and traditional shotguns, and that would be a hard sell.

Why do you think that? The Cumbria mass shooting took place in 2010... well after the more restrictive UK gun control laws were passed... and yet he still killed 12 people and injured 11. He could have killed a lot more but he screwed around between shootings.

Both of the guns (shotgun and rifle) he used were legally owned and registered.


Indeed, as we observe no controls can completely prevent this kind of thing.
 
2012-12-29 09:47:19 PM
Ohhh I see. America the beautiful has had yet another mass shooting and the gun nuts are getting antsy about their right to bear automatic weapons that can wipe out a room full of people in a couple of minutes, so they've had to go with the old "Britain disarmed her civilians and now it's a hellish crime black spot where yobs roam the streets like savages without fear of the law and civilised people are afraid to go outside after dark" defence despite the fact that its a completely inaccurate view of the UK and you're five times more likely to die a violent death in the gun toting, security conscious USA.

I know an Irish person should love pointing out the UK's shortcomings and all, but... seriously? You're trying to claim that Britain is more dangerous than America? Seriously?
 
2012-12-29 09:52:11 PM

ParaHandy: Benjamin Orr: ParaHandy: I have yet to have any motor vehicle confiscated by any government, albeit there have been cops of both sides of the Atlantic who wanted to :)

:)

You know that I meant firearms registration. It has already happened many times in the US and people aren't very trusting when they say it will never happen again.

I know what you meant - I was making the example that just because something is registered doesn't mean the government de facto plans to seize it later.

I'd like to see the level of violent crimes in the USA reduced to the point where you and my colleague James would both be thinking "I really don't need this AR15 in my home"

Btw, he got into guns at age 25 when he was an up close and personal witness to an armed robbery. Having never had a gun pointed at me, I can't second guess his fears. He has made a positive hobby out of it, for sure. He does keep guns in the house, but they are secured and he doesn't have children.


Except that the reality is that registration in the US usually ends up with confiscation.

I would like a unicorn and a harem of young twins to service my every need. Not really sure which one of us is going to get our wish first.

I have guns (including AR15s) because

1) Shooting is fun and challenging

2) Occasional hunting trips

3) My city has been at or near the top of the country for homicides and violent crimes for as long as I can remember.

I have two daughters and they know far more about gun safety than the average adult does. My youngest has no interest in learning how to shoot and I have not forced her. She does know they are not toys and are not to be touched... ever. She isn't afraid of their presence either.

My oldest knows how to shoot very well, but she also knows to never touch them without my permission and direct supervision.

Most of them are locked up at any given time but there is always one available in the admittedly rare chance we need it. Better to have it available and never use it (much better obviously) than the reverse.
 
2012-12-29 09:53:39 PM

ParaHandy: Benjamin Orr: ParaHandy: I still would also like to see some realistic attempt at mitigating massacres like Newtown; UK gun controls would have in this case, as Nancy Lanza would not have been allowed to have any guns. In the general case, if there are legal firearms (and I think we all agree there will be) then the only way to mitigate is to control weapon type. Limiting clips to 10 rounds won't cut it, we'd have to go down to single shot systems like bolt actions and traditional shotguns, and that would be a hard sell.

Why do you think that? The Cumbria mass shooting took place in 2010... well after the more restrictive UK gun control laws were passed... and yet he still killed 12 people and injured 11. He could have killed a lot more but he screwed around between shootings.

Both of the guns (shotgun and rifle) he used were legally owned and registered.

Indeed, as we observe no controls can completely prevent this kind of thing.


Yes,. but you said the UK controls would have stopped Newtown. When it is pretty clear that they would not have.
 
2012-12-29 09:55:27 PM

DesktopHippie: Ohhh I see. America the beautiful has had yet another mass shooting and the gun nuts are getting antsy about their right to bear automatic weapons that can wipe out a room full of people in a couple of minutes, so they've had to go with the old "Britain disarmed her civilians and now it's a hellish crime black spot where yobs roam the streets like savages without fear of the law and civilised people are afraid to go outside after dark" defence despite the fact that its a completely inaccurate view of the UK and you're five times more likely to die a violent death in the gun toting, security conscious USA.

I know an Irish person should love pointing out the UK's shortcomings and all, but... seriously? You're trying to claim that Britain is more dangerous than America? Seriously?


nialler9.com
 
2012-12-29 09:56:38 PM

Kit Fister: ParaHandy: PS I don't have an ignore list, on principle :)

One thing about the assault weapon ban: it occurred to me one possible goal was to make guns less cool and hence reduce the appeal to the Rambo wannabees. Is this the case?

Nope. The point of the gun ban was a knee-jerk reaction by the Clintons et al and had little if anything to do with their being "cool" and trying to dispel that idea. It was merely a gut reaction.

I've stated what I'm OK with, and I think there are a lot of gun owners who agree with me. However we will never agree to the types of limitations you propose, and if our choices are to move away from groups like the NRA and end up with people passing laws like the kind you favor, or supporting the NRA and how they approach things to mitigate that, then we'll just keep supporting the NRA.

This is, again, the point we try to get across: we are all in favor of controlling access in some ways, but we're not about to accept a deep restriction on the types of firearms.

Besides, your list of sporting purposes fails to include:

- High Power Rifle long range competition
- 3Gun competition
- IDPA/IPSC handgun competition
- Bullseye Handgun competition
- SAS Competition
- Cowboy Mounted Action Shooting

and a host of other sporting events that use firearms that would not be included in your types of guns allowed.


I'm not an expert on gun sports. I missed a few.

People who are into that kind of thing are moderate in number, aren't a high risk and are generally excellent at gun safety. People like me aren't the problem with fast cars. :)

Handgun tournaments only exist because handguns are ubiquitous, and I could make the case that if generally owned guns were sporting only then there really wouldn't be demand for competitve handgun shooting. Precision shooting requires a rifle with a barrel.

How about a competitve shooting license with wider range of guns allowed than a hunter's license, and consummmately higher training / range time requirements? This would be a no-op for any competitve shooter.

In Europe, the solution is that you leave these guns at the range.
 
2012-12-29 10:00:51 PM

Benjamin Orr: ParaHandy: Benjamin Orr: ParaHandy: I still would also like to see some realistic attempt at mitigating massacres like Newtown; UK gun controls would have in this case, as Nancy Lanza would not have been allowed to have any guns. In the general case, if there are legal firearms (and I think we all agree there will be) then the only way to mitigate is to control weapon type. Limiting clips to 10 rounds won't cut it, we'd have to go down to single shot systems like bolt actions and traditional shotguns, and that would be a hard sell.

Why do you think that? The Cumbria mass shooting took place in 2010... well after the more restrictive UK gun control laws were passed... and yet he still killed 12 people and injured 11. He could have killed a lot more but he screwed around between shootings.

Both of the guns (shotgun and rifle) he used were legally owned and registered.

Indeed, as we observe no controls can completely prevent this kind of thing.

Yes,. but you said the UK controls would have stopped Newtown. When it is pretty clear that they would not have.


Can you take out 26 people in 3 minutes with a shotgun and a rifle? The Cumbria shooter travelled 15 miles to kill 12 people, and it took him most of a day, travelling from place to place and shooting a small number of people before moving on.
 
2012-12-29 10:02:09 PM

ParaHandy: Handgun tournaments only exist because handguns are ubiquitous, and I could make the case that if generally owned guns were sporting only then there really wouldn't be demand for competitve handgun shooting. Precision shooting requires a rifle with a barrel.


ummm... how about no?

Precision shooting from a distance is greatly helped by a rifle (a proper one). There are tons of precision shooting drills/competitions designed specifically for handguns.

But none of this really matters imo since competition/sports isn't really needed as an excuse to own firearms in the US.
 
2012-12-29 10:02:24 PM

Benjamin Orr: DesktopHippie: Ohhh I see. America the beautiful has had yet another mass shooting and the gun nuts are getting antsy about their right to bear automatic weapons that can wipe out a room full of people in a couple of minutes, so they've had to go with the old "Britain disarmed her civilians and now it's a hellish crime black spot where yobs roam the streets like savages without fear of the law and civilised people are afraid to go outside after dark" defence despite the fact that its a completely inaccurate view of the UK and you're five times more likely to die a violent death in the gun toting, security conscious USA.

I know an Irish person should love pointing out the UK's shortcomings and all, but... seriously? You're trying to claim that Britain is more dangerous than America? Seriously?

[nialler9.com image 485x327]


Great. Now I have "Horse Outside" stuck in my head...
 
2012-12-29 10:02:51 PM

ParaHandy: Kit Fister: ParaHandy: PS I don't have an ignore list, on principle :)

One thing about the assault weapon ban: it occurred to me one possible goal was to make guns less cool and hence reduce the appeal to the Rambo wannabees. Is this the case?

Nope. The point of the gun ban was a knee-jerk reaction by the Clintons et al and had little if anything to do with their being "cool" and trying to dispel that idea. It was merely a gut reaction.

I've stated what I'm OK with, and I think there are a lot of gun owners who agree with me. However we will never agree to the types of limitations you propose, and if our choices are to move away from groups like the NRA and end up with people passing laws like the kind you favor, or supporting the NRA and how they approach things to mitigate that, then we'll just keep supporting the NRA.

This is, again, the point we try to get across: we are all in favor of controlling access in some ways, but we're not about to accept a deep restriction on the types of firearms.

Besides, your list of sporting purposes fails to include:

- High Power Rifle long range competition
- 3Gun competition
- IDPA/IPSC handgun competition
- Bullseye Handgun competition
- SAS Competition
- Cowboy Mounted Action Shooting

and a host of other sporting events that use firearms that would not be included in your types of guns allowed.

I'm not an expert on gun sports. I missed a few.

People who are into that kind of thing are moderate in number, aren't a high risk and are generally excellent at gun safety. People like me aren't the problem with fast cars. :)

Handgun tournaments only exist because handguns are ubiquitous, and I could make the case that if generally owned guns were sporting only then there really wouldn't be demand for competitve handgun shooting. Precision shooting requires a rifle with a barrel.

How about a competitve shooting license with wider range of guns allowed than a hunter's license, and consummmately higher training / range time r ...


Sorry, brother, I'm just going to disagree with you and fight even harder against your ilk.

Accurate shooting with a handgun is 10x as challenging as any long range shooting with a rifle. I know, I've done both. Being sub-1" accurate at 50-100 yards with a handgun is no mean feat, and there are a lot of people that enjoy that kind of shooting.

As to handgun competitions, people like to shoot them because they're a challenge, similar to auto racing. SUre, they may be "moderate in number", but they include competitors from all over the world, *including* Australia and Britain, so lack of availability hasn't stopped that from happening.

Anyway, I'm sorry you see no alternatives but restriction on types. i guess we can't agree to understand each other and work on what we can agree on, so I'll look forward to opposing you at every turn.
 
2012-12-29 10:03:47 PM

DesktopHippie: Benjamin Orr: ParaHandy: Benjamin Orr: ParaHandy: I still would also like to see some realistic attempt at mitigating massacres like Newtown; UK gun controls would have in this case, as Nancy Lanza would not have been allowed to have any guns. In the general case, if there are legal firearms (and I think we all agree there will be) then the only way to mitigate is to control weapon type. Limiting clips to 10 rounds won't cut it, we'd have to go down to single shot systems like bolt actions and traditional shotguns, and that would be a hard sell.

Why do you think that? The Cumbria mass shooting took place in 2010... well after the more restrictive UK gun control laws were passed... and yet he still killed 12 people and injured 11. He could have killed a lot more but he screwed around between shootings.

Both of the guns (shotgun and rifle) he used were legally owned and registered.

Indeed, as we observe no controls can completely prevent this kind of thing.

Yes,. but you said the UK controls would have stopped Newtown. When it is pretty clear that they would not have.

Can you take out 26 people in 3 minutes with a shotgun and a rifle? The Cumbria shooter travelled 15 miles to kill 12 people, and it took him most of a day, travelling from place to place and shooting a small number of people before moving on.


Go away, adults are talking.
 
2012-12-29 10:06:41 PM

DesktopHippie: Can you take out 26 people in 3 minutes with a shotgun and a rifle? The Cumbria shooter travelled 15 miles to kill 12 people, and it took him most of a day, travelling from place to place and shooting a small number of people before moving on.


Sigh... first off it was 10 minutes and not 3.

Secondly... his rifle was more than capable of shooting that many people in a concentrated space and had the exact same rate of fire as the AR15 does.... the exact same rate of fire... which is as fast as you can pull the trigger.
 
2012-12-29 10:07:04 PM

Kit Fister: DesktopHippie: Benjamin Orr: ParaHandy: Benjamin Orr: ParaHandy: I still would also like to see some realistic attempt at mitigating massacres like Newtown; UK gun controls would have in this case, as Nancy Lanza would not have been allowed to have any guns. In the general case, if there are legal firearms (and I think we all agree there will be) then the only way to mitigate is to control weapon type. Limiting clips to 10 rounds won't cut it, we'd have to go down to single shot systems like bolt actions and traditional shotguns, and that would be a hard sell.

Why do you think that? The Cumbria mass shooting took place in 2010... well after the more restrictive UK gun control laws were passed... and yet he still killed 12 people and injured 11. He could have killed a lot more but he screwed around between shootings.

Both of the guns (shotgun and rifle) he used were legally owned and registered.

Indeed, as we observe no controls can completely prevent this kind of thing.

Yes,. but you said the UK controls would have stopped Newtown. When it is pretty clear that they would not have.

Can you take out 26 people in 3 minutes with a shotgun and a rifle? The Cumbria shooter travelled 15 miles to kill 12 people, and it took him most of a day, travelling from place to place and shooting a small number of people before moving on.

Go away, adults are talking.


Ah. So that's a no then.
 
2012-12-29 10:07:53 PM

DesktopHippie: Great. Now I have "Horse Outside" stuck in my head...


A suitable punishment in my opinion
 
2012-12-29 10:07:54 PM

Benjamin Orr: ParaHandy: Benjamin Orr: ParaHandy: I still would also like to see some realistic attempt at mitigating massacres like Newtown; UK gun controls would have in this case, as Nancy Lanza would not have been allowed to have any guns. In the general case, if there are legal firearms (and I think we all agree there will be) then the only way to mitigate is to control weapon type. Limiting clips to 10 rounds won't cut it, we'd have to go down to single shot systems like bolt actions and traditional shotguns, and that would be a hard sell.

Why do you think that? The Cumbria mass shooting took place in 2010... well after the more restrictive UK gun control laws were passed... and yet he still killed 12 people and injured 11. He could have killed a lot more but he screwed around between shootings.

Both of the guns (shotgun and rifle) he used were legally owned and registered.

Indeed, as we observe no controls can completely prevent this kind of thing.

Yes,. but you said the UK controls would have stopped Newtown. When it is pretty clear that they would not have.


They would have stopped the Newtown scenario specifically, but clearly not every possible mass shooter scenario.

IIUC Lanza tried and failed to obtain legal firearms on 3 occasions before raiding his mom's stash. In the UK, people like Nancy Lanza are not allowed to own guns. Could he have gone on to get guns from another source? Possibly, we'll never know. However, once again the stats bear out the fact that making guns less generally available also makes them less available to crazies.

Death rate in the UK from mass shootings is 0.000005% per annum, the US is a lot higher.
 
2012-12-29 10:11:23 PM

ParaHandy: They would have stopped the Newtown scenario specifically, but clearly not every possible mass shooter scenario.

IIUC Lanza tried and failed to obtain legal firearms on 3 occasions before raiding his mom's stash. In the UK, people like Nancy Lanza are not allowed to own guns. Could he have gone on to get guns from another source? Possibly, we'll never know. However, once again the stats bear out the fact that making guns less generally available also makes them less available to crazies.

Death rate in the UK from mass shootings is 0.000005% per annum, the US is a lot higher.


What does people like Nancy Lanza mean? Rich white people with no history of crime or mental issues?
 
2012-12-29 10:12:42 PM

Silverstaff: Kit Fister: I would posit that the National Guard would fulfill the Organized Militia component of the US code, and armed Civilians as part of the Unorganized Militia.

The Militia Act of 1903 agrees with you. The National Guard is the Organized Militia, the Unorganized Militia is all male citizens and permanent residents between the ages of 17 and 45, as well as all females who are members of the National Guard.

However, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), has made it clear that in US Constitutional Law, the right to bear arms is separate from service in a militia.


The 2nd Amendment would only be valid in this example if the National Guard required all members to arm themselves. I've got no problem with people wanting to keep firearms for 'self defense' or hunting, but there has to be a limit. You can't own a machine gun or grenade launcher or artillery piece without a ton of paperwork and a carload of money; I'd have no problem with those same requirements for semi-auto rifles as well. They simply aren't needed for defense or hunting, and anyone claiming they need them in case of armed unrest or to overthrow the government is delusional anyway.
 
2012-12-29 10:20:58 PM

Benjamin Orr: DesktopHippie: Can you take out 26 people in 3 minutes with a shotgun and a rifle? The Cumbria shooter travelled 15 miles to kill 12 people, and it took him most of a day, travelling from place to place and shooting a small number of people before moving on.

Sigh... first off it was 10 minutes and not 3.

Secondly... his rifle was more than capable of shooting that many people in a concentrated space and had the exact same rate of fire as the AR15 does.... the exact same rate of fire... which is as fast as you can pull the trigger.


Really? Pretty much every news source here has said it was just over 3 minutes. And I mean actual fact checked news sources, not knee jerk stick-up-a-Facebook-photo-of-a-guy-with-the-same-name-as-a-guy-who-was -incorrectly-named-as-the-shooter news sources.

And I fully admit to knowing next to nothing about guns, but you're telling me that the Newtown shooter's weaponry was no better performing than the non-automatic rifle the Cumbria shooter used? He could have inflicted the same damage to the same number of people in the same time with the Cumbria shooter's weapons?
 
2012-12-29 10:21:11 PM

Kit Fister: ParaHandy: Kit Fister: ParaHandy: PS I don't have an ignore list, on principle :)

One thing about the assault weapon ban: it occurred to me one possible goal was to make guns less cool and hence reduce the appeal to the Rambo wannabees. Is this the case?

Nope. The point of the gun ban was a knee-jerk reaction by the Clintons et al and had little if anything to do with their being "cool" and trying to dispel that idea. It was merely a gut reaction.

I've stated what I'm OK with, and I think there are a lot of gun owners who agree with me. However we will never agree to the types of limitations you propose, and if our choices are to move away from groups like the NRA and end up with people passing laws like the kind you favor, or supporting the NRA and how they approach things to mitigate that, then we'll just keep supporting the NRA.

This is, again, the point we try to get across: we are all in favor of controlling access in some ways, but we're not about to accept a deep restriction on the types of firearms.

Besides, your list of sporting purposes fails to include:

- High Power Rifle long range competition
- 3Gun competition
- IDPA/IPSC handgun competition
- Bullseye Handgun competition
- SAS Competition
- Cowboy Mounted Action Shooting

and a host of other sporting events that use firearms that would not be included in your types of guns allowed.

I'm not an expert on gun sports. I missed a few.

People who are into that kind of thing are moderate in number, aren't a high risk and are generally excellent at gun safety. People like me aren't the problem with fast cars. :)

Handgun tournaments only exist because handguns are ubiquitous, and I could make the case that if generally owned guns were sporting only then there really wouldn't be demand for competitve handgun shooting. Precision shooting requires a rifle with a barrel.

How about a competitve shooting license with wider range of guns allowed than a hunter's license, and consummmately higher training / range time r ...

Sorry, brother, I'm just going to disagree with you and fight even harder against your ilk.

Accurate shooting with a handgun is 10x as challenging as any long range shooting with a rifle. I know, I've done both. Being sub-1" accurate at 50-100 yards with a handgun is no mean feat, and there are a lot of people that enjoy that kind of shooting.

As to handgun competitions, people like to shoot them because they're a challenge, similar to auto racing. SUre, they may be "moderate in number", but they include competitors from all over the world, *including* Australia and Britain, so lack of availability hasn't stopped that from happening.

Anyway, I'm sorry you see no alternatives but restriction on types. i guess we can't agree to understand each other and work on what we can agree on, so I'll look forward to opposing you at every turn.


As I said, competitive shooters aren't the problem.

OK, so there is interest in shooting handguns competitively. So we keep them around for that too. What's wrong with licensing?

Basically, there is no amount of sporting gun usage of any gun of any type I wouldn't readily agree to in order to get genuine gun enthusiasts on board with keeping guns away from the Zimmermans and Lanzas of the world.

When did you last hear of someone being killed on the public roads by a racing driver?
 
2012-12-29 10:24:45 PM

DesktopHippie: Really? Pretty much every news source here has said it was just over 3 minutes. And I mean actual fact checked news sources, not knee jerk stick-up-a-Facebook-photo-of-a-guy-with-the-same-name-as-a-guy-who-was -incorrectly-named-as-the-shooter news sources.

And I fully admit to knowing next to nothing about guns, but you're telling me that the Newtown shooter's weaponry was no better performing than the non-automatic rifle the Cumbria shooter used? He could have inflicted the same damage to the same number of people in the same time with the Cumbria shooter's weapons?


Check the timelines again... your mistake is thinking that the AR15 is an automatic rifle. It isn't. It shoots once bullet per trigger pull. Just like his rifle did.

But don't let the actual facts of how the rifles work get in the way.
 
2012-12-29 10:27:57 PM
Also... posts from people that know next to nothing about guns... and yet still talking about the supposed abilities of guns and why they should be banned... is one of the reasons people get pissed off at the gun control side and oppose legislation like the "assault weapons" ban.

You don't see me admitting I know next to nothing about snooker but then going on and on about some rule change for snooker anyways :)
 
2012-12-29 10:31:07 PM

Benjamin Orr: DesktopHippie: Really? Pretty much every news source here has said it was just over 3 minutes. And I mean actual fact checked news sources, not knee jerk stick-up-a-Facebook-photo-of-a-guy-with-the-same-name-as-a-guy-who-was -incorrectly-named-as-the-shooter news sources.

And I fully admit to knowing next to nothing about guns, but you're telling me that the Newtown shooter's weaponry was no better performing than the non-automatic rifle the Cumbria shooter used? He could have inflicted the same damage to the same number of people in the same time with the Cumbria shooter's weapons?

Check the timelines again... your mistake is thinking that the AR15 is an automatic rifle. It isn't. It shoots once bullet per trigger pull. Just like his rifle did.

But don't let the actual facts of how the rifles work get in the way.


Well facts about anything to do with Britain didn't get in the way of the article, so...

And I asked the question to get the facts. I did point out I know next to nothing about guns. I just assumed that Lanza's weapons would have been banned under the UK's current gun legislation. Is that the case?
 
2012-12-29 10:33:06 PM

Bendal: The 2nd Amendment would only be valid in this example if the National Guard required all members to arm themselves. I've got no problem with people wanting to keep firearms for 'self defense' or hunting, but there has to be a limit. You can't own a machine gun or grenade launcher or artillery piece without a ton of paperwork and a carload of money; I'd have no problem with those same requirements for semi-auto rifles as well. They simply aren't needed for defense or hunting, and anyone claiming they need them in case of armed unrest or to overthrow the government is delusional anyway.


Uhm, excuse me, I and a LOT of people I know on several hunting lists use AR-15s for hunting. I use mine to hunt coyotes and feral hogs which are nuisance animals considered the same as squirrels, groundhogs, and mice. Our state offers a bounty on their kills, to.

Other hunters proving you wrong:

www.thefirearmblog.com

img168.imageshack.us

img693.imageshack.us

img97.imageshack.us

i367.photobucket.com

i989.photobucket.com

i671.photobucket.com

img222.imageshack.us

m.b5z.net

m.b5z.net

and on, and on, and on...
 
2012-12-29 10:41:14 PM

DesktopHippie: Benjamin Orr: DesktopHippie: Really? Pretty much every news source here has said it was just over 3 minutes. And I mean actual fact checked news sources, not knee jerk stick-up-a-Facebook-photo-of-a-guy-with-the-same-name-as-a-guy-who-was -incorrectly-named-as-the-shooter news sources.

And I fully admit to knowing next to nothing about guns, but you're telling me that the Newtown shooter's weaponry was no better performing than the non-automatic rifle the Cumbria shooter used? He could have inflicted the same damage to the same number of people in the same time with the Cumbria shooter's weapons?

Check the timelines again... your mistake is thinking that the AR15 is an automatic rifle. It isn't. It shoots once bullet per trigger pull. Just like his rifle did.

But don't let the actual facts of how the rifles work get in the way.

Well facts about anything to do with Britain didn't get in the way of the article, so...

And I asked the question to get the facts. I did point out I know next to nothing about guns. I just assumed that Lanza's weapons would have been banned under the UK's current gun legislation. Is that the case?


The exact model AR15 that he used is illegal under UK laws. Ones that work exactly the same way are legal though. You can have .22 caliber semi-automatic rifles in the UK (one trigger pull per shot) which is exactly what the Cumbria shooter used.

You can also have more powerful rifles that are not semi-automatic (lever action, bolt action and revolver action)... they are also one shot per trigger pull with the first two requiring another action to load the next round into the chamber. Both of which take fractions of a second with any level of training.
 
2012-12-29 10:42:13 PM

Benjamin Orr: Also... posts from people that know next to nothing about guns... and yet still talking about the supposed abilities of guns and why they should be banned... is one of the reasons people get pissed off at the gun control side and oppose legislation like the "assault weapons" ban.

You don't see me admitting I know next to nothing about snooker but then going on and on about some rule change for snooker anyways :)


Yes but I'm highly unlikely to get beaten to death by a snooker cue. And I'm sure as hell not going to take out a classroom of kids with one.

I know next to nothing about guns because in Ireland we own guns to use them, and I don't use them. I don't know the exact classifications, I don't know the exact models or rate per fire or any of that stuff. What I do know is that you reach a point past hunting, sport and home defence where all your gun is designed to do is spray as many bullets as possible into as many bodies as possible in as short a time as possible and, call me crazy if you like, but I have a hard time being comfortable with everyone in any country being allowed to own that type of weaponry as a basic right, especially when, several massacres later, they still insist it makes them safer than a "disarmed" population.
 
2012-12-29 10:49:20 PM

DesktopHippie: Benjamin Orr: Also... posts from people that know next to nothing about guns... and yet still talking about the supposed abilities of guns and why they should be banned... is one of the reasons people get pissed off at the gun control side and oppose legislation like the "assault weapons" ban.

You don't see me admitting I know next to nothing about snooker but then going on and on about some rule change for snooker anyways :)

Yes but I'm highly unlikely to get beaten to death by a snooker cue. And I'm sure as hell not going to take out a classroom of kids with one.

I know next to nothing about guns because in Ireland we own guns to use them, and I don't use them. I don't know the exact classifications, I don't know the exact models or rate per fire or any of that stuff. What I do know is that you reach a point past hunting, sport and home defence where all your gun is designed to do is spray as many bullets as possible into as many bodies as possible in as short a time as possible and, call me crazy if you like, but I have a hard time being comfortable with everyone in any country being allowed to own that type of weaponry as a basic right, especially when, several massacres later, they still insist it makes them safer than a "disarmed" population.


Fully automatic guns like you see in the movies (spraying bullets) are already heavily restricted and a legal one has been used exactly once in a crime since 1934.... by a cop no less.

The ones that are available are exactly what you imagine when you think of a hunting rifle. No spraying bullets.

I am not going to call you crazy at this point... but I am going to call you grossly uninformed about what you are ranting about.

Fair enough?
 
2012-12-29 10:50:44 PM

Benjamin Orr: DesktopHippie: Benjamin Orr: DesktopHippie: Really? Pretty much every news source here has said it was just over 3 minutes. And I mean actual fact checked news sources, not knee jerk stick-up-a-Facebook-photo-of-a-guy-with-the-same-name-as-a-guy-who-was -incorrectly-named-as-the-shooter news sources.

And I fully admit to knowing next to nothing about guns, but you're telling me that the Newtown shooter's weaponry was no better performing than the non-automatic rifle the Cumbria shooter used? He could have inflicted the same damage to the same number of people in the same time with the Cumbria shooter's weapons?

Check the timelines again... your mistake is thinking that the AR15 is an automatic rifle. It isn't. It shoots once bullet per trigger pull. Just like his rifle did.

But don't let the actual facts of how the rifles work get in the way.

Well facts about anything to do with Britain didn't get in the way of the article, so...

And I asked the question to get the facts. I did point out I know next to nothing about guns. I just assumed that Lanza's weapons would have been banned under the UK's current gun legislation. Is that the case?

The exact model AR15 that he used is illegal under UK laws. Ones that work exactly the same way are legal though. You can have .22 caliber semi-automatic rifles in the UK (one trigger pull per shot) which is exactly what the Cumbria shooter used.

You can also have more powerful rifles that are not semi-automatic (lever action, bolt action and revolver action)... they are also one shot per trigger pull with the first two requiring another action to load the next round into the chamber. Both of which take fractions of a second with any level of training.


Gotcha. Thank you.
 
2012-12-29 10:51:21 PM

Kit Fister: ParaHandy: Ontos: snuff3r: TFA: "the british problem"

You know what you stupid American guntards, have you considered the fact that there a quite a few countries out there where the vast majority don't actually WANT people running around with guns. If you lot want to run around like asstard cowboys, have farking fun. If you seriously want to link gun ownership to freedom, youre a farking moron. Freedom is not being scared that someone is going to blow your head off whilst youre at the cinema. Freedom is not having to be constantly feeling that you're split seconds from having to defend yourselves.

We had our Newtown massacre and the country chose to ban general gun ownership. We've been happier since.

For those of us who own guns, the long and tedious process we have to go through is worth it.

I'm pretty sure we kicked your asses in a couple of wars so we didn't have to hear the British lecture us about how we go about our lives....

I'll be a US citizen by the time any gun control laws that come out of the Biden commission are voted on. In fact, it's a serious incentive to file the paperwork. If you don't like it, you'll have to come to Texas and bring a gun :)

I also plan to buy an AR15 by private sale when I get back just so I can document how appallingly easy it is for a non-citizen with no documented firearms safety training.

As the USA's parent country, it is enitrely our place to tell our brash little teen when he's being hotheaded and not wise, even if he can take us in a fight.

Okay, so you're planning to buy an AR15 by private sale as a non-citizen (though it's completely legal for you to do so as a permanent resident non-citizen with a green card), and this proves, what? That private citizens can buy and sell their own possessions? I don't call that "appallingly" easy. Also, doesn't it strike you as both prudent and the responsibility of the seller to verify citizenship and legal right to own (Not that i'm inherently against opening up NICS systems to allow private sales to use background checks and requiring them).

Also, no, it's not your place to tell us anything. We are our own country, and we are separate from you, with a couple hundred years of independent development to prove it.


Guns, as very dangerous things, are a special category of posessions, and as such should be more restricted. I can't freely buy and sell cars (doubly so in Texas, where a private sale used car is subject to taxes).

It is indeed prudent and responsible of the seller to do so; I would like it made mandatory, with some kind of check and balance to catch, prevent and as necessary prosecute errors and omissions. Just like it's mandatory to verify eligibility before employing Mexicans.

This is necessary, because right now there is an incentive not to ... $3k for the AR15? I'll pay $4k if you make sure when you write my name on the transfer form it's illegible.

Sounds like you want to keep the private sale loophole (is that the preferred term)?
 
2012-12-29 10:52:47 PM

Benjamin Orr: DesktopHippie: Benjamin Orr: Also... posts from people that know next to nothing about guns... and yet still talking about the supposed abilities of guns and why they should be banned... is one of the reasons people get pissed off at the gun control side and oppose legislation like the "assault weapons" ban.

You don't see me admitting I know next to nothing about snooker but then going on and on about some rule change for snooker anyways :)

Yes but I'm highly unlikely to get beaten to death by a snooker cue. And I'm sure as hell not going to take out a classroom of kids with one.

I know next to nothing about guns because in Ireland we own guns to use them, and I don't use them. I don't know the exact classifications, I don't know the exact models or rate per fire or any of that stuff. What I do know is that you reach a point past hunting, sport and home defence where all your gun is designed to do is spray as many bullets as possible into as many bodies as possible in as short a time as possible and, call me crazy if you like, but I have a hard time being comfortable with everyone in any country being allowed to own that type of weaponry as a basic right, especially when, several massacres later, they still insist it makes them safer than a "disarmed" population.

Fully automatic guns like you see in the movies (spraying bullets) are already heavily restricted and a legal one has been used exactly once in a crime since 1934.... by a cop no less.

The ones that are available are exactly what you imagine when you think of a hunting rifle. No spraying bullets.

I am not going to call you crazy at this point... but I am going to call you grossly uninformed about what you are ranting about.

Fair enough?


Well, I was mostly ranting about a grossly uninformed article, so...
 
2012-12-29 10:55:12 PM

Benjamin Orr: ParaHandy: Benjamin Orr: ParaHandy: I have yet to have any motor vehicle confiscated by any government, albeit there have been cops of both sides of the Atlantic who wanted to :)

:)

You know that I meant firearms registration. It has already happened many times in the US and people aren't very trusting when they say it will never happen again.

I know what you meant - I was making the example that just because something is registered doesn't mean the government de facto plans to seize it later.

I'd like to see the level of violent crimes in the USA reduced to the point where you and my colleague James would both be thinking "I really don't need this AR15 in my home"

Btw, he got into guns at age 25 when he was an up close and personal witness to an armed robbery. Having never had a gun pointed at me, I can't second guess his fears. He has made a positive hobby out of it, for sure. He does keep guns in the house, but they are secured and he doesn't have children.

Except that the reality is that registration in the US usually ends up with confiscation.

I would like a unicorn and a harem of young twins to service my every need. Not really sure which one of us is going to get our wish first.

I have guns (including AR15s) because

1) Shooting is fun and challenging

2) Occasional hunting trips

3) My city has been at or near the top of the country for homicides and violent crimes for as long as I can remember.

I have two daughters and they know far more about gun safety than the average adult does. My youngest has no interest in learning how to shoot and I have not forced her. She does know they are not toys and are not to be touched... ever. She isn't afraid of their presence either.

My oldest knows how to shoot very well, but she also knows to never touch them without my permission and direct supervision.

Most of them are locked up at any given time but there is always one available in the admittedly rare chance we need it. Better to have it available and never use it (much better obviously) than the reverse.


What was confiscated in the US, and when?
 
2012-12-29 11:04:14 PM

ParaHandy: What was confiscated in the US, and when?


California forced registration of a bunch of rifles... including ones they deemed as legal. Later on they decided the SKS Sporter model was illegal and used those registrations to enforce confiscation (with payment of $230 each) of those rifles.

In the 1960s New York City began registering firearms with the promise that the info would never be used to confiscate the firearms. That lasted until 1991.
 
2012-12-29 11:05:38 PM

DesktopHippie: Well, I was mostly ranting about a grossly uninformed article, so...


Yes the article is a bunch of hyperbole and half truths. I can't stand it when either side pulls that crap because it just stops all hope of rational discussion.
 
2012-12-29 11:08:28 PM

Benjamin Orr: ParaHandy: What was confiscated in the US, and when?

California forced registration of a bunch of rifles... including ones they deemed as legal. Later on they decided the SKS Sporter model was illegal and used those registrations to enforce confiscation (with payment of $230 each) of those rifles.

In the 1960s New York City began registering firearms with the promise that the info would never be used to confiscate the firearms. That lasted until 1991.


But if you owned a gun that was later declared illegal, wouldn't you hand it over anyway?
 
2012-12-29 11:09:20 PM

Benjamin Orr: ParaHandy: What was confiscated in the US, and when?

California forced registration of a bunch of rifles... including ones they deemed as legal. Later on they decided the SKS Sporter model was illegal and used those registrations to enforce confiscation (with payment of $230 each) of those rifles.

In the 1960s New York City began registering firearms with the promise that the info would never be used to confiscate the firearms. That lasted until 1991.


. . . and that's why the 1986 Gun Owners Protection Act explicitly wrote into Federal law that the Federal government cannot maintain any kind of database, tracking or registration of firearms (other than NFA weapons), specifically to prevent that.

Good luck getting registration of all firearms through politically. While Heller does seem to indicate that such a registry would pass Judicial Review and be constitutional, politically it would be about as safe as nuclear waste, given the prior correlation between firearm registration and firearm confiscation in the US.
 
2012-12-29 11:12:58 PM

DesktopHippie: Benjamin Orr: ParaHandy: What was confiscated in the US, and when?

California forced registration of a bunch of rifles... including ones they deemed as legal. Later on they decided the SKS Sporter model was illegal and used those registrations to enforce confiscation (with payment of $230 each) of those rifles.

In the 1960s New York City began registering firearms with the promise that the info would never be used to confiscate the firearms. That lasted until 1991.

But if you owned a gun that was later declared illegal, wouldn't you hand it over anyway?


Me? Most likely. He was asking why people would be opposed to simple registration and why some would refuse to document their current firearms. I was attempting to explain why some people would not register or turn them in.

Earlier on in this thread I posted a link and chart that showed how prevalent illegal guns are in other countries (like the UK for example). There are plenty of people who have already refused to turn in or register their guns. Thinking it would be different in the US is just wishful thinking.
 
2012-12-29 11:15:58 PM

DesktopHippie: But if you owned a gun that was later declared illegal, wouldn't you hand it over anyway?


s3.amazonaws.com
 
2012-12-29 11:20:27 PM

Benjamin Orr: DesktopHippie: Well, I was mostly ranting about a grossly uninformed article, so...

Yes the article is a bunch of hyperbole and half truths. I can't stand it when either side pulls that crap because it just stops all hope of rational discussion.


It doesn't help that I've been seeing these articles popping up shortly after a mass shooting pretty much since the massacre at Virginia Tech and honestly can't understand how anyone would ever believe them. Gun control hasn't made Britain (or Ireland) lawless or feeble. Shockingly, it turns out that running some basic checks to make sure a person isn't a criminal/batshiat insane/a complete moran before you give them a gun, and then repeating those checks every couple of years after they own it, doesn't leave your country open to invasion and your citizens defenceless and in terror of their lives. It's just a normal, sensible thing to do. This side of the Atlantic anyway.
 
2012-12-29 11:21:21 PM
So banning guns doesn't eliminate the problem because guns are just things and people use these "things" incorrectly...so about drugs...
 
2012-12-29 11:28:25 PM

DesktopHippie: Benjamin Orr: DesktopHippie: Well, I was mostly ranting about a grossly uninformed article, so...

Yes the article is a bunch of hyperbole and half truths. I can't stand it when either side pulls that crap because it just stops all hope of rational discussion.

It doesn't help that I've been seeing these articles popping up shortly after a mass shooting pretty much since the massacre at Virginia Tech and honestly can't understand how anyone would ever believe them. Gun control hasn't made Britain (or Ireland) lawless or feeble. Shockingly, it turns out that running some basic checks to make sure a person isn't a criminal/batshiat insane/a complete moran before you give them a gun, and then repeating those checks every couple of years after they own it, doesn't leave your country open to invasion and your citizens defenceless and in terror of their lives. It's just a normal, sensible thing to do. This side of the Atlantic anyway.


Well you guys have a fair bit more restrictions than what you described... but you did manage to describe pretty much what we have in place at a federal level already. If you get convicted of a felony or certain other violent crimes.... no legal guns for you. If you get committed for serious mental issues... no legal guns for you.

But even with all the laws you guys have in place over there... people still get killed with guns... including mass killings... including police. The rates are lower but lets not pretend it doesn't happen over there.

The rates were already lower than the US before the gun control. There are so many societal and economic issues that cause most of our violence.
 
2012-12-29 11:32:36 PM

Benjamin Orr: DesktopHippie: Benjamin Orr: ParaHandy: What was confiscated in the US, and when?

California forced registration of a bunch of rifles... including ones they deemed as legal. Later on they decided the SKS Sporter model was illegal and used those registrations to enforce confiscation (with payment of $230 each) of those rifles.

In the 1960s New York City began registering firearms with the promise that the info would never be used to confiscate the firearms. That lasted until 1991.

But if you owned a gun that was later declared illegal, wouldn't you hand it over anyway?

Me? Most likely. He was asking why people would be opposed to simple registration and why some would refuse to document their current firearms. I was attempting to explain why some people would not register or turn them in.

Earlier on in this thread I posted a link and chart that showed how prevalent illegal guns are in other countries (like the UK for example). There are plenty of people who have already refused to turn in or register their guns. Thinking it would be different in the US is just wishful thinking.


Well sure, not everybody will hand their gun over straight away, but it's a stupid thing to do. How are you going to use it? Stash it somewhere and hope no crime is committed anywhere near it so the police will never stumble upon it? Shoot a home invader with it and immediately change defending your home to shooting someone with an illegally owned firearm? Wouldn't it be simpler to replace it with a weapon you can freely and legally use?
 
2012-12-29 11:32:41 PM

pippi longstocking: So banning guns doesn't eliminate the problem because guns are just things and people use these "things" incorrectly...so about drugs...


Are you implying that guns are sentient and/or possess some kind of mind controlling abilities?

Or are you just saying that drugs should be legal?
 
2012-12-29 11:39:26 PM

DesktopHippie: Well sure, not everybody will hand their gun over straight away, but it's a stupid thing to do. How are you going to use it? Stash it somewhere and hope no crime is committed anywhere near it so the police will never stumble upon it? Shoot a home invader with it and immediately change defending your home to shooting someone with an illegally owned firearm? Wouldn't it be simpler to replace it with a weapon you can freely and legally use?


The first assumption is that there is a suitable legal replacement. In the case of NYC, Chicago and DC (for example) it was no guns allowed at all... so the option was either keep it illegally or turn them in.

In California the price offered wasn't enough to get a comparable replacement in a lot of cases. People that had registered didn't have a choice in the matter.

Most people just kept them in the exact same place they did before... which for non-criminals is out of sight and unused unless its life or death (in which case the firearm penalty is preferred to being dead)... criminals just kept on doing what they did because what is another law to them? Especially when they already had the guns illegally in the first place.
 
2012-12-29 11:40:21 PM

ParaHandy: Benjamin Orr: ParaHandy: Benjamin Orr: ParaHandy: I have yet to have any motor vehicle confiscated by any government, albeit there have been cops of both sides of the Atlantic who wanted to :)

:)

You know that I meant firearms registration. It has already happened many times in the US and people aren't very trusting when they say it will never happen again.

I know what you meant - I was making the example that just because something is registered doesn't mean the government de facto plans to seize it later.

I'd like to see the level of violent crimes in the USA reduced to the point where you and my colleague James would both be thinking "I really don't need this AR15 in my home"

Btw, he got into guns at age 25 when he was an up close and personal witness to an armed robbery. Having never had a gun pointed at me, I can't second guess his fears. He has made a positive hobby out of it, for sure. He does keep guns in the house, but they are secured and he doesn't have children.

Except that the reality is that registration in the US usually ends up with confiscation.

I would like a unicorn and a harem of young twins to service my every need. Not really sure which one of us is going to get our wish first.

I have guns (including AR15s) because

1) Shooting is fun and challenging

2) Occasional hunting trips

3) My city has been at or near the top of the country for homicides and violent crimes for as long as I can remember.

I have two daughters and they know far more about gun safety than the average adult does. My youngest has no interest in learning how to shoot and I have not forced her. She does know they are not toys and are not to be touched... ever. She isn't afraid of their presence either.

My oldest knows how to shoot very well, but she also knows to never touch them without my permission and direct supervision.

Most of them are locked up at any given time but there is always one available in the admittedly rare chance we need it. Better to have it available and never use it (much better obviously) than the reverse.

What was confiscated in the US, and when?


Guns of all types that were registered by law in New Orleans after Katrina, for one...
 
2012-12-29 11:42:10 PM

Benjamin Orr: DesktopHippie: Benjamin Orr: DesktopHippie: Well, I was mostly ranting about a grossly uninformed article, so...

Yes the article is a bunch of hyperbole and half truths. I can't stand it when either side pulls that crap because it just stops all hope of rational discussion.

It doesn't help that I've been seeing these articles popping up shortly after a mass shooting pretty much since the massacre at Virginia Tech and honestly can't understand how anyone would ever believe them. Gun control hasn't made Britain (or Ireland) lawless or feeble. Shockingly, it turns out that running some basic checks to make sure a person isn't a criminal/batshiat insane/a complete moran before you give them a gun, and then repeating those checks every couple of years after they own it, doesn't leave your country open to invasion and your citizens defenceless and in terror of their lives. It's just a normal, sensible thing to do. This side of the Atlantic anyway.

Well you guys have a fair bit more restrictions than what you described... but you did manage to describe pretty much what we have in place at a federal level already. If you get convicted of a felony or certain other violent crimes.... no legal guns for you. If you get committed for serious mental issues... no legal guns for you.

But even with all the laws you guys have in place over there... people still get killed with guns... including mass killings... including police. The rates are lower but lets not pretend it doesn't happen over there.

The rates were already lower than the US before the gun control. There are so many societal and economic issues that cause most of our violence.


Yes, shootings happen here. All murder types happen here. And yes, the rates are lower - much, much lower - than the US despite the fact that our "societal and economic issues" included a very active terrorist conflict on our soil. Do you really think the fact that no solution will 100% wipe out all forms of violence is a reason not to put some basic regulations in place? Should we give up medicine entirely since we can't cure cancer anyway?
 
2012-12-29 11:46:33 PM

Silverstaff: DesktopHippie: But if you owned a gun that was later declared illegal, wouldn't you hand it over anyway?

[s3.amazonaws.com image 479x356]


Oh right, I see. You don't agree with a law so you don't need to obey it.

Oh well, I'm sure nobody will ever have a problem with you owning a firearm :)
 
2012-12-29 11:49:23 PM

DesktopHippie: Yes, shootings happen here. All murder types happen here. And yes, the rates are lower - much, much lower - than the US despite the fact that our "societal and economic issues" included a very active terrorist conflict on our soil. Do you really think the fact that no solution will 100% wipe out all forms of violence is a reason not to put some basic regulations in place? Should we give up medicine entirely since we can't cure cancer anyway?


You just aren't listening are you? You came in here thinking that people were "spraying" each other with fully automatic weapons. You tried to describe the logical UK gun laws and ended up describing the existing US gun laws instead.

The non firearm murder rate in the US is higher than the total murder rate in the UK. Let that sink in for a bit. We kill more people per capita with baseball bats and bare hands than you guys do with all other forms of murder combined.

The vast majority of homicides in the US are gang related violence (criminals on criminals).

The places that the UK considers slums are not even remotely close to what we have in the US.
 
2012-12-30 12:04:32 AM

snuff3r: Freedom is not being scared that someone is going to blow your head off whilst youre at the cinema.


(Shrug) STFU and leave your cell phone in your pocket at the cinema, and you won't have anything to worry about.
 
2012-12-30 12:18:34 AM

Benjamin Orr: DesktopHippie: Yes, shootings happen here. All murder types happen here. And yes, the rates are lower - much, much lower - than the US despite the fact that our "societal and economic issues" included a very active terrorist conflict on our soil. Do you really think the fact that no solution will 100% wipe out all forms of violence is a reason not to put some basic regulations in place? Should we give up medicine entirely since we can't cure cancer anyway?

You just aren't listening are you? You came in here thinking that people were "spraying" each other with fully automatic weapons. You tried to describe the logical UK gun laws and ended up describing the existing US gun laws instead.

The non firearm murder rate in the US is higher than the total murder rate in the UK. Let that sink in for a bit. We kill more people per capita with baseball bats and bare hands than you guys do with all other forms of murder combined.

The vast majority of homicides in the US are gang related violence (criminals on criminals).

The places that the UK considers slums are not even remotely close to what we have in the US.


Hold on.

I came here saying that the article linked was complete and utter BS designed purely to paint the UK as a disarmed, unsafe place so certain pro gun Americans can feel better than themselves. Which it is.

I caught the tail end of an argument in which you said the current law in the UK couldn't have prevented the Newtown shootings. I asked if the Newtown shooter could have committed the same crime in the same amount of time with the same weapons and you said yes. I've taken your word on that because you're the gun expert, not me.

I have described Ireland's current gun legislation which is apparently "some of the least permissive legislation in Europe." pops Our regulations boil down to restrictions on some gun types, having to explain why you want a firearm, getting checked out by the Gardai and then getting your license or appealing to the Gardai ombudsman if you don't get it. The one gun owner I know doesn't even fill in his form for his license every 3 years. The Gardai send it to him with the details filled in, and he ticks a box to say the information is still correct and signs it. That's our law, and as far as I can tell its pretty close to what the UK have as well, so you'll have to tell me if I'm mistaken or if you guys actually had the same level of gun control all along and didn't notice.

I mentioned that I have a problem with firearms that have a capacity well beyond what is needed for hunting, sport or home defence. I mentioned that I don't understand why people want firearms designed to do nothing but pump as many bullets as possible as quickly as possible into as many people as possible. Yes, I was being a bit generic but if you want specifics I don't understand, for example, why most of the ammo the aurora shooter used was legal. Who needs the capacity to fire 100 rounds without reloading, exactly? Do you hunt armour plated deer in the US? Do they shoot back? Do burglars come in armies? Do you need to be ready to take down a SWAT team at a moment's notice?

I'm sorry you live in a violent, murderous country. I really am. I'm sorry you manage to kill each other more with bare hands and baseball bats than we do with bullets and car bombs. It sort of proves my original point that the article is complete BS. All I'm saying is that if you automatically assume everyone has the right to a firearm instead of having to prove that they're responsible enough to do so, then you shouldn't be shocked when crap like Newtown happens.

But it doesn't matter. Your country and mine are clearly very different. You guys go ahead and do whatever you feel is right. Just stop saying that the UK and Ireland are far more violent and deadly than the US, at least until you've stopped discussing posting armed freaking guards at all your schools.
 
2012-12-30 12:36:04 AM
So that wasn't you that said

Ohhh I see. America the beautiful has had yet another mass shooting and the gun nuts are getting antsy about their right to bear automatic weapons that can wipe out a room full of people in a couple of minutes

and then continued to have a discussion with me about how much deadlier his gun was than the rifle the Cumbria shooter used?

And yes we have background checks... and yes we have controls in place to remove your legal access to firearms if you are certified crazy or violent.

The whole large magazine debate is a crock of shiat. Only morons use those magazines and they jam all the time (like it did in Aurora). Anybody with basic motor skills can switch a magazine out in 1 second or so. The Newtown nutjob didn't use 100 rd magazines, he just switched the standard sized ones out (over and over). Neither did the VA Tech shooter for his handguns...he used standard sized magazines and just switched them out (over and over and over).

The Newtown shooter was not allowed to have those firearms that he murdered his mother for... he was rejected when he attempted to buy a gun before the shooting.

We do live in a violent country... sad but true. Getting guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens isn't going to change that. Much like in your country... criminals seem to keep breaking the damn laws.

Find a comment from me in this thread saying how accurate the article was. Hell... I am the one explaining to you just how much more violent the US is than the UK.

You just need to stop talking about shiat that you don't know anything about. If you are going to rant about US gun control then maybe you should do a little research first.
 
2012-12-30 12:48:24 AM

Benjamin Orr: So that wasn't you that said

Ohhh I see. America the beautiful has had yet another mass shooting and the gun nuts are getting antsy about their right to bear automatic weapons that can wipe out a room full of people in a couple of minutes

and then continued to have a discussion with me about how much deadlier his gun was than the rifle the Cumbria shooter used?

And yes we have background checks... and yes we have controls in place to remove your legal access to firearms if you are certified crazy or violent.

The whole large magazine debate is a crock of shiat. Only morons use those magazines and they jam all the time (like it did in Aurora). Anybody with basic motor skills can switch a magazine out in 1 second or so. The Newtown nutjob didn't use 100 rd magazines, he just switched the standard sized ones out (over and over). Neither did the VA Tech shooter for his handguns...he used standard sized magazines and just switched them out (over and over and over).

The Newtown shooter was not allowed to have those firearms that he murdered his mother for... he was rejected when he attempted to buy a gun before the shooting.

We do live in a violent country... sad but true. Getting guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens isn't going to change that. Much like in your country... criminals seem to keep breaking the damn laws.

Find a comment from me in this thread saying how accurate the article was. Hell... I am the one explaining to you just how much more violent the US is than the UK.

You just need to stop talking about shiat that you don't know anything about. If you are going to rant about US gun control then maybe you should do a little research first.


Oh I see. I'm very sorry I specified automatic weapons. I accept that the article was written because the gun nuts are antsy about the right to bear any weapons that can wipe out a room full of people in a few minutes. Is that better?
 
2012-12-30 12:50:33 AM
Nice revisionist history there.....

You mean just like the ones that are available in the UK?
 
2012-12-30 12:56:19 AM

Benjamin Orr: Nice revisionist history there.....

You mean just like the ones that are available in the UK?


No no, I get it, I'm not supposed to express my opinion on articles like this or ask questions without knowing all your gun legislation and your legally owned gun and ammo types and the different capabilities of each etc and so forth.

Excuse me while I go and research all that. I'll have to hurry. The rate you guys are going over there it'll only be another week or two before someone posts a shiatty article like this one again.
 
2012-12-30 01:50:05 AM
lol u mad?

It just makes you look really stupid when you have a strong opinion about something that doesn't exist and/or you completely misunderstand.

Now excuse me while I type up a lengthy diatribe about the history of the Republic of Ireland vs Northern Ireland... it really makes me mad how the Chinese and Australians caused the initial split and the ongoing violent conflict over the proper number of consonants in Gaelic.
 
2012-12-30 04:13:20 AM

Benjamin Orr: pippi longstocking: So banning guns doesn't eliminate the problem because guns are just things and people use these "things" incorrectly...so about drugs...

Are you implying that guns are sentient and/or possess some kind of mind controlling abilities?

Or are you just saying that drugs should be legal?


The first thing.
 
2012-12-30 05:53:55 AM

Benjamin Orr: lol u mad?

It just makes you look really stupid when you have a strong opinion about something that doesn't exist and/or you completely misunderstand.


I know, simple-minded, ignorant me, failing to understand why the UK was stupid to bring in tighter controls on guns after they decided that one school shooting was too many. Especially since it clearly hasn't worked, since they've had one mass shooting in the 16 years since. Thank you for letting me know that controlling access to guns has been tried and doesn't work because Americans are just naturally more vicious. Clearly our laws would be wasted on you.
 
2012-12-30 09:58:47 AM
I had a thought ... a number of people upthread have pointed out that there has never been one of these incidents involving a CCW holder. It thus seems obvious to me that if we required the same safety checks, licensing and training for all gun owners we would reduce the frequency of these incidents off the bat.

It seems like a good first step and and a no-brainer for any responsible gun owner. I'm sure Wayne LaPierre will object, but from what I can see he doesn't have the pulse of such people even though many are his members.


Kit Fister?
 
2012-12-30 10:07:37 AM

ParaHandy: I had a thought ... a number of people upthread have pointed out that there has never been one of these incidents involving a CCW holder. It thus seems obvious to me that if we required the same safety checks, licensing and training for all gun owners we would reduce the frequency of these incidents off the bat.

It seems like a good first step and and a no-brainer for any responsible gun owner. I'm sure Wayne LaPierre will object, but from what I can see he doesn't have the pulse of such people even though many are his members.


Kit Fister?


Defacto CCW and gun license? Eh, some people'd scream, but I'm OK with it...
 
2012-12-30 10:11:41 AM

DesktopHippie: Benjamin Orr: DesktopHippie: Yes, shootings happen here. All murder types happen here. And yes, the rates are lower - much, much lower - than the US despite the fact that our "societal and economic issues" included a very active terrorist conflict on our soil. Do you really think the fact that no solution will 100% wipe out all forms of violence is a reason not to put some basic regulations in place? Should we give up medicine entirely since we can't cure cancer anyway?

You just aren't listening are you? You came in here thinking that people were "spraying" each other with fully automatic weapons. You tried to describe the logical UK gun laws and ended up describing the existing US gun laws instead.

The non firearm murder rate in the US is higher than the total murder rate in the UK. Let that sink in for a bit. We kill more people per capita with baseball bats and bare hands than you guys do with all other forms of murder combined.

The vast majority of homicides in the US are gang related violence (criminals on criminals).

The places that the UK considers slums are not even remotely close to what we have in the US.

Hold on.

I came here saying that the article linked was complete and utter BS designed purely to paint the UK as a disarmed, unsafe place so certain pro gun Americans can feel better than themselves. Which it is.

I caught the tail end of an argument in which you said the current law in the UK couldn't have prevented the Newtown shootings. I asked if the Newtown shooter could have committed the same crime in the same amount of time with the same weapons and you said yes. I've taken your word on that because you're the gun expert, not me.

I have described Ireland's current gun legislation which is apparently "some of the least permissive legislation in Europe." pops Our regulations boil down to restrictions on some gun types, having to explain why you want a firearm, getting checked out by the Gardai and then getting your license or appealing to the Gardai ombudsman if you don't get it. The one gun owner I know doesn't even fill in his form for his license every 3 years. The Gardai send it to him with the details filled in, and he ticks a box to say the information is still correct and signs it. That's our law, and as far as I can tell its pretty close to what the UK have as well, so you'll have to tell me if I'm mistaken or if you guys actually had the same level of gun control all along and didn't notice.

I mentioned that I have a problem with firearms that have a capacity well beyond what is needed for hunting, sport or home defence. I mentioned that I don't understand why people want firearms designed to do nothing but pump as many bullets as possible as quickly as possible into as many people as possible. Yes, I was being a bit generic but if you want specifics I don't understand, for example, why most of the ammo the aurora shooter used was legal. Who needs the capacity to fire 100 rounds without reloading, exactly? Do you hunt armour plated deer in the US? Do they shoot back? Do burglars come in armies? Do you need to be ready to take down a SWAT team at a moment's notice?

I'm sorry you live in a violent, murderous country. I really am. I'm sorry you manage to kill each other more with bare hands and baseball bats than we do with bullets and car bombs. It sort of proves my original point that the article is complete BS. All I'm saying is that if you automatically assume everyone has the right to a firearm instead of having to prove that they're responsible enough to do so, then you shouldn't be shocked when crap like Newtown happens.

But it doesn't matter. Your country and mine are clearly very different. You guys go ahead and do whatever you feel is right. Just stop saying that the UK and Ireland are far more violent and deadly than the US, at least until you've stopped discussing posting armed freaking guards at all your schools.


The pro-gun folks have stated that the brief distraction caused by the school cop at Columbine probably saved a couple of lives, and yet also claim that if the fellow in Newton had had UK style hunting weapons as in Cumbria (e.g. a single shot bolt action and a double-barrelled shotgun) he would have been just as deadly.

I find this very hard to believe - both hunting weapons require each shell / cartridge to be manually loaded one at a time, and re-aiming each time. Is it possible to fire 27 rounds in 3 minutes with one of these guns? Yes. Is it as easy to kill 27 people as it is with an AR15, I posit not.

Never having held a machine gun, semi auto or otherwise, I am confident I could get 27 hits on a target with one quicker than a gun expert could with single shot weapons.

The Gabby Giffords shooter was stopped by an unarmed bystander while reloading. The CCWs in a crowd were unable to act. Every reload is a couple of seconds respite and an opportunity to tackle them.
 
2012-12-30 10:23:21 AM

ParaHandy: The pro-gun folks have stated that the brief distraction caused by the school cop at Columbine probably saved a couple of lives, and yet also claim that if the fellow in Newton had had UK style hunting weapons as in Cumbria (e.g. a single shot bolt action and a double-barrelled shotgun) he would have been just as deadly.

I find this very hard to believe - both hunting weapons require each shell / cartridge to be manually loaded one at a time, and re-aiming each time. Is it possible to fire 27 rounds in 3 minutes with one of these guns? Yes. Is it as easy to kill 27 people as it is with an AR15, I posit not.

Never having held a machine gun, semi auto or otherwise, I am confident I could get 27 hits on a target with one quicker than a gun expert could with single shot weapons.

The Gabby Giffords shooter was stopped by an unarmed bystander while reloading. The CCWs in a crowd were unable to act. Every reload is a couple of seconds respite and an opportunity to tackle them.


Jesus... are you guys just trolling me now or what? I have already pointed out numerous times in this thread that the Cumbria shooter had a semi-automatic rifle... which is legal in the UK.

The Cumbria shooter didn't reload after every shot because he didn't have to.... even the other kinds of rifles available in the UK (lever, revolver, bolt action) do NOT require loading a bullet after every shot and are NOT single shot weapons.

The Giffords shooter was tackled because the idiot dropped the new magazine and a bystander grabbed it from the ground.

And believe it or not... A guy shooting back at you will tend to slow your rate of fire.

But by all means continue to talk about what would work or would not work when you have no idea how guns work or what is legal or isn't legal in either country.
 
2012-12-30 10:43:17 AM

DesktopHippie: Benjamin Orr: lol u mad?

It just makes you look really stupid when you have a strong opinion about something that doesn't exist and/or you completely misunderstand.


I know, simple-minded, ignorant me, failing to understand why the UK was stupid to bring in tighter controls on guns after they decided that one school shooting was too many. Especially since it clearly hasn't worked, since they've had one mass shooting in the 16 years since. Thank you for letting me know that controlling access to guns has been tried and doesn't work because Americans are just naturally more vicious. Clearly our laws would be wasted on you.


Yes simple minded you... telling us all how things should be when you have no grasp of how they actually are. Silly you for advocating getting weapons off the streets that only exist in your mind..

Ignorant you... not understanding what is legal in your own country when you talk about how your mass killers were limited by non-existent laws and restrictions.

The Dunblane school shooting happened in 1996... where are the other school shootings that happened before that?

After Dunblane they banned private handgun ownership... and yet you still have handgun deaths every year. How is that possible?

If you take out the IRA attacks you guys basically have no mass shootings between 1900 and 1987... must have been a fluke then? Because you didn't start seriously restricting until after that. Magic tiger rock?
 
2012-12-30 10:54:41 AM

ParaHandy: I had a thought ... a number of people upthread have pointed out that there has never been one of these incidents involving a CCW holder. It thus seems obvious to me that if we required the same safety checks, licensing and training for all gun owners we would reduce the frequency of these incidents off the bat.

It seems like a good first step and and a no-brainer for any responsible gun owner. I'm sure Wayne LaPierre will object, but from what I can see he doesn't have the pulse of such people even though many are his members.


Kit Fister?


Let me chime in here.

That is true, statistically people with concealed weapons permits commit crimes far less than the general population, and crimes performed with legally concealed weapons are extremely rare. I always presumed it was the fact that criminals would conceal their weapons anyway and not bother with the permit. Having a CCDW is, in essence, going out of your way to be a law abiding gun owner.

Here's what it takes to get a CCDW permit in my state:
1. Take an 8 hour course combining gun safety, self-defense law, and a marksmanship exercise (hit 11 out of 20 shots on a human silhouette target with a handgun of your choice at a range of 10 yards). You pay around $80 for this class.
2. Wait about 3 to 5 weeks for a certificate in the mail from the state government proving you passed the training.
3. Go down to your local Sheriff's Office and pay $60 in various fees, turn in a copy of your certificate and show your identification and have your picture taken.
4. The State Police then performs a background check on you to ensure you have no felony convictions, no outstanding warrants or protective orders, have not been adjudicated as mentally incompetent, or any other legal reason to prohibit firearm ownership. This takes about a month or two.
5. When the State Police are done, your local Sheriffs Office will call you back, you go there and pick up your permit. Once you have the permit in-hand, you can legally carry concealed deadly weapons most places, except for a short list of places prohibited by law (Federal buildings, police stations & jails, courthouses, bars).
6. The permit is valid for 5 years. After 5 years you don't have to repeat the training course, but you do have to reapply, so a new photo and new background check. If your license expires though, you have to repeat the training course before you can get a new license.

Note that when you are stopped by police, when they look up the license plate of your vehicle, they can tell if the registered owner of the vehicle has a CCDW. This tells the cop 2 things: 1. there is a good chance there is a weapon in the vehicle. 2. The owner of the weapon is likely a law abiding citizen.

In the Heller decision, SCOTUS did not object to the idea of requiring a permit to own a firearm, the high court's objection was in making those permits so hard to get that it was a de facto ban (like Washington D.C.'s and Chicago's gun laws were).
 
2012-12-30 11:14:21 AM

Benjamin Orr: ParaHandy: The pro-gun folks have stated that the brief distraction caused by the school cop at Columbine probably saved a couple of lives, and yet also claim that if the fellow in Newton had had UK style hunting weapons as in Cumbria (e.g. a single shot bolt action and a double-barrelled shotgun) he would have been just as deadly.

I find this very hard to believe - both hunting weapons require each shell / cartridge to be manually loaded one at a time, and re-aiming each time. Is it possible to fire 27 rounds in 3 minutes with one of these guns? Yes. Is it as easy to kill 27 people as it is with an AR15, I posit not.

Never having held a machine gun, semi auto or otherwise, I am confident I could get 27 hits on a target with one quicker than a gun expert could with single shot weapons.

The Gabby Giffords shooter was stopped by an unarmed bystander while reloading. The CCWs in a crowd were unable to act. Every reload is a couple of seconds respite and an opportunity to tackle them.

Jesus... are you guys just trolling me now or what? I have already pointed out numerous times in this thread that the Cumbria shooter had a semi-automatic rifle... which is legal in the UK.

The Cumbria shooter didn't reload after every shot because he didn't have to.... even the other kinds of rifles available in the UK (lever, revolver, bolt action) do NOT require loading a bullet after every shot and are NOT single shot weapons.

The Giffords shooter was tackled because the idiot dropped the new magazine and a bystander grabbed it from the ground.

And believe it or not... A guy shooting back at you will tend to slow your rate of fire.

But by all means continue to talk about what would work or would not work when you have no idea how guns work or what is legal or isn't legal in either country.


A CZ-452 is bolt action, which I did not realise counts as semi auto. The bolt must be worked between rounds, requiring the user to break aim, which to me is a difference in rate of fire from an AR-15 where you can pull the trigger 2-5 times per second. What is the correct term for this difference?

It does come with 1, 5 or 10 round capacities ... I did assume only the single shot. would be legal in the UK, but I can't find a definitive ruling on it. 3 shells is the limit for a shotgun.

Semi-automatic rifles have been banned in the UK mainland since 1988, but can still be legally owned in Northern Ireland with a permit from the RUC.
 
2012-12-30 11:38:23 AM

ParaHandy: A CZ-452 is bolt action, which I did not realise counts as semi auto. The bolt must be worked between rounds, requiring the user to break aim, which to me is a difference in rate of fire from an AR-15 where you can pull the trigger 2-5 times per second. What is the correct term for this difference?

It does come with 1, 5 or 10 round capacities ... I did assume only the single shot. would be legal in the UK, but I can't find a definitive ruling on it. 3 shells is the limit for a shotgun.

Semi-automatic rifles have been banned in the UK mainland since 1988, but can still be legally owned in Northern Ireland with a permit from the RUC.


Where do you see that he used that specific model? I don't have any source that says this.

Your estimate on rate of fire is way off. Try pulling your finger 5 times in a second... even with no trigger pull or time to shoot it isn't happening. Where did you come up with this guess?

You might want to review the UK gun laws... single semi-auto rifles in .22 are legal... have been and still are as of today. The Cumbria shooter used a 22 semi automatic rifle according to all reports I have read. Note the commas below... they are not restricted to single shot... single shot and the other terms don't go together...

British law defines a "rifle" as a rifled firearm with a barrel longer than 30 cm, and a total length longer than 60 cm that does not fall under the classification of long-barrelled revolver or pistol. Single-shot, bolt-action, Martini-action, lever-action (also called under-lever action) and revolver rifles and carbines are permitted, with certificate, in any calibre. Self-loading (also known as semi-automatic) or pump-action rifles are only permitted in .22 rimfire calibre.

or you could just look at this site where you can buy guns in the UK for what is legally available to buy right now....

Link
 
2012-12-30 11:54:36 AM
I clicked on the wiki link used to confirm the exact model and it has no mention of the model in the article. Trying to watch the video now. Semi-autos are legal and you can find tons of evidence to support that. Other types (including bolt action) that are not single shot are also available and there is tons of evidence to support that.

Bolt action means working the bolt to load the next round. You can work a bolt action really quickly with a little practice.
 
2012-12-30 11:56:32 AM
Ok video is loading now... ad blocker issue....

Can I ask you where you are going to try and find out what is legal in the UK?
 
2012-12-30 12:01:48 PM
No mention of the model # in the sky news video
 
2012-12-30 12:08:49 PM

Benjamin Orr:

Yes simple minded you... telling us all how things should be when you have no grasp of how they actually are. Silly you for advocating getting weapons off the streets that only exist in your mind..

Ignorant you... not understanding what is legal in your own country when you talk about how your mass killers were limited by non-existent laws and restrictions.

The Dunblane school shooting happened in 1996... where are the other school shootings that happened before that?

After Dunblane they banned private handgun ownership... and yet you still have handgun deaths every year. How is that possible?

If you take out the IRA attacks you guys basically have no mass shootings between 1900 and 1987... must have been a fluke then? Because you didn't start seriously restricting until after that. Magic tiger rock?


Well you've already explained that, haven't you? Americans are just naturally a more murderous, violent lot. Sounds like you should scrap your second amendment altogether and let the Brits back in. Seems like you could learn a few things from them.
 
2012-12-30 12:12:47 PM

DesktopHippie: Well you've already explained that, haven't you? Americans are just naturally a more murderous, violent lot. Sounds like you should scrap your second amendment altogether and let the Brits back in. Seems like you could learn a few things from them.


Just not about cooking or gun control though :)
 
2012-12-30 12:13:09 PM
Jeezus Christ you Utopia freaks scare the crap out of me.

/going to the store to buy another gun.
 
2012-12-30 12:15:46 PM

Benjamin Orr: Check the timelines again... your mistake is thinking that the AR15 is an automatic rifle. It isn't. It shoots once bullet per trigger pull. Just like his rifle did.

But don't let the actual facts of how the rifles work get in the way.


Birds rifle needed manually cocking after every shot. Isn't the AR15 semi automatic? In a room full of people trying to escape having to manually cock after every shot would significantly slow down the rate of fire. The difference between being able to fire every half a second to firing every two seconds is the difference between twenty rounds in ten seconds and five rounds every ten seconds.
 
2012-12-30 12:25:42 PM

Flint Ironstag: Benjamin Orr: Check the timelines again... your mistake is thinking that the AR15 is an automatic rifle. It isn't. It shoots once bullet per trigger pull. Just like his rifle did.

But don't let the actual facts of how the rifles work get in the way.

Birds rifle needed manually cocking after every shot. Isn't the AR15 semi automatic? In a room full of people trying to escape having to manually cock after every shot would significantly slow down the rate of fire. The difference between being able to fire every half a second to firing every two seconds is the difference between twenty rounds in ten seconds and five rounds every ten seconds.


Still looking for a source that says the model used was a bolt action (wiki cite does not actually mention the rifle).

If it was a bolt action 22 it would have slowed down the rate of fire. Not as much as you said though. Lee Harvey Oswald shot well aimed shots faster than that with a bigger rifle (more recoil) from a much farther distance.

He had the poor little kids cornered in their rooms. Where were they going?
 
2012-12-30 12:39:15 PM

Benjamin Orr: DesktopHippie: Well you've already explained that, haven't you? Americans are just naturally a more murderous, violent lot. Sounds like you should scrap your second amendment altogether and let the Brits back in. Seems like you could learn a few things from them.

Just not about cooking or gun control though :)


Nah. Stick to your double downs and bullet proof backpacks. No problems there.
 
2012-12-30 12:59:44 PM

Benjamin Orr: No mention of the model # in the sky news video


Official report. "a .22LR rim fire calibre bolt action rifle fitted with a telescopic sight and a 10 round magazine."

In the UK it is a right to own shotguns and police have to give you a licence unless they can show why you shouldn't have one.
Rifles you have to show good reason to have one, the onus of proof is on you, and is specific to one model of rifle, one use and in many cases one location. Get a rifle for shooting deer and get caught shooting rabbit? You're nicked. I would imagine convincing them you need a semi automatic is harder than for a bolt action.
 
2012-12-30 01:02:26 PM

Benjamin Orr:
Still looking for a source that says the model used was a bolt action (wiki cite does not actually mention the rifle).

If it was a bolt action 22 it would have slowed down the rate of fire. Not as much as you said though. Lee Harvey Oswald shot well aimed shots faster than that with a bigger rifle (more recoil) from a much farther distance.

He had the poor little kids cornered in their rooms. Where were they going?


Wasn't Oswald trained by the Marines? Bird was a taxi driver.

Maybe nowhere. But if he took twenty seconds longer to kill them that's twenty seconds more time for kids in other rooms to escape.
 
2012-12-30 01:55:09 PM

Flint Ironstag: Benjamin Orr: No mention of the model # in the sky news video

Official report. "a .22LR rim fire calibre bolt action rifle fitted with a telescopic sight and a 10 round magazine."

In the UK it is a right to own shotguns and police have to give you a licence unless they can show why you shouldn't have one.
Rifles you have to show good reason to have one, the onus of proof is on you, and is specific to one model of rifle, one use and in many cases one location. Get a rifle for shooting deer and get caught shooting rabbit? You're nicked. I would imagine convincing them you need a semi automatic is harder than for a bolt action.


Thanks for the link. I guess I would need more information on how often semi-autos are denied vs bolt action. I can tell you that there are plenty for sale on the various UK gun sites though... so people have them.
 
2012-12-30 02:01:45 PM

Flint Ironstag: Benjamin Orr:
Still looking for a source that says the model used was a bolt action (wiki cite does not actually mention the rifle).

If it was a bolt action 22 it would have slowed down the rate of fire. Not as much as you said though. Lee Harvey Oswald shot well aimed shots faster than that with a bigger rifle (more recoil) from a much farther distance.

He had the poor little kids cornered in their rooms. Where were they going?

Wasn't Oswald trained by the Marines? Bird was a taxi driver.

Maybe nowhere. But if he took twenty seconds longer to kill them that's twenty seconds more time for kids in other rooms to escape.


Or the Russians/Cubans depending on which conspiracy nuts you listen to :)

It really is just a matter of will and practice time. What Oswald did wasn't even that impressive... just using him as the well known example.

I guess we will see where (if anywhere) the recent US gun control discussion takes us. Nobody wants little kids to die. I guess some of us just tend to focus on the crazy person and what we can do to stop them and less on the tools they use.

I do think that there are some serious misconceptions about how much the different gun styles impact the rate of fire. Many people think that AR15s are fully automatic like you see in movies and a lot of others seem to think that bolt action means single shot and then you reload.

I am not going to deny that semi-auto is going to be generally faster than bolt action and lever action (assuming similar training time). But people act like banning them completely would actually work and somehow stop mass shootings.
 
2012-12-30 02:05:12 PM

DesktopHippie: Benjamin Orr: DesktopHippie: Well you've already explained that, haven't you? Americans are just naturally a more murderous, violent lot. Sounds like you should scrap your second amendment altogether and let the Brits back in. Seems like you could learn a few things from them.

Just not about cooking or gun control though :)

Nah. Stick to your double downs and bullet proof backpacks. No problems there.


Will do. Keep spouting off about stuff you don't know anything about though....

That's Limerick City
 
2012-12-30 02:21:28 PM

Benjamin Orr: Flint Ironstag: Benjamin Orr:
Still looking for a source that says the model used was a bolt action (wiki cite does not actually mention the rifle).

If it was a bolt action 22 it would have slowed down the rate of fire. Not as much as you said though. Lee Harvey Oswald shot well aimed shots faster than that with a bigger rifle (more recoil) from a much farther distance.

He had the poor little kids cornered in their rooms. Where were they going?

Wasn't Oswald trained by the Marines? Bird was a taxi driver.

Maybe nowhere. But if he took twenty seconds longer to kill them that's twenty seconds more time for kids in other rooms to escape.

Or the Russians/Cubans depending on which conspiracy nuts you listen to :)

It really is just a matter of will and practice time. What Oswald did wasn't even that impressive... just using him as the well known example.

I guess we will see where (if anywhere) the recent US gun control discussion takes us. Nobody wants little kids to die. I guess some of us just tend to focus on the crazy person and what we can do to stop them and less on the tools they use.

I do think that there are some serious misconceptions about how much the different gun styles impact the rate of fire. Many people think that AR15s are fully automatic like you see in movies and a lot of others seem to think that bolt action means single shot and then you reload.

I am not going to deny that semi-auto is going to be generally faster than bolt action and lever action (assuming similar training time). But people act like banning them completely would actually work and somehow stop mass shootings.


The only thing I could really see having any effect would be mandating all guns be kept in a locked safe when not in use, with people with concealed carry allowed to have them on their person or locked up, one or the other.That could stop kids getting hold of them, like this shooting, make it harder to burgle and be one extra step in stopping someone grabbing a gun in a domestic dispute.

There is no perfect,100% effective solution, in the US or the UK, but at the moment in many US states it is like allowing anyone to buy a car and drive on the highway it with no training, licence or registration. Requiring those things is accepted as a reasonable restriction on your right to travel that benefits the vast majority.
Requiring all weapons to be kept in a locked box does not infringe your right to own a weapon, it just makes it a bit less likely to be used in anger. You could argue that if someone breaks into your home you won't have time to unlock your safe but the figures suggest that that is far less common than a gun being used against you by your partner or child.
 
2012-12-30 04:40:25 PM

Benjamin Orr: DesktopHippie: Benjamin Orr: DesktopHippie: Well you've already explained that, haven't you? Americans are just naturally a more murderous, violent lot. Sounds like you should scrap your second amendment altogether and let the Brits back in. Seems like you could learn a few things from them.

Just not about cooking or gun control though :)

Nah. Stick to your double downs and bullet proof backpacks. No problems there.

Will do. Keep spouting off about stuff you don't know anything about though....

That's Limerick City


No I get it, no expressing an opinion unless I know everything about the subject, and clearly admitting I didn't know everything and asking your opinion insulted you highly. I won't make that mistake again, I promise.

By the way, how long did you work as a chef in the United Kingdom?
 
2012-12-30 04:55:31 PM

Flint Ironstag: Requiring all weapons to be kept in a locked box does not infringe your right to own a weapon, it just makes it a bit less likely to be used in anger.


It does infringe on your right to use that weapon in self defense however.

The whole point of the Heller case, the leading precedent in Second Amendment case law, was that Washington DC had a highly restrictive handgun law, with two big provisions, one of which was that all guns must be stored unloaded and locked at all times.

The Supreme Court struck down both parts of the law, including the locking requirement, noting that a lawful purpose for having a handgun is defense of self and home, which cannot be done if the weapon is locked up.

Yeah, guns kill, that's the whole point of them. If you've got a gun for self defense purposes, the whole point is to be able to kill somebody with that gun if they intend to do harm upon you. Kind of hard to exercise that right to armed self defense when the gun must be stored locked up.

That's why I find the anti-gun argument about guns being only useful for killing funny. Yeah, they are. They are killing machines. They are very good at that. Doesn't mean they should be banned. Hunting and self defense are perfectly legal reasons to have a gun and to kill with that gun.
 
2012-12-30 07:12:18 PM

Kit Fister: snuff3r: TFA: "the british problem"

You know what you stupid American guntards, have you considered the fact that there a quite a few countries out there where the vast majority don't actually WANT people running around with guns. If you lot want to run around like asstard cowboys, have farking fun. If you seriously want to link gun ownership to freedom, youre a farking moron. Freedom is not being scared that someone is going to blow your head off whilst youre at the cinema. Freedom is not having to be constantly feeling that you're split seconds from having to defend yourselves.

We had our Newtown massacre and the country chose to ban general gun ownership. We've been happier since.

For those of us who own guns, the long and tedious process we have to go through is worth it.

...And knives...and people who defend themselves are charged with crimes. Tell me again how that's anything approaching a free country?

I will take dangerous liberty over the illusion of safety any day.

Oh, and as a side note, I'm not afraid of anything. I carry a gun as a means of having the proper tools to defend myself if necessary. I carry a pocket knife and a multitool as well. I keep blankets in the truck in winter time, tools, jumper cables, and a fist aid kit.

Be prepared, fear nothing.


That's a lot of fear-related paraphernalia those of us not embraced by the light of Liberty and Freedom don't have to worry about.

Because, you know, engaging in all that preparation is an act of fear.

I am guessing that simple logic doesn't penetrate your jingoistic fervour?

You're afraid of negroes/zombies/THE BRITISH and therefore need to tool yourself up to defend your Liberty and Freedom. You suffer psychological and biological effects of fear that you try and compensate for by acquiring weapons.

Those of us in civilised nations don't suffer from that fear. We spend the time thinking about nicer things than how to gun down do-rag-wearing gat-toting home invaders who are after our wimmin. Things like toast, and bacon. That's what we think of, rather than 'how much stopping power is needed to take down a PCP-crazed Crip?'

You claim that makes us sheeple who can easily be overcome by negroes/zombies/THE BRITISH while valiant survival-oriented folks like yourself are a beacon of FREEDOM in a dark vortex of barbaric chaos.

We think that makes you a paranoid whackjob who spends too much money on trying to externalise his fear and insecurity by following a playbook dictated by pretty obvious political and ideological lobby groups, which is not a good mindset in which to own killing tools.

But hey, FREEDOM.

cryingeaglewithM16.jpg
 
2012-12-30 07:34:53 PM

cegorach: Kit Fister: snuff3r: TFA: "the british problem"

You know what you stupid American guntards, have you considered the fact that there a quite a few countries out there where the vast majority don't actually WANT people running around with guns. If you lot want to run around like asstard cowboys, have farking fun. If you seriously want to link gun ownership to freedom, youre a farking moron. Freedom is not being scared that someone is going to blow your head off whilst youre at the cinema. Freedom is not having to be constantly feeling that you're split seconds from having to defend yourselves.

We had our Newtown massacre and the country chose to ban general gun ownership. We've been happier since.

For those of us who own guns, the long and tedious process we have to go through is worth it.

...And knives...and people who defend themselves are charged with crimes. Tell me again how that's anything approaching a free country?

I will take dangerous liberty over the illusion of safety any day.

Oh, and as a side note, I'm not afraid of anything. I carry a gun as a means of having the proper tools to defend myself if necessary. I carry a pocket knife and a multitool as well. I keep blankets in the truck in winter time, tools, jumper cables, and a fist aid kit.

Be prepared, fear nothing.

That's a lot of fear-related paraphernalia those of us not embraced by the light of Liberty and Freedom don't have to worry about.

Because, you know, engaging in all that preparation is an act of fear.

I am guessing that simple logic doesn't penetrate your jingoistic fervour?

You're afraid of negroes/zombies/THE BRITISH and therefore need to tool yourself up to defend your Liberty and Freedom. You suffer psychological and biological effects of fear that you try and compensate for by acquiring weapons.

Those of us in civilised nations don't suffer from that fear. We spend the time thinking about nicer things than how to gun down do-rag-wearing gat-toting home invaders who are afte ...


So no one in any other country prepares for a flat tire, or for engine trouble, or for cold weather, or for losing their job/home? Wow, I didn't realize that the rest of the world was a veritable utopia where NOTHING bad EVER happens and people can live carefree lives without having to worry about ANY hardship, thusly never having to plan for or prepare for anything.

/wow, you guys are dumb.
 
2012-12-30 08:29:12 PM
Are you actually so stupid that you can't see you shot your own argument to pieces or are you just dumb enough to think that you got one over on everyone?

You're a pussy, buddy.

You live in fear of people killing you, so you carry a killing tool to protect yourself.

I don't.

And by the end of my life, the chance of me having needed that tool will be infinitesmal.

However by the end of your life, that would have been every day living in panties-wetting fear of an imaginary menace that you need a firearm to defend yourself from.

If you need to 'prepare' to kill someone as part of your daily life, then you live in a backwards-ass nation full of savage morons.

That's your world, and I pity you for living in it.

Don't get me wrong - I understand that you may actually NEED to carry a gun in your country because it's full of other gun-toting nutjobs.

That's not a good thing.

In my country, we just get through our day without thinking HMM HOW THE FARK DO I KILL SOMEONE WHO MAY BE TRYING TO KILL ME TODAY.

I guess you're so indoctrinated by years of jingoistic propaganda you don't grasp the difference this makes to your life.
 
2012-12-30 08:39:58 PM

cegorach: Are you actually so stupid that you can't see you shot your own argument to pieces or are you just dumb enough to think that you got one over on everyone?

You're a pussy, buddy.

You live in fear of people killing you, so you carry a killing tool to protect yourself.

I don't.

And by the end of my life, the chance of me having needed that tool will be infinitesmal.

However by the end of your life, that would have been every day living in panties-wetting fear of an imaginary menace that you need a firearm to defend yourself from.

If you need to 'prepare' to kill someone as part of your daily life, then you live in a backwards-ass nation full of savage morons.

That's your world, and I pity you for living in it.

Don't get me wrong - I understand that you may actually NEED to carry a gun in your country because it's full of other gun-toting nutjobs.

That's not a good thing.

In my country, we just get through our day without thinking HMM HOW THE FARK DO I KILL SOMEONE WHO MAY BE TRYING TO KILL ME TODAY.

I guess you're so indoctrinated by years of jingoistic propaganda you don't grasp the difference this makes to your life.


Or maybe I do, and even if I lived in a country such as yours I'd still rather have all options available to me.

Anyway, you make your choices, I'll make mine. At the end of the day, I can't live your life and you can't live mine, so please stop trying. :)
 
2012-12-30 09:41:29 PM

Kit Fister: cegorach: Are you actually so stupid that you can't see you shot your own argument to pieces or are you just dumb enough to think that you got one over on everyone?

You're a pussy, buddy.

You live in fear of people killing you, so you carry a killing tool to protect yourself.

I don't.

And by the end of my life, the chance of me having needed that tool will be infinitesmal.

However by the end of your life, that would have been every day living in panties-wetting fear of an imaginary menace that you need a firearm to defend yourself from.

If you need to 'prepare' to kill someone as part of your daily life, then you live in a backwards-ass nation full of savage morons.

That's your world, and I pity you for living in it.

Don't get me wrong - I understand that you may actually NEED to carry a gun in your country because it's full of other gun-toting nutjobs.

That's not a good thing.

In my country, we just get through our day without thinking HMM HOW THE FARK DO I KILL SOMEONE WHO MAY BE TRYING TO KILL ME TODAY.

I guess you're so indoctrinated by years of jingoistic propaganda you don't grasp the difference this makes to your life.

Or maybe I do, and even if I lived in a country such as yours I'd still rather have all options available to me.

Anyway, you make your choices, I'll make mine. At the end of the day, I can't live your life and you can't live mine, so please stop trying. :)


Awesome.

Here's hoping your choices don't suddenly stop somebody else living their life.

Because they're a lot more likely to cause that than mine are.
 
2012-12-30 10:18:23 PM

Benjamin Orr: ParaHandy: A CZ-452 is bolt action, which I did not realise counts as semi auto. The bolt must be worked between rounds, requiring the user to break aim, which to me is a difference in rate of fire from an AR-15 where you can pull the trigger 2-5 times per second. What is the correct term for this difference?

It does come with 1, 5 or 10 round capacities ... I did assume only the single shot. would be legal in the UK, but I can't find a definitive ruling on it. 3 shells is the limit for a shotgun.

Semi-automatic rifles have been banned in the UK mainland since 1988, but can still be legally owned in Northern Ireland with a permit from the RUC.

Where do you see that he used that specific model? I don't have any source that says this.

Your estimate on rate of fire is way off. Try pulling your finger 5 times in a second... even with no trigger pull or time to shoot it isn't happening. Where did you come up with this guess?

You might want to review the UK gun laws... single semi-auto rifles in .22 are legal... have been and still are as of today. The Cumbria shooter used a 22 semi automatic rifle according to all reports I have read. Note the commas below... they are not restricted to single shot... single shot and the other terms don't go together...

British law defines a "rifle" as a rifled firearm with a barrel longer than 30 cm, and a total length longer than 60 cm that does not fall under the classification of long-barrelled revolver or pistol. Single-shot, bolt-action, Martini-action, lever-action (also called under-lever action) and revolver rifles and carbines are permitted, with certificate, in any calibre. Self-loading (also known as semi-automatic) or pump-action rifles are only permitted in .22 rimfire calibre.

or you could just look at this site where you can buy guns in the UK for what is legally available to buy right now....

Link


I knew it wasn't semi-auto because I used to live here, and they've been heavily restricted since forever. First hit on Google for "Cumbria shootings" ....

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings

The 2-5 came from a gun nut ITG in a Fark thread :) Substitute a more reasonable number, but I still assert that an AR15 fires faster than a CZ-452; I will defer to you on whether bolt action is a sub type of semi auto or not.

AFAICT from further research, you can own semi-auto weapons on the mainland but they must remain at the range, as per France etc.

There are different licenses for different gun types, and only the humble shotgun is still allowed on a normal gun permit (post Cumbria). Handguns are now limited to LESS than .22 and a muzzle energy of 12 lbf.ft. Bolt actions and target carbines each require a special permit different from the handgun one. New restrictions on shotgun load types.

Basically, any sporting use is allowed, but with very restricted weapon types and very low calibre, i.e. typically non-lethal to humans in most cases, and there is a requirement to license separately for each weapon type.
 
2012-12-30 10:22:54 PM

Benjamin Orr: ParaHandy: A CZ-452 is bolt action, which I did not realise counts as semi auto. The bolt must be worked between rounds, requiring the user to break aim, which to me is a difference in rate of fire from an AR-15 where you can pull the trigger 2-5 times per second. What is the correct term for this difference?

It does come with 1, 5 or 10 round capacities ... I did assume only the single shot. would be legal in the UK, but I can't find a definitive ruling on it. 3 shells is the limit for a shotgun.

Semi-automatic rifles have been banned in the UK mainland since 1988, but can still be legally owned in Northern Ireland with a permit from the RUC.

Where do you see that he used that specific model? I don't have any source that says this.

Your estimate on rate of fire is way off. Try pulling your finger 5 times in a second... even with no trigger pull or time to shoot it isn't happening. Where did you come up with this guess?

You might want to review the UK gun laws... single semi-auto rifles in .22 are legal... have been and still are as of today. The Cumbria shooter used a 22 semi automatic rifle according to all reports I have read. Note the commas below... they are not restricted to single shot... single shot and the other terms don't go together...

British law defines a "rifle" as a rifled firearm with a barrel longer than 30 cm, and a total length longer than 60 cm that does not fall under the classification of long-barrelled revolver or pistol. Single-shot, bolt-action, Martini-action, lever-action (also called under-lever action) and revolver rifles and carbines are permitted, with certificate, in any calibre. Self-loading (also known as semi-automatic) or pump-action rifles are only permitted in .22 rimfire calibre.

or you could just look at this site where you can buy guns in the UK for what is legally available to buy right now....

Link


I see nothing that isn't legal, and only a handful of listings are for special permit weapons. It's mostly air rifles.
 
2012-12-30 10:48:59 PM

Flint Ironstag: Maybe nowhere. But if he took twenty seconds longer to kill them that's twenty seconds more time for kids in other rooms to escape.



So based on some assumption you have, let's punish law-abiding gun owners.
 
2012-12-31 11:56:56 AM

cegorach: Are you actually so stupid that you can't see you shot your own argument to pieces or are you just dumb enough to think that you got one over on everyone?

You're a pussy, buddy.

You live in fear of people killing you, so you carry a killing tool to protect yourself.

I don't.

And by the end of my life, the chance of me having needed that tool will be infinitesmal.

However by the end of your life, that would have been every day living in panties-wetting fear of an imaginary menace that you need a firearm to defend yourself from.

If you need to 'prepare' to kill someone as part of your daily life, then you live in a backwards-ass nation full of savage morons.

That's your world, and I pity you for living in it.

Don't get me wrong - I understand that you may actually NEED to carry a gun in your country because it's full of other gun-toting nutjobs.

That's not a good thing.

In my country, we just get through our day without thinking HMM HOW THE FARK DO I KILL SOMEONE WHO MAY BE TRYING TO KILL ME TODAY.

I guess you're so indoctrinated by years of jingoistic propaganda you don't grasp the difference this makes to your life.


So, just why do you feel the NEED to force other LAW ABIDING CITIZENS to jump through YOUR hoops?
 
2012-12-31 02:38:40 PM

The_Sponge: Flint Ironstag: Maybe nowhere. But if he took twenty seconds longer to kill them that's twenty seconds more time for kids in other rooms to escape.


So based on some assumption you have, let's punish law-abiding gun owners.


That's the way laws work. Mandatory seat belts "punish" people who don't want to wear them. Sped limits "punish" people who want to speed. The TSA "punish" people who want to take a knife on board a plane. The list goes on.

If you can't shoot a deer with a single shot and need to machine gun it then you shouldn't be allowed to hunt.
 
2012-12-31 11:46:27 PM

Flint Ironstag: The_Sponge: Flint Ironstag: Maybe nowhere. But if he took twenty seconds longer to kill them that's twenty seconds more time for kids in other rooms to escape.


So based on some assumption you have, let's punish law-abiding gun owners.

That's the way laws work. Mandatory seat belts "punish" people who don't want to wear them. Sped limits "punish" people who want to speed. The TSA "punish" people who want to take a knife on board a plane. The list goes on.

If you can't shoot a deer with a single shot and need to machine gun it then you shouldn't be allowed to hunt.



What a simple smokescreen.
Gee, are any of those things "rights" named by the Constitution?
And the framers were talking about arms for shooting people/soldiers, not Bambi.
Educate yourself. Learn the thing you fear so much. It really is not that fearsome.
Enforce the current laws and the Constitution.
We call that "law abiding".
 
2013-01-01 08:35:27 AM

ParaHandy: I find this very hard to believe - both hunting weapons require each shell / cartridge to be manually loaded one at a time, and re-aiming each time. Is it possible to fire 27 rounds in 3 minutes with one of these guns? Yes. Is it as easy to kill 27 people as it is with an AR15, I posit not.


Look, I'm not really a gun nut but yes it's very possible.
Here is a clip of the record holder for pistol shooting. He is using a revolver. He gets off 12 shots (with a reload) in just under 3 seconds.

Here is a rather fast lever action Marlin SBL 1895, not a record holder however. 27 rounds in 3 min. is easy to accomplish with either of these two, "non-automatic" guns.
 
2013-01-01 08:49:19 AM

cegorach: Are you actually so stupid that you can't see you shot your own argument to pieces or are you just dumb enough to think that you got one over on everyone?

You're a pussy, buddy.

You live in fear of people killing you, so you carry a killing tool to protect yourself.

I don't.

And by the end of my life, the chance of me having needed that tool will be infinitesmal.

However by the end of your life, that would have been every day living in panties-wetting fear of an imaginary menace that you need a firearm to defend yourself from.

If you need to 'prepare' to kill someone as part of your daily life, then you live in a backwards-ass nation full of savage morons.

That's your world, and I pity you for living in it.

Don't get me wrong - I understand that you may actually NEED to carry a gun in your country because it's full of other gun-toting nutjobs.

That's not a good thing.

In my country, we just get through our day without thinking HMM HOW THE FARK DO I KILL SOMEONE WHO MAY BE TRYING TO KILL ME TODAY.

I guess you're so indoctrinated by years of jingoistic propaganda you don't grasp the difference this makes to your life.


What an incredibly uninformed, inflammatory statement that just reeks of self-righteous indignation, naivety and a general ignorance of the country in question. In short, you're a very stupid person and you should feel bad.

You sir, are a load that should have been swallowed.

1/10

/rotten mood today
 
2013-01-01 09:24:44 AM

snocone: Flint Ironstag: The_Sponge: Flint Ironstag: Maybe nowhere. But if he took twenty seconds longer to kill them that's twenty seconds more time for kids in other rooms to escape.


So based on some assumption you have, let's punish law-abiding gun owners.

That's the way laws work. Mandatory seat belts "punish" people who don't want to wear them. Sped limits "punish" people who want to speed. The TSA "punish" people who want to take a knife on board a plane. The list goes on.

If you can't shoot a deer with a single shot and need to machine gun it then you shouldn't be allowed to hunt.


What a simple smokescreen.
Gee, are any of those things "rights" named by the Constitution?
And the framers were talking about arms for shooting people/soldiers, not Bambi.
Educate yourself. Learn the thing you fear so much. It really is not that fearsome.
Enforce the current laws and the Constitution.
We call that "law abiding".


Where does your constitution guarantee the right to automatic weapons? Since they didn't exist at the time it is reasonable to argue that the constitution only refers to single shot, muzzle loaded weapons.

If you argue that "arms" in "right to bear arms" actually covers any developments in weapons than does that include cruise missiles and nuclear weapons?
 
2013-01-01 09:38:42 AM

Flint Ironstag: Where does your constitution guarantee the right to automatic weapons? Since they didn't exist at the time it is reasonable to argue that the constitution only refers to single shot, muzzle loaded weapons.

weapons that are in commonly used among the general population.
FTFY
 
2013-01-01 10:35:59 AM

Flint Ironstag: Since they didn't exist at the time it is reasonable to argue that the constitution only refers to single shot, muzzle loaded weapons.


Aw geez, not this sh*t again.

By this logic, there should be no free speech on the Internet and it should only apply to things spoken or written with a quill pen. Are you just trolling now or are you that uneducated?
 
2013-01-01 11:07:09 AM

Flint Ironstag: If you argue that "arms" in "right to bear arms" actually covers any developments in weapons than does that include cruise missiles and nuclear weapons?


Try knowing actual Constitutional Law, like the Miller or Heller precedents.

There is a two-prong test for if a weapon can be banned or regulated to the point it is de-facto banned. That's well established case law. (IANAL, but I did get A's in Civil Liberties and Constitutional Law classes as an undergrad)

1. Is the weapon in Common Use?

2. Does the weapon have a lawful purpose? (Self defense explicitly counts for this purpose)

This is why machine guns have been regulated to the point of being de-facto banned since 1934, while the Thompson Machine Gun (i.e. "Tommy Gun") was common in the 1930's, it was found to have no legitimate use for self-defense, hunting or sport. It was solely an antipersonnel weapon. SCOTUS has explicitly ruled that revolvers and semi-auto handguns have valid self defense use, so they can't be banned (the whole point of the Heller case). The AR-15 is commonly used for hunting in many states.

You can't go hunting with a cruise missile, nuclear weapon, or missile launcher, and you can't defend your house with those weapons, not without blowing up your own home.
 
2013-01-01 12:43:47 PM

Flint Ironstag: snocone: Flint Ironstag: The_Sponge: Flint Ironstag: Maybe nowhere. But if he took twenty seconds longer to kill them that's twenty seconds more time for kids in other rooms to escape.


So based on some assumption you have, let's punish law-abiding gun owners.

That's the way laws work. Mandatory seat belts "punish" people who don't want to wear them. Sped limits "punish" people who want to speed. The TSA "punish" people who want to take a knife on board a plane. The list goes on.

If you can't shoot a deer with a single shot and need to machine gun it then you shouldn't be allowed to hunt.


What a simple smokescreen.
Gee, are any of those things "rights" named by the Constitution?
And the framers were talking about arms for shooting people/soldiers, not Bambi.
Educate yourself. Learn the thing you fear so much. It really is not that fearsome.
Enforce the current laws and the Constitution.
We call that "law abiding".

Where does your constitution guarantee the right to automatic weapons? Since they didn't exist at the time it is reasonable to argue that the constitution only refers to single shot, muzzle loaded weapons.

If you argue that "arms" in "right to bear arms" actually covers any developments in weapons than does that include cruise missiles and nuclear weapons?


Why, yes it does.
Says so right there. "Course those weapons require a small, well regulated militia to operate.
I thought we were talking about the scary looking personal weapons ya'll are wetting your breeches over.
Just wait 'till the gunz that are being developed RIGHT NOW hit the market.
You are gonna chit your pants right on the street.
Don't be such a fool and educate yourself, just a titch.
 
2013-01-01 06:37:03 PM

Flint Ironstag: If you argue that "arms" in "right to bear arms" actually covers any developments in weapons than does that include cruise missiles and nuclear weapons?


Ah, yes, the time-honored rhetorical strategy of, "When in danger of losing one argument, start another."
 
2013-01-02 12:20:07 AM

HighlanderRPI: Flint Ironstag: Since they didn't exist at the time it is reasonable to argue that the constitution only refers to single shot, muzzle loaded weapons.

Aw geez, not this sh*t again.

By this logic, there should be no free speech on the Internet and it should only apply to things spoken or written with a quill pen. Are you just trolling now or are you that uneducated?


There is no right to free speech on the internet, just as "free speech" has never meant a newspaper must print your letters or comments. Anything you post on Fark, Facebook, Twitter, any website, blog or forum is subject to the policies and whims of Drew, Zuckerberg etc etc. Even registering your own domain name your content is still subject to your hosting company and if you go the whole hog and host it yourself then anyone is free to block access to it from their users.

There are already restrictions on what types of guns you are allowed to own and where and how you can carry them. We are just discussing exactly where to draw the line. That a line can be drawn is long, long established.
 
2013-01-02 12:25:17 AM

Silverstaff: Flint Ironstag: If you argue that "arms" in "right to bear arms" actually covers any developments in weapons than does that include cruise missiles and nuclear weapons?

Try knowing actual Constitutional Law, like the Miller or Heller precedents.

There is a two-prong test for if a weapon can be banned or regulated to the point it is de-facto banned. That's well established case law. (IANAL, but I did get A's in Civil Liberties and Constitutional Law classes as an undergrad)

1. Is the weapon in Common Use?

2. Does the weapon have a lawful purpose? (Self defense explicitly counts for this purpose)

This is why machine guns have been regulated to the point of being de-facto banned since 1934, while the Thompson Machine Gun (i.e. "Tommy Gun") was common in the 1930's, it was found to have no legitimate use for self-defense, hunting or sport. It was solely an antipersonnel weapon. SCOTUS has explicitly ruled that revolvers and semi-auto handguns have valid self defense use, so they can't be banned (the whole point of the Heller case). The AR-15 is commonly used for hunting in many states.

You can't go hunting with a cruise missile, nuclear weapon, or missile launcher, and you can't defend your house with those weapons, not without blowing up your own home.


So some weapons can and have been banned if they are judged "too excessive"? How is banning semi automatic rifles any different from banning fully automatic rifles? It's just further along the scale. Lots of gun fans here have stated that you can cock a weapon very quickly, so there clearly isn't any need for semi automatic is there? Just cock it every shot.
 
2013-01-02 01:16:10 AM

Flint Ironstag: Where does your constitution guarantee the right to automatic weapons? Since they didn't exist at the time it is reasonable to argue that the constitution only refers to single shot, muzzle loaded weapons.


Where does the First Amendment (You know, 'Freedom of Speech') mention the Internet? Or Radio? Or TV? Does Freedom of Speech not apply to those things?

/sheesh- newbies
 
2013-01-02 01:18:46 AM

Flint Ironstag: There is no right to free speech on the internet, just as "free speech" has never meant a newspaper must print your letters or comments. Anything you post on Fark, Facebook, Twitter, any website, blog or forum is subject to the policies and whims of Drew, Zuckerberg etc etc.


The First Amendment never applied to businesses, only the government. You either know this and are trolling, are are very ignorant of the subject matter.
 
Displayed 373 of 373 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report