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.

(Independent)   Ye Olde England, where criminals use ye olde guns   (independent.co.uk) divider line 156
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

8887 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Jan 2014 at 12:31 AM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



156 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-12 09:44:45 PM
One big problem with antique firearms is they use bullets that are uncommon and expensive when you can find them. E.g., ammoseek.com can't find any 7.5mm swiss ordnance ammo. Some of those weapons were apparently very accurate as well as durable, especially revolvers and bolt-action rifles.

How lucky we are in the USA to have oodles of cheap .22LR or .380 handguns around. Enterprising crooks can pay cash for them and consider them disposable, like cell phones.

By the way, to keep anybody from reading your cell phone you've got to take the SIM chip out and stomp on it and the rest of the phone really hard. Maybe smash it with a hammer. Pulverize it. Remember too that most TV shows and movies are not designed to teach people how to get away with committing crimes, and even when the crooks do win it's not advisable to pattern your crime off anything the cops or FBI can download and watch.
 
2014-01-12 11:39:41 PM
2.bp.blogspot.com
wut guns?
 
2014-01-13 12:34:08 AM
Methinks ye meant "gunnes."
 
2014-01-13 12:36:03 AM
In one of its more irregular cases, a testicle containing a bullet was sent to NABIS by a surgeon who had removed it from a Jamaican man shot more than 12 year earlier.

Wat?

slurmed.com
 
2014-01-13 12:36:53 AM
My Sidearm is going on 102 years old
 
2014-01-13 12:37:28 AM
Oops 103.
 
2014-01-13 12:39:21 AM
What, you mean like guns that fire shot?
 
2014-01-13 12:40:19 AM

The One True TheDavid: One big problem with antique firearms is they use bullets that are uncommon and expensive when you can find them. E.g., ammoseek.com can't find any 7.5mm swiss ordnance ammo. Some of those weapons were apparently very accurate as well as durable, especially revolvers and bolt-action rifles.

How lucky we are in the USA to have oodles of cheap .22LR or .380 handguns around. Enterprising crooks can pay cash for them and consider them disposable, like cell phones.

By the way, to keep anybody from reading your cell phone you've got to take the SIM chip out and stomp on it and the rest of the phone really hard. Maybe smash it with a hammer. Pulverize it. Remember too that most TV shows and movies are not designed to teach people how to get away with committing crimes, and even when the crooks do win it's not advisable to pattern your crime off anything the cops or FBI can download and watch.


If you pay cash for a Tracfone at the local bodega, it doesn't really matter because unless they track the phone back to that specific store and run the security tapes, there is nothing to link you to the phone if you ditch it.
 
2014-01-13 12:41:40 AM
WW2 was 483+ years* ago. A 100 year old firearm could be quite formidable.

*dog years
 
2014-01-13 12:42:30 AM
oi50.tinypic.com
 
2014-01-13 12:42:34 AM
The old England, as opposed to the new England. Which is not England at all.

/also, guinea pigs are not pigs. nor from Guinea. new or old.
 
2014-01-13 12:43:55 AM
Watch Pawn Stars and see all the advanced guns we can get.
 
2014-01-13 12:44:43 AM
This can mean only one thing:

Time-traveling murderer!

static4.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-01-13 12:50:36 AM

belhade: This can mean only one thing:

Time-traveling murderer!


Very Dirk Gently, but their time travelers were a cat and murder victim.
 
2014-01-13 12:52:37 AM
Several truck drivers I know carry cap and ball revolvers (usually repro Remingtons) because many states prohibit firearms in commercial vehicles but most states classify cap and ball revolvers as relics and not firearms (NY, Massachusetts, and California classify em as firearms and prohibit them in commercial vehicles the last I checked). Getting shot with a .44 cal cap and ball pistol will kill ya just as dead as a modern .44 will.
 
2014-01-13 01:07:56 AM

Pribar: Several truck drivers I know carry cap and ball revolvers (usually repro Remingtons) because many states prohibit firearms in commercial vehicles but most states classify cap and ball revolvers as relics and not firearms (NY, Massachusetts, and California classify em as firearms and prohibit them in commercial vehicles the last I checked). Getting shot with a .44 cal cap and ball pistol will kill ya just as dead as a modern .44 will.


Cap and ball "revolver"? Are you the author of the news story as well?
 
2014-01-13 01:08:38 AM

wildcardjack: belhade: This can mean only one thing:

Time-traveling murderer!

Very Dirk Gently, but their time travelers were a cat and murder victim.


What does Molly Quinn have to do with Dirk Gently?

www.hawtcelebs.com
 
2014-01-13 01:11:18 AM

ArcadianRefugee: The old England, as opposed to the new England. Which is not England at all.

/also, guinea pigs are not pigs. nor from Guinea. new or old.


Somewhat relevant to my interests....
 
2014-01-13 01:11:55 AM

Diebesbeute: Pribar: Several truck drivers I know carry cap and ball revolvers (usually repro Remingtons) because many states prohibit firearms in commercial vehicles but most states classify cap and ball revolvers as relics and not firearms (NY, Massachusetts, and California classify em as firearms and prohibit them in commercial vehicles the last I checked). Getting shot with a .44 cal cap and ball pistol will kill ya just as dead as a modern .44 will.

Cap and ball "revolver"? Are you the author of the news story as well?


Why'd you put that in quotations?
 
2014-01-13 01:12:36 AM

Diebesbeute: Pribar: Several truck drivers I know carry cap and ball revolvers (usually repro Remingtons) because many states prohibit firearms in commercial vehicles but most states classify cap and ball revolvers as relics and not firearms (NY, Massachusetts, and California classify em as firearms and prohibit them in commercial vehicles the last I checked). Getting shot with a .44 cal cap and ball pistol will kill ya just as dead as a modern .44 will.

Cap and ball "revolver"? Are you the author of the news story as well?


My apologies! I've learned something new. I did not realize they made those back in the day. Sorry!
 
HKW
2014-01-13 01:13:38 AM

The One True TheDavid: One big problem with antique firearms is they use bullets that are uncommon and expensive when you can find them. E.g., ammoseek.com can't find any 7.5mm swiss ordnance ammo. Some of those weapons were apparently very accurate as well as durable, especially revolvers and bolt-action rifles.


I'm sure its available from European ammo suppliers.   But meh..  Just reform .284 winchester brass, and use standard .308 bullets.  The bore diameter of the Swiss was .307.  If you want to get really technical, just pass a standard .308 bullet through a .307 forming die -- but its more a waste of time.
 
2014-01-13 01:16:12 AM

fusillade762: [oi50.tinypic.com image 850x458]


So was that film the good kind of bad, or the bad kind of bad?
 
2014-01-13 01:18:10 AM
BARs aren't 100 years old yet.

:(
 
2014-01-13 01:19:15 AM
Vintage ammo can be reproduced, all thats is needed is a single unfired round it better to have a few rounds though, but with an unfired round they can make molds for the slugs  then study and measure the casing writing down carefully checked measurements to allow casings to be reproduced.   Measure the powder charge in the vintage bullet then your golden so long as you have skills and equipment to make and load your own bullets.

Mind i have no clue what the regulations in the UK are on ammo reloading equipment.
 
2014-01-13 01:20:38 AM

fusillade762:


Why is the clip upside down?


On that AK47.


/also, I seem to recall Ye Olde cartoon of a highwayman. Anyone have any idea what my befuddled brain is pulling up or am I recalling old episodes of Pink Panther (which I am sure had that scene)
 
2014-01-13 01:25:45 AM

Resident Muslim: fusillade762:

Why is the clip upside down?


On that AK47.


LOL that's not even close to being an AK. That's a Bren gun.
 
2014-01-13 01:28:53 AM

doglover: In one of its more irregular cases, a testicle containing a bullet was sent to NABIS by a surgeon who had removed it from a Jamaican man shot more than 12 year earlier.

Wat?

[slurmed.com image 769x646]


Well, either the bullet was removed 12 years ago; the Jamaican was shot more than 12 years ago and the bullet was only just removed; the testicle was removed 12 years ago and the bullet was only just now taken out; or the surgeon has had a shot Jamaican lingering in his ward for 12 years and just now realized it was due to a bullet lodged in his balls.
 
2014-01-13 01:31:30 AM
M1911

Of course, I'm guessing that one actually made in 1911 would be a little bit expensive for the "chav" crowd.
 
2014-01-13 01:33:35 AM

Gyrfalcon: doglover: In one of its more irregular cases, a testicle containing a bullet was sent to NABIS by a surgeon who had removed it from a Jamaican man shot more than 12 year earlier.

Wat?

[slurmed.com image 769x646]

Well, either the bullet was removed 12 years ago; the Jamaican was shot more than 12 years ago and the bullet was only just removed; the testicle was removed 12 years ago and the bullet was only just now taken out; or the surgeon has had a shot Jamaican lingering in his ward for 12 years and just now realized it was due to a bullet lodged in his balls.


I know which one it is based on the context, but I would LOVE for it to have been the latter.

Oh, thank ja. I been here 12 years, mon. You finally fixed my balls. One love.
 
2014-01-13 01:41:11 AM

Gleeman: fusillade762: [oi50.tinypic.com image 850x458]

So was that film the good kind of bad, or the bad kind of bad?


I enjoyed it. Which is more than I can say for "Snatch".
 
2014-01-13 01:47:00 AM

fusillade762: [oi50.tinypic.com image 850x458]


yeah, but is that gun over 100 years old? nice gun though, that bren.
 
2014-01-13 01:50:46 AM

some_beer_drinker: fusillade762: [oi50.tinypic.com image 850x458]

yeah, but is that gun over 100 years old? nice gun though, that bren.


1935. Not quite.
 
2014-01-13 01:51:28 AM
What a load of crap.  Everyone knows that there is no gun crime in the United Kingdom.  Their strict gun laws eliminated all gun crime.  Duh.
 
2014-01-13 01:52:41 AM
I'd be okay with it if our "right to bear arms" only covered flintlocks, wheel locks, muzzle-loaders, etc. That would be fine. If you want to stock up on weapons that take 2 minutes to load, more power to you. Same goes for gangs. I'd probably be able to accept a world where gangs are armed with nothing more dangerous than a blunderbuss (which ain't exactly harmless, but isn't going to do much after the single shot).

My problem with modern firearms is the ability to fire so many bullets with so little effort, and the ease with which they are reloaded. If you have a guy hold you up with a flintlock, you have a chance to kick his ass if you can make him miss his only shot.

Yeah, sure, some gangs would have gatling guns, but that would just make it kind of hilarious to watch gangbangers pushing the thing around and feeding ammo into it.

I think the world would be better if all weapons were downgraded to those of 1680s pirates.
 
2014-01-13 01:54:57 AM

Diebesbeute: Diebesbeute: Pribar: Several truck drivers I know carry cap and ball revolvers (usually repro Remingtons) because many states prohibit firearms in commercial vehicles but most states classify cap and ball revolvers as relics and not firearms (NY, Massachusetts, and California classify em as firearms and prohibit them in commercial vehicles the last I checked). Getting shot with a .44 cal cap and ball pistol will kill ya just as dead as a modern .44 will.

Cap and ball "revolver"? Are you the author of the news story as well?

My apologies! I've learned something new. I did not realize they made those back in the day. Sorry!


Not a fan of westerns, are you?
 
2014-01-13 01:54:59 AM

The One True TheDavid: One big problem with antique firearms is they use bullets that are uncommon and expensive when you can find them. E.g., ammoseek.com can't find any 7.5mm swiss ordnance ammo. Some of those weapons were apparently very accurate as well as durable, especially revolvers and bolt-action rifles.


On the other hand, as time marches on...  if a hundred years is the cut-off point, then some surprisingly modern calibers come into play.  I mean, an original M1911 Colt would qualify, as would some .38 revolvers.  Browning 9mm has been around almost as long too IIRC.  Rifles, well, they are less useful for criminal purposes (who is going to do a drive by with a 98 Mauser?) but still, they would be available.

As has been stated unthread a bit, in the US it's basically a division based not on age per se but on tech.  Black powder, cap and ball guns are usually less regulated than cartridge weapons.  Criminals aren't usually interested in things that take that much time to load, they aren't very effective tools of malfeasance.
 
2014-01-13 02:03:45 AM

ZeroCorpse: Diebesbeute: Diebesbeute: Pribar: Several truck drivers I know carry cap and ball revolvers (usually repro Remingtons) because many states prohibit firearms in commercial vehicles but most states classify cap and ball revolvers as relics and not firearms (NY, Massachusetts, and California classify em as firearms and prohibit them in commercial vehicles the last I checked). Getting shot with a .44 cal cap and ball pistol will kill ya just as dead as a modern .44 will.

Cap and ball "revolver"? Are you the author of the news story as well?

My apologies! I've learned something new. I did not realize they made those back in the day. Sorry!

Not a fan of westerns, are you?


Apparently not.  I'm not sure why, but I had always assumed that cap and ball were only single shot.

I was trying to comment on how the reporter had several little errors in the story (referring to the slug itself as a cartridge, etc etc).  All I ended up doing was showing off my own ignorance.  So, Score!?  Again, Sorry Pribar.
 
2014-01-13 02:08:13 AM

ArcadianRefugee: wildcardjack: belhade: This can mean only one thing:

Time-traveling murderer!

Very Dirk Gently, but their time travelers were a cat and murder victim.

What does Molly Quinn have to do with Dirk Gently?

[www.hawtcelebs.com image 425x552]


She really deserves her own show. Hopefully not just a spinoff.
 
2014-01-13 02:08:22 AM

ZeroCorpse: I'd be okay with it if our "right to bear arms" only covered flintlocks, wheel locks, muzzle-loaders, etc. That would be fine. If you want to stock up on weapons that take 2 minutes to load, more power to you. Same goes for gangs. I'd probably be able to accept a world where gangs are armed with nothing more dangerous than a blunderbuss (which ain't exactly harmless, but isn't going to do much after the single shot).

My problem with modern firearms is the ability to fire so many bullets with so little effort, and the ease with which they are reloaded. If you have a guy hold you up with a flintlock, you have a chance to kick his ass if you can make him miss his only shot.

Yeah, sure, some gangs would have gatling guns, but that would just make it kind of hilarious to watch gangbangers pushing the thing around and feeding ammo into it.

I think the world would be better if all weapons were downgraded to those of 1680s pirates.


For a very long time (like, until the advent of rifling long, and even then...) the most powerful force on the battlefield was not the firearm. Not even artillery, although if used well it was immensely effective. No, the most powerful force on the battlefield was the blade. From pikes to shanks. Bangers wouldn't bother with muskets. They'd let you take your one inaccurate shot, then they'd gut you. Firearms are a great leveling force that allows the weaker to stand against the strong. Now instead of couching this idea in silly notions of tyranny and resistance, let's talk law enforcement. The smart cop is a modern invention. Before guns, what good was a cop who could think, if he couldn't go toe-to-toe with the thugs? Firearms are a risk, yes, but they have a measurable level of good they contribute to society that the blade cannot match. Liberalism and the Enlightenment owe their existence to the firearm. Remove them, and we'll be back to feudalism in too short a time.
 
2014-01-13 02:14:06 AM
i.imgur.com

Not all old weapons are obsolete.
 
2014-01-13 02:14:26 AM

Diebesbeute: ZeroCorpse: Diebesbeute: Diebesbeute: Pribar: Several truck drivers I know carry cap and ball revolvers (usually repro Remingtons) because many states prohibit firearms in commercial vehicles but most states classify cap and ball revolvers as relics and not firearms (NY, Massachusetts, and California classify em as firearms and prohibit them in commercial vehicles the last I checked). Getting shot with a .44 cal cap and ball pistol will kill ya just as dead as a modern .44 will.

Cap and ball "revolver"? Are you the author of the news story as well?

My apologies! I've learned something new. I did not realize they made those back in the day. Sorry!

Not a fan of westerns, are you?

Apparently not.  I'm not sure why, but I had always assumed that cap and ball were only single shot.

I was trying to comment on how the reporter had several little errors in the story (referring to the slug itself as a cartridge, etc etc).  All I ended up doing was showing off my own ignorance.  So, Score!?  Again, Sorry Pribar.


usually single action, 5-6 shot.

/back when, THC had real history on it
 
2014-01-13 02:22:37 AM
i.ytimg.com
www.gunandgame.com
 
2014-01-13 02:23:15 AM

ZeroCorpse: which ain't exactly harmless, but isn't going to do much after the single shot


upload.wikimedia.org

Yes, safe as mother's milk.


/provided your mother is the Alien queen
 
2014-01-13 02:27:34 AM

ZeroCorpse: I'd be okay with it if our "right to bear arms" only covered flintlocks, wheel locks, muzzle-loaders, etc. That would be fine. If you want to stock up on weapons that take 2 minutes to load, more power to you. Same goes for gangs. I'd probably be able to accept a world where gangs are armed with nothing more dangerous than a blunderbuss (which ain't exactly harmless, but isn't going to do much after the single shot).

My problem with modern firearms is the ability to fire so many bullets with so little effort, and the ease with which they are reloaded. If you have a guy hold you up with a flintlock, you have a chance to kick his ass if you can make him miss his only shot.

Yeah, sure, some gangs would have gatling guns, but that would just make it kind of hilarious to watch gangbangers pushing the thing around and feeding ammo into it.

I think the world would be better if all weapons were downgraded to those of 1680s pirates.


Yeah, that's what we want - the Crips and the Bloods, clambering around in the riggings, slashing at one another with cutlasses.
 
2014-01-13 02:39:10 AM

doglover: ZeroCorpse: which ain't exactly harmless, but isn't going to do much after the single shot

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x589]

Yes, safe as mother's milk.

/provided your mother is the Alien queen


Since the same effect can be accomplished with a broom handle, I fail to see that as a counterargument.

The weapon is harmless (effectively) after a single shot; just because you strap another weapon to it doesn't change this fact.
 
2014-01-13 02:42:28 AM

ArcadianRefugee: I fail to see that as a counterargument.


Well, that would probably because it's not a counterargument.
 
HKW
2014-01-13 02:51:48 AM

ZeroCorpse: I think the world would be better if all weapons were downgraded to those of 1680s pirates.


Here in Vietnam, a 'gang' will ride up to you on your 'fancy' bike, stab you in your liver as they shove you off the bike, and ride away to the vietnam-verison-of-pawn-stars to cash in..

you need to think dynamically my friend.  Having a myopic knee-jerk dislike for 'modern' weapons, and ridding them, doesnt make the world any safer than it already is.
 
2014-01-13 02:56:54 AM

Gleeman: fusillade762: [oi50.tinypic.com image 850x458]

So was that film the good kind of bad, or the bad kind of bad?


Lock Stock? WTF? It's the awesome kind of brilliant.
 
2014-01-13 03:08:15 AM

ArcadianRefugee: The weapon is harmless (effectively) after a single shot; just because you strap another weapon to it doesn't change this fact.


You should learn about weapons, one of the  major concerns for the military when going from wooden stock firearms to Plastic and polymer is that soldiers would no longer be able to bash a persons brains out with one,  .There is a reason Military rifles have metal butt plates.
 
2014-01-13 03:09:55 AM

Gleeman: [i.imgur.com image 660x320]

Not all old weapons are obsolete.


Good ol Ma deuce.
 
2014-01-13 03:11:22 AM

fastbow: ZeroCorpse: I'd be okay with it if our "right to bear arms" only covered flintlocks, wheel locks, muzzle-loaders, etc. That would be fine. If you want to stock up on weapons that take 2 minutes to load, more power to you. Same goes for gangs. I'd probably be able to accept a world where gangs are armed with nothing more dangerous than a blunderbuss (which ain't exactly harmless, but isn't going to do much after the single shot).

My problem with modern firearms is the ability to fire so many bullets with so little effort, and the ease with which they are reloaded. If you have a guy hold you up with a flintlock, you have a chance to kick his ass if you can make him miss his only shot.

Yeah, sure, some gangs would have gatling guns, but that would just make it kind of hilarious to watch gangbangers pushing the thing around and feeding ammo into it.

I think the world would be better if all weapons were downgraded to those of 1680s pirates.

For a very long time (like, until the advent of rifling long, and even then...) the most powerful force on the battlefield was not the firearm. Not even artillery, although if used well it was immensely effective. No, the most powerful force on the battlefield was the blade. From pikes to shanks. Bangers wouldn't bother with muskets. They'd let you take your one inaccurate shot, then they'd gut you. Firearms are a great leveling force that allows the weaker to stand against the strong. Now instead of couching this idea in silly notions of tyranny and resistance, let's talk law enforcement. The smart cop is a modern invention. Before guns, what good was a cop who could think, if he couldn't go toe-to-toe with the thugs? Firearms are a risk, yes, but they have a measurable level of good they contribute to society that the blade cannot match. Liberalism and the Enlightenment owe their existence to the firearm. Remove them, and we'll be back to feudalism in too short a time.


I'm not entirely certain, but if memory serves correctly wasn't Napoleon the first general who used massed artillery?
 
x23
2014-01-13 03:46:17 AM

Mock26: What a load of crap.  Everyone knows that there is no gun crime in the United Kingdom.  Their strict gun laws eliminated all gun crime.  Duh.


i dunno... "900 incidents a year in which a weapon is actually fired or brandished" in a country of 63.23 million seems like a significant reduction in gun crime. feel like comparing those numbers to the US? i'd guess we hit 900 in a week.
 
2014-01-13 03:55:43 AM
Also, in the United States you can pay a nominal licensing fee, and obtain a "Curio and Relic" license.  You will then be able to have a semiautomatic rifle chambered for the same round as an AK47 to your doorstep.

Shocking, I know.

I miss my old SKS.  Looking for a nice Yugo with 'nade launcher to complement my Zastava AK.
 
2014-01-13 03:57:11 AM
I'll be happy to have an Enfield .303 from 1914, as long as it's in good condition. Fast, accurate, and deadly. What more can you ask for?
 
2014-01-13 03:59:25 AM

jso2897: ZeroCorpse: I'd be okay with it if our "right to bear arms" only covered flintlocks, wheel locks, muzzle-loaders, etc. That would be fine. If you want to stock up on weapons that take 2 minutes to load, more power to you. Same goes for gangs. I'd probably be able to accept a world where gangs are armed with nothing more dangerous than a blunderbuss (which ain't exactly harmless, but isn't going to do much after the single shot).

My problem with modern firearms is the ability to fire so many bullets with so little effort, and the ease with which they are reloaded. If you have a guy hold you up with a flintlock, you have a chance to kick his ass if you can make him miss his only shot.

Yeah, sure, some gangs would have gatling guns, but that would just make it kind of hilarious to watch gangbangers pushing the thing around and feeding ammo into it.

I think the world would be better if all weapons were downgraded to those of 1680s pirates.

Yeah, that's what we want - the Crips and the Bloods, clambering around in the riggings, slashing at one another with cutlasses.


Part of me wants to start a social experiment where we get some influential rappers to start trading in their Glocks for blinged out flintlocks and cutlasses.
 
2014-01-13 04:02:14 AM

GentlemanJ: I'll be happy to have an Enfield .303 from 1914, as long as it's in good condition. Fast, accurate, and deadly. What more can you ask for?


2 chicks at the same time.

/lock stock and 2 smoking barrels and office space are great movies.
 
2014-01-13 04:08:17 AM

ArcadianRefugee: The old England, as opposed to the new England. Which is not England at all.

/also, guinea pigs are not pigs. nor from Guinea. new or old.


Aye, right. Next you'll be telling me that pineapples aren't apples and that ham isn't really hamster meat.
 
2014-01-13 04:31:58 AM

Azlefty: You should learn about weapons, one of the major concerns for the military when going from wooden stock firearms to Plastic and polymer is that soldiers would no longer be able to bash a persons brains out with one, .There is a reason Military rifles have metal butt plates.


Bite this shiny metal butt! SCHMACK

/They should make an inverted imprint of the word 'Deleted' on it.
 
2014-01-13 05:07:01 AM

x23: Mock26: What a load of crap.  Everyone knows that there is no gun crime in the United Kingdom.  Their strict gun laws eliminated all gun crime.  Duh.

i dunno... "900 incidents a year in which a weapon is actually fired or brandished" in a country of 63.23 million seems like a significant reduction in gun crime. feel like comparing those numbers to the US? i'd guess we hit 900 in a week.


One problem with UK gun statistics is that I never know how they've compiled their numbers.  Gun crime in the UK includes BB guns, air rifles, replicas, anything where a reasonable person would believe that there was a gun or would feel threatened.  I heard ont he radio last week that armed police only discharged their firearms in 3 incidents in the last year, I think it's a total of 5 shots (and a couple of them were probably dogs)

In the United Kingdom, annual firearm homicides total 

2011: 38
2010: 33
2009: 26
2008: 40
2007: 15
2006: 61
2005: 38
2004: 36
2003: 29
2002: 39
2001: 38
2000: 71
1999: 45
1998: 33
1997: 45
1996: 84

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom

 
2014-01-13 05:57:17 AM

Feed_The_Walrus: x23: Mock26: What a load of crap.  Everyone knows that there is no gun crime in the United Kingdom.  Their strict gun laws eliminated all gun crime.  Duh.

i dunno... "900 incidents a year in which a weapon is actually fired or brandished" in a country of 63.23 million seems like a significant reduction in gun crime. feel like comparing those numbers to the US? i'd guess we hit 900 in a week.

One problem with UK gun statistics is that I never know how they've compiled their numbers.  Gun crime in the UK includes BB guns, air rifles, replicas, anything where a reasonable person would believe that there was a gun or would feel threatened.  I heard ont he radio last week that armed police only discharged their firearms in 3 incidents in the last year, I think it's a total of 5 shots (and a couple of them were probably dogs)

In the United Kingdom, annual firearm homicides total 

2011: 38
2010: 33
2009: 26
2008: 40
2007: 15
2006: 61
2005: 38
2004: 36
2003: 29
2002: 39
2001: 38
2000: 71
1999: 45
1998: 33
1997: 45
1996: 84

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom


Yeah but machetes are flying everywhere and I'd rather be shot
 
2014-01-13 06:16:02 AM

GodComplex: jso2897: ZeroCorpse: I'd be okay with it if our "right to bear arms" only covered flintlocks, wheel locks, muzzle-loaders, etc. That would be fine. If you want to stock up on weapons that take 2 minutes to load, more power to you. Same goes for gangs. I'd probably be able to accept a world where gangs are armed with nothing more dangerous than a blunderbuss (which ain't exactly harmless, but isn't going to do much after the single shot).

My problem with modern firearms is the ability to fire so many bullets with so little effort, and the ease with which they are reloaded. If you have a guy hold you up with a flintlock, you have a chance to kick his ass if you can make him miss his only shot.

Yeah, sure, some gangs would have gatling guns, but that would just make it kind of hilarious to watch gangbangers pushing the thing around and feeding ammo into it.

I think the world would be better if all weapons were downgraded to those of 1680s pirates.

Yeah, that's what we want - the Crips and the Bloods, clambering around in the riggings, slashing at one another with cutlasses.

Part of me wants to start a social experiment where we get some influential rappers to start trading in their Glocks for blinged out flintlocks and cutlasses.


Let's face it - gangsta rap and pirate-speak would dovetail perfectly. They could trick out their escalades to look like galleons, with cannons and shiat.  With a patch over one eye, they could become even worse marksmen.
It's a fantastic idea.
 
2014-01-13 06:25:12 AM

belhade: This can mean only one thing:

Time-traveling murderer!


What flick, please.
 
2014-01-13 06:47:42 AM
Well, isn't that quaint ?
 
2014-01-13 06:56:41 AM

The One True TheDavid: One big problem with antique firearms is they use bullets that are uncommon and expensive when you can find them. E.g., ammoseek.com can't find any 7.5mm swiss ordnance ammo. Some of those weapons were apparently very accurate as well as durable, especially revolvers and bolt-action rifles.


http://www.gunbot.net/ammo/rifle/75swiss/ Going for 52 cents a round right now. Not too bad, those are .308 prices. Chances are that even if there isn't surplus in your obscure caliber, Prvi Partizan is making some new manufacture.
 
2014-01-13 07:21:02 AM

The_Mad_Dutchman: Chances are that even if there isn't surplus in your obscure caliber, Prvi Partizan is making some new manufacture.


Yep, Prvi Partisan has had a ton of ammo when I couldn't find it in Remington or Winchester.  Damn, but their. 38 Spc was dirty-shooting, though.  :P
 
2014-01-13 07:22:06 AM

Feed_The_Walrus: I think it's a total of 5 shots (and a couple of them were probably dogs)


What kind of looney would give a dog a gun. Man's best friend doesn't mean man's smartest.
 
2014-01-13 07:30:03 AM

jso2897: GodComplex: jso2897: ZeroCorpse: I'd be okay with it if our "right to bear arms" only covered flintlocks, wheel locks, muzzle-loaders, etc. That would be fine. If you want to stock up on weapons that take 2 minutes to load, more power to you. Same goes for gangs. I'd probably be able to accept a world where gangs are armed with nothing more dangerous than a blunderbuss (which ain't exactly harmless, but isn't going to do much after the single shot).

My problem with modern firearms is the ability to fire so many bullets with so little effort, and the ease with which they are reloaded. If you have a guy hold you up with a flintlock, you have a chance to kick his ass if you can make him miss his only shot.

Yeah, sure, some gangs would have gatling guns, but that would just make it kind of hilarious to watch gangbangers pushing the thing around and feeding ammo into it.

I think the world would be better if all weapons were downgraded to those of 1680s pirates.

Yeah, that's what we want - the Crips and the Bloods, clambering around in the riggings, slashing at one another with cutlasses.

Part of me wants to start a social experiment where we get some influential rappers to start trading in their Glocks for blinged out flintlocks and cutlasses.

Let's face it - gangsta rap and pirate-speak would dovetail perfectly. They could trick out their escalades to look like galleons, with cannons and shiat.  With a patch over one eye, they could become even worse marksmen.
It's a fantastic idea.


You guys seen zero from OKC?
http://www.thelostogle.com/wp-content /uploads/2013/03/zero-5.jpg
 
2014-01-13 07:33:41 AM

The_Mad_Dutchman: The One True TheDavid: One big problem with antique firearms is they use bullets that are uncommon and expensive when you can find them. E.g., ammoseek.com can't find any 7.5mm swiss ordnance ammo. Some of those weapons were apparently very accurate as well as durable, especially revolvers and bolt-action rifles.

http://www.gunbot.net/ammo/rifle/75swiss/ Going for 52 cents a round right now. Not too bad, those are .308 prices. Chances are that even if there isn't surplus in your obscure caliber, Prvi Partizan is making some new manufacture.


Prvi is most of the reason I own an Paris aka in 7.7 x 58, a Nagant revolver in 7.62 x 38R, and a Chilean Mauser in 7 x 57. All were around $100 due to obscure chambering.
 
2014-01-13 07:34:21 AM

x23: Mock26: What a load of crap.  Everyone knows that there is no gun crime in the United Kingdom.  Their strict gun laws eliminated all gun crime.  Duh.

i dunno... "900 incidents a year in which a weapon is actually fired or brandished" in a country of 63.23 million seems like a significant reduction in gun crime. feel like comparing those numbers to the US? i'd guess we hit 900 in a week.


We also have roughly five times as many people, so the actual number is meaningless unless you factor in the per capita rate.  Yes, we still come out higher, but not as high as when you just compare the total number.
 
2014-01-13 07:44:11 AM

ransack.: Feed_The_Walrus: x23: Mock26: What a load of crap.  Everyone knows that there is no gun crime in the United Kingdom.  Their strict gun laws eliminated all gun crime.  Duh.

i dunno... "900 incidents a year in which a weapon is actually fired or brandished" in a country of 63.23 million seems like a significant reduction in gun crime. feel like comparing those numbers to the US? i'd guess we hit 900 in a week.

One problem with UK gun statistics is that I never know how they've compiled their numbers.  Gun crime in the UK includes BB guns, air rifles, replicas, anything where a reasonable person would believe that there was a gun or would feel threatened.  I heard ont he radio last week that armed police only discharged their firearms in 3 incidents in the last year, I think it's a total of 5 shots (and a couple of them were probably dogs)

In the United Kingdom, annual firearm homicides total 

2011: 38
2010: 33
2009: 26
2008: 40
2007: 15
2006: 61
2005: 38
2004: 36
2003: 29
2002: 39
2001: 38
2000: 71
1999: 45
1998: 33
1997: 45
1996: 84

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom

Yeah but machetes are flying everywhere and I'd rather be shot


Yes, we have a bit over twice as many deaths via knives as we do by guns. However, our total homicides are currently about 700-730 per year for the whole country. That's a death rate per 100,000 that's a quarter of the US total. 1.2 vs 4.7

As a UK gun ownner and user, I'm pretty happy with the laws we have regarding certification of weapons. For a shotgun license, you apply and the local firearms officer will come and talk to you to assess you and your application. They also check out your storage capacity too, i.e. the number of weapons your lockable cabinet can hold. If you buy (each sale is logged via the police by the seller) more than you can store in that cabinet, you can expect a visit from the police and a possible fine/revocation of your license.
 
2014-01-13 07:51:05 AM

Diebesbeute: Pribar: Several truck drivers I know carry cap and ball revolvers (usually repro Remingtons) because many states prohibit firearms in commercial vehicles but most states classify cap and ball revolvers as relics and not firearms (NY, Massachusetts, and California classify em as firearms and prohibit them in commercial vehicles the last I checked). Getting shot with a .44 cal cap and ball pistol will kill ya just as dead as a modern .44 will.

Cap and ball "revolver"? Are you the author of the news story as well?


It's a perfectly cromulent description.  It describes the ammunition:  A lead ball as a projectile, and a percussion cap as an ignition source for the loose powder or powder pellet used as a propellant (either black powder, or a BP substitute like Pyrodex or TripleSeven).

The appellation "cap and ball revolver", which, btw, were the first truly practical repeating firearms, is applied to those kinds of guns to distinguish them from more modern revolvers which have bored-through cylinders and which load fixed ammunition (ie., a self-contained metallic cartridge).
 
2014-01-13 07:55:29 AM
www.blakeneymanor.com
You guys are slacking...
 
2014-01-13 07:57:24 AM

Shirley Ujest: belhade: This can mean only one thing:

Time-traveling murderer!

What flick, please.


Castle.
/TV show.
//Come for the brown coat.
///Stay for the ginger.
 
2014-01-13 08:04:20 AM

Shirley Ujest: belhade: This can mean only one thing:

Time-traveling murderer!

What flick, please.


I think that was an episode of Castle.
 
2014-01-13 08:12:10 AM

ZeroCorpse: I'd be okay with it if our "right to bear arms" only covered flintlocks, wheel locks, muzzle-loaders, etc. That would be fine. If you want to stock up on weapons that take 2 minutes to load, more power to you.


OK, then you're only allowed to use your voice, a parchment and quill pen, or a manual printing press to express your opinions.
 
2014-01-13 08:15:47 AM

falconne: Gleeman: fusillade762: [oi50.tinypic.com image 850x458]

So was that film the good kind of bad, or the bad kind of bad?

Lock Stock? WTF? It's the awesome kind of brilliant.


You're fat. You look as though you're not but you are.
 
2014-01-13 08:17:17 AM

Trance354: Diebesbeute: ZeroCorpse: Diebesbeute: Diebesbeute: Pribar: Several truck drivers I know carry cap and ball revolvers (usually repro Remingtons) because many states prohibit firearms in commercial vehicles but most states classify cap and ball revolvers as relics and not firearms (NY, Massachusetts, and California classify em as firearms and prohibit them in commercial vehicles the last I checked). Getting shot with a .44 cal cap and ball pistol will kill ya just as dead as a modern .44 will.

Cap and ball "revolver"? Are you the author of the news story as well?

My apologies! I've learned something new. I did not realize they made those back in the day. Sorry!

Not a fan of westerns, are you?

Apparently not.  I'm not sure why, but I had always assumed that cap and ball were only single shot.

I was trying to comment on how the reporter had several little errors in the story (referring to the slug itself as a cartridge, etc etc).  All I ended up doing was showing off my own ignorance.  So, Score!?  Again, Sorry Pribar.

usually single action, 5-6 shot.

/back when, THC had real history on it


Damn dopers all potted up talking about how great the grass is.
 
2014-01-13 08:18:33 AM

jso2897: ZeroCorpse: I'd be okay with it if our "right to bear arms" only covered flintlocks, wheel locks, muzzle-loaders, etc. That would be fine. If you want to stock up on weapons that take 2 minutes to load, more power to you. Same goes for gangs. I'd probably be able to accept a world where gangs are armed with nothing more dangerous than a blunderbuss (which ain't exactly harmless, but isn't going to do much after the single shot).

My problem with modern firearms is the ability to fire so many bullets with so little effort, and the ease with which they are reloaded. If you have a guy hold you up with a flintlock, you have a chance to kick his ass if you can make him miss his only shot.

Yeah, sure, some gangs would have gatling guns, but that would just make it kind of hilarious to watch gangbangers pushing the thing around and feeding ammo into it.

I think the world would be better if all weapons were downgraded to those of 1680s pirates.

Yeah, that's what we want - the Crips and the Bloods, clambering around in the riggings, slashing at one another with cutlasses.


Ever try to open-carry a cutlass?
 
2014-01-13 08:20:32 AM

x23: Mock26: What a load of crap.  Everyone knows that there is no gun crime in the United Kingdom.  Their strict gun laws eliminated all gun crime.  Duh.

i dunno... "900 incidents a year in which a weapon is actually fired or brandished" in a country of 63.23 million seems like a significant reduction in gun crime. feel like comparing those numbers to the US? i'd guess we hit 900 in a week.


Its the autos that are the problem. Automobile.

/40000 a year
 
2014-01-13 08:22:18 AM

ArcadianRefugee: doglover: ZeroCorpse: which ain't exactly harmless, but isn't going to do much after the single shot

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x589]

Yes, safe as mother's milk.

/provided your mother is the Alien queen

Since the same effect can be accomplished with a broom handle, I fail to see that as a counterargument.

The weapon is harmless (effectively) after a single shot; just because you strap another weapon to it doesn't change this fact.


What if someone brings more than one?

It was common during the time period when single shot flintlocks were used for people going in harms way armed to arm themselves with a pair, or "brace" of loaded pistols.  Some carried more than 2.  In fact, notorious pirate Edward "Blackbeard" Teach was known to carry six loaded pistols:

upload.wikimedia.org

What would you do about the "multiple gun loophole"?
 
2014-01-13 08:23:16 AM

StoPPeRmobile: Ever try to open-carry a cutlass?


Keep the cutlass in your Cutlass.
 
2014-01-13 08:30:36 AM
Was it a Winchester?  DNRTFA

www.imfdb.org
 
2014-01-13 08:36:29 AM
Look at that picture showing the "drawer full of homemade firearms".  There appears to be at least one home-made submachine gun in there.  Of course we can't tell if it's actually full-auto or not from the picture, but people in the UK have made them before.

It's actually easier to make a simple full-auto submachine gun than to make a semi-auto version.
 
2014-01-13 08:42:27 AM

The One True TheDavid: How lucky we are in the USA to have oodles of cheap .22LR or .380 handguns around.


Unfortunately, finding cheap .22LR or .380 ammunition is no longer possible.
 
2014-01-13 08:44:38 AM

some_beer_drinker: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 640x360]
wut guns?


came for this
 
2014-01-13 08:51:50 AM

Devolving_Spud: [www.blakeneymanor.com image 308x240]
You guys are slacking...


Note, he's carrying *TWO* pistols.  Even fictional (and stupid) highwaymen played by John Cleese know how to side-step the "single shot" handicap of a flintlock pistol by carrying more than one.
 
2014-01-13 08:57:43 AM

fastbow: The smart cop is a modern invention.


So modern that it hasn't been invented yet!
 
2014-01-13 09:01:38 AM
9,555 gun offences in a year? Isn't that like a long weekend in Chicago? Yup, gun control would never work.
 
2014-01-13 09:04:33 AM

edmo: 9,555 gun offences in a year? Isn't that like a long weekend in Chicago? Yup, gun control would never work.


An island of 60m people is clearly the same as a country of 320m people with the explicit right to military weaponry.
 
2014-01-13 09:25:41 AM
www.dvdtalk.com

FRAMED.
 
2014-01-13 09:26:22 AM

Feed_The_Walrus: I heard ont he radio last week that armed police only discharged their firearms in 3 incidents in the last year, I think it's a total of 5 shots (and a couple of them were probably dogs)

Table 4 Number of incidents where conventional firearms were discharged

This is how many "incidents" there have been where firearms have been discharged.

Year    Incidents
2002/3    10
2003/4    4
2004/5    5
2005/6    9
2006/7    3
2007/8    7
2008/9    5
2009/10    6
2010/119    4
2011/12    5

Source: Association of Chief Police Officers
(Does not include discharges for animal destruction or during police training)



Of those 5 incidents on 2011/12, there were 2 fatalities.  In 2012/13 there were 0 (yes zero) fatalities.

Source
 
2014-01-13 09:29:09 AM

edmo: 9,555 gun offences in a year? Isn't that like a long weekend in Chicago? Yup, gun control would never work.


Historically, the UK has had a low crime rate even before they had any significant gun control.

They passed their first real significant gun control law, the one the current laws are largely based upon, in 1920 not out of fear of crime, but out of fear of a Bolshevik-style revolution in the UK.
 
2014-01-13 09:34:37 AM
Saw an ad in Shotgun News awhile back. Somebody was taking antique (pre-1898) bolt-action magazine rifles, rechambering them for modern ammo (7.62 NATO) and selling them while emphasizing how they were untraceable and legal for felons to own. Never underestimate the avarice of assholes.
 
2014-01-13 09:43:18 AM

mbillips: Saw an ad in Shotgun News awhile back. Somebody was taking antique (pre-1898) bolt-action magazine rifles, rechambering them for modern ammo (7.62 NATO) and selling them while emphasizing how they were untraceable and legal for felons to own. Never underestimate the avarice of assholes.


I found the man placing those ads...

img.fark.net
 
2014-01-13 10:05:24 AM

Gleeman: [i.imgur.com image 660x320]
Not all old weapons are obsolete.


Ma! What are you doing hanging around with sailors?
 
2014-01-13 10:06:35 AM

StoPPeRmobile: Ever try to open-carry a cutlass?


Nope. Saber, on the other hand ...
 
2014-01-13 10:07:47 AM
www.americawriteshome.us
"Ye" is pronounced "The"
 
2014-01-13 10:12:12 AM

Azlefty: ArcadianRefugee: The weapon is harmless (effectively) after a single shot; just because you strap another weapon to it doesn't change this fact.

You should learn about weapons, one of the  major concerns for the military when going from wooden stock firearms to Plastic and polymer is that soldiers would no longer be able to bash a persons brains out with one,  .There is a reason Military rifles have metal butt plates.


Contrary to what you might think, a "buttstroke" is a solution to sexual harassment.
 
2014-01-13 10:29:51 AM

The_Mad_Dutchman: mbillips: Saw an ad in Shotgun News awhile back. Somebody was taking antique (pre-1898) bolt-action magazine rifles, rechambering them for modern ammo (7.62 NATO) and selling them while emphasizing how they were untraceable and legal for felons to own. Never underestimate the avarice of assholes.

I found the man placing those ads...

[img.fark.net image 494x314]


Nah, that's totally legal. You can rechamber or rebarrel an antique rifle for modern ammo, and it's still considered a "non-firearm" by the Feds. Some states restrict ownership of antique cartridge arms, and cap and ball replicas, but the Feds don't.
 
2014-01-13 10:40:31 AM

mbillips: Saw an ad in Shotgun News awhile back. Somebody was taking antique (pre-1898) bolt-action magazine rifles, rechambering them for modern ammo (7.62 NATO) and selling them while emphasizing how they were untraceable and legal for felons to own. Never underestimate the avarice of assholes.


Not all felons are created equal, either.  For instance, Martha Stewart is a felon.  So is Tim Allen.

I don't think I'd feel particularly worried if either of them had an old rebarreled Mauser for, say, deer hunting.

I think the prohibition should be against those convicted of a *VIOLENT* felony from purchasing a firearm.   I don't see a real big societal interest in keeping non-violent felons from owning guns for lawful purposes.  Traditionally, felonies were almost all crimes of violence, with a few exceptions, but today, there are so many different crimes that are now counted as felonies that don't have the actual use or threat of violence, that it's a pretty poor proxy for keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them.

It's the "Bo and Luke Duke" syndrome:  You commit a non-violent felony, and you're condemned to spend your life hunting deer from Dodge Charger, using dynamite tipped arrows from your compound bows.
 
2014-01-13 10:46:57 AM

mbillips: Saw an ad in Shotgun News awhile back. Somebody was taking antique (pre-1898) bolt-action magazine rifles, rechambering them for modern ammo (7.62 NATO) and selling them while emphasizing how they were untraceable and legal for felons to own. Never underestimate the avarice of assholes.


I would never fire modern ammunition in antique weapons.
 
2014-01-13 10:47:22 AM

mbillips: Saw an ad in Shotgun News awhile back. Somebody was taking antique (pre-1898) bolt-action magazine rifles, rechambering them for modern ammo (7.62 NATO) and selling them while emphasizing how they were untraceable and legal for felons to own. Never underestimate the avarice of assholes.


I think the real concern there is in getting firearms that aren't "on paper", because firearms that the government doesn't know you have can't be confiscated.

Whether you believe confiscation is likely or not, a sizable minority of the gun owning population in the US sees it as a real possibility, and they are planning for it.
 
2014-01-13 11:06:27 AM

dittybopper: mbillips: Saw an ad in Shotgun News awhile back. Somebody was taking antique (pre-1898) bolt-action magazine rifles, rechambering them for modern ammo (7.62 NATO) and selling them while emphasizing how they were untraceable and legal for felons to own. Never underestimate the avarice of assholes.

I think the real concern there is in getting firearms that aren't "on paper", because firearms that the government doesn't know you have can't be confiscated.

Whether you believe confiscation is likely or not, a sizable minority of the gun owning population in the US sees it as a real possibility, and they are planning for it.


Those individuals are paranoid lunatics, because absolutely no one in the United States of America has ever advocated firearm confiscation.

Also, just because some people have advocated firearm confiscation does not mean that those who fear confiscation are not lunatics, because none of those advocates are elected officials.

And just because some elected officials have advocated firearm confiscation does not mean that those who are concerned of firearm confiscation are not paranoid, because not every single gun control advocate, without exception, is advocating confiscation.
 
2014-01-13 11:06:56 AM

mbillips: The_Mad_Dutchman: mbillips: Saw an ad in Shotgun News awhile back. Somebody was taking antique (pre-1898) bolt-action magazine rifles, rechambering them for modern ammo (7.62 NATO) and selling them while emphasizing how they were untraceable and legal for felons to own. Never underestimate the avarice of assholes.

I found the man placing those ads...

[img.fark.net image 494x314]

Nah, that's totally legal. You can rechamber or rebarrel an antique rifle for modern ammo, and it's still considered a "non-firearm" by the Feds. Some states restrict ownership of antique cartridge arms, and cap and ball replicas, but the Feds don't.


You also won't see many of those being used in criminal activities.
 
2014-01-13 11:09:01 AM

dittybopper: mbillips: Saw an ad in Shotgun News awhile back. Somebody was taking antique (pre-1898) bolt-action magazine rifles, rechambering them for modern ammo (7.62 NATO) and selling them while emphasizing how they were untraceable and legal for felons to own. Never underestimate the avarice of assholes.

I think the real concern there is in getting firearms that aren't "on paper", because firearms that the government doesn't know you have can't be confiscated.

Whether you believe confiscation is likely or not, a sizable minority of the gun owning population in the US sees it as a real possibility, and they are planning for it.


Gullibility, stupidity, and paranoia should never be encouraged.
 
2014-01-13 11:22:19 AM

StoPPeRmobile: x23: Mock26: What a load of crap.  Everyone knows that there is no gun crime in the United Kingdom.  Their strict gun laws eliminated all gun crime.  Duh.

i dunno... "900 incidents a year in which a weapon is actually fired or brandished" in a country of 63.23 million seems like a significant reduction in gun crime. feel like comparing those numbers to the US? i'd guess we hit 900 in a week.

Its the autos that are the problem. Automobile.

/40000 a year



Yeah, because it'd be im-farking-possible for me to get to work and home without my gat, just like it would be without my automobile.  Guns and cars are equally useful, and my pants are on my head, retarded.
 
2014-01-13 11:28:52 AM

Dimensio: Those individuals are paranoid lunatics, because absolutely no one in the United States of America has ever advocated firearm confiscation.


Except, you know, for the governor of my state.  Little more than a year ago.

In the interview, Mr. Cuomo did not offer specifics about the measures he might propose, but, while discussing assault weapons, he said: "Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option - keep your gun but permit it."

And yes, others have advocated firearm confiscation.

The 2008 Heller decision has made that all but impossible, of course, but that doesn't mean that nobody is going to try to whittle the definition of what is permissible to own down to a small subset of what is currently legal.
 
2014-01-13 11:29:06 AM

Dimensio: Those individuals are paranoid lunatics, because absolutely no one in the United States of America has ever advocated firearm confiscation.

Also, just because some people have advocated firearm confiscation does not mean that those who fear confiscation are not lunatics, because none of those advocates are elected officials.

And just because some elected officials have advocated firearm confiscation does not mean that those who are concerned of firearm confiscation are not paranoid, because not every single gun control advocate, without exception, is advocating confiscation.


Wait wut?

No one.... well some people but not elected people..... well some elected people but not the ones with any weight behind their movement... well maybe a majority but you are still paranoid.
 
2014-01-13 11:31:43 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: dittybopper: mbillips: Saw an ad in Shotgun News awhile back. Somebody was taking antique (pre-1898) bolt-action magazine rifles, rechambering them for modern ammo (7.62 NATO) and selling them while emphasizing how they were untraceable and legal for felons to own. Never underestimate the avarice of assholes.

I think the real concern there is in getting firearms that aren't "on paper", because firearms that the government doesn't know you have can't be confiscated.

Whether you believe confiscation is likely or not, a sizable minority of the gun owning population in the US sees it as a real possibility, and they are planning for it.

Gullibility, stupidity, and paranoia should never be encouraged.


Then stop trying to ban shiat.  Don't give them any possible evidence that they are right.  Stop talking about further restrictions on guns.  That'll take the wind out of their sails.

Remember, that paranoia didn't just happen.  It's a *REACTION*, not an action.
 
2014-01-13 11:36:47 AM

Whiskey Dickens: Yeah, because it'd be im-farking-possible for me to get to work and home without my gat, just like it would be without my automobile.  Guns and cars are equally useful, and my pants are on my head, retarded.


Cars, or even vehicles in general, aren't specifically protected by the Constitution of the United States.

Arms (which includes firearm, but I'd also argue it includes things like knives, swords, clubs, etc) are protected for personal use by the Constitution of the United States.

The fact that one has more day-to-day utility to you and I doesn't change that in the least.  They are protected for a reason.

Had the ability to travel been considered as important, the right to own horses, boats, wagons, ships, etc. would have been protected also.
 
2014-01-13 11:38:00 AM

dittybopper: Dimensio: Those individuals are paranoid lunatics, because absolutely no one in the United States of America has ever advocated firearm confiscation.

Except, you know, for the governor of my state.  Little more than a year ago.

In the interview, Mr. Cuomo did not offer specifics about the measures he might propose, but, while discussing assault weapons, he said: "Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option - keep your gun but permit it."

And yes, others have advocated firearm confiscation.

The 2008 Heller decision has made that all but impossible, of course, but that doesn't mean that nobody is going to try to whittle the definition of what is permissible to own down to a small subset of what is currently legal.


Dude, you got me *AGAIN!*
 
2014-01-13 11:45:27 AM

theDesertHamster: ransack.: Feed_The_Walrus: x23: Mock26: What a load of crap.  Everyone knows that there is no gun crime in the United Kingdom.  Their strict gun laws eliminated all gun crime.  Duh.

i dunno... "900 incidents a year in which a weapon is actually fired or brandished" in a country of 63.23 million seems like a significant reduction in gun crime. feel like comparing those numbers to the US? i'd guess we hit 900 in a week.

One problem with UK gun statistics is that I never know how they've compiled their numbers.  Gun crime in the UK includes BB guns, air rifles, replicas, anything where a reasonable person would believe that there was a gun or would feel threatened.  I heard ont he radio last week that armed police only discharged their firearms in 3 incidents in the last year, I think it's a total of 5 shots (and a couple of them were probably dogs)

In the United Kingdom, annual firearm homicides total 

2011: 38
2010: 33
2009: 26
2008: 40
2007: 15
2006: 61
2005: 38
2004: 36
2003: 29
2002: 39
2001: 38
2000: 71
1999: 45
1998: 33
1997: 45
1996: 84

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-kingdom

Yeah but machetes are flying everywhere and I'd rather be shot

Yes, we have a bit over twice as many deaths via knives as we do by guns. However, our total homicides are currently about 700-730 per year for the whole country. That's a death rate per 100,000 that's a quarter of the US total. 1.2 vs 4.7

As a UK gun ownner and user, I'm pretty happy with the laws we have regarding certification of weapons. For a shotgun license, you apply and the local firearms officer will come and talk to you to assess you and your application. They also check out your storage capacity too, i.e. the number of weapons your lockable cabinet can hold. If you buy (each sale is logged via the police by the seller) more than you can store in that cabinet, you can expect a visit from the police and a possible fine/revocation of your license.


It's a pity that the rest of your crime rates are a trainwreck compared to the US.
 
2014-01-13 11:46:58 AM
So when a certain kind of weapon is banned, criminals will still do criminal things with other kinds of weapons. I'm shocked, SHOCKED!
 
2014-01-13 12:00:43 PM

netwiz: It's a pity that the rest of your crime rates are a trainwreck compared to the US.


Do you not recognize that homicide (and other violent crimes) are more acceptable when committed without a firearm?
 
2014-01-13 12:04:38 PM

netwiz: It's a pity that the rest of your crime rates are a trainwreck compared to the US.


Do you not recognize that homicide (and other violent crimes) are more acceptable when committed without a firearm?

Saiga410: Dimensio: Those individuals are paranoid lunatics, because absolutely no one in the United States of America has ever advocated firearm confiscation.

Also, just because some people have advocated firearm confiscation does not mean that those who fear confiscation are not lunatics, because none of those advocates are elected officials.

And just because some elected officials have advocated firearm confiscation does not mean that those who are concerned of firearm confiscation are not paranoid, because not every single gun control advocate, without exception, is advocating confiscation.

Wait wut?

No one.... well some people but not elected people..... well some elected people but not the ones with any weight behind their movement... well maybe a majority but you are still paranoid.


In a previous discussion, I responded to an individual who claimed that "no one" was advocating a ban on all firearms with links to three editorials explicitly advocating a complete ban on civilian firearm ownership.

Another poster replied claiming that I was being dishonest in my rebuttal and paranoid in general because not every single firearm restriction advocate was advocating a ban on all firearms, and he demanded that I stop pretending that such advocacy was universal even though I had never done so.
 
2014-01-13 12:06:29 PM
Peter Sutcliff never used a gun.
 
2014-01-13 12:09:11 PM
Britain then:
1.bp.blogspot.com

upload.wikimedia.org

Britain now: 
i.telegraph.co.uk

static2.wikia.nocookie.net

/Just Sayin'
 
2014-01-13 12:14:26 PM

BalugaJoe: Peter Sutcliff never used a gun.


Bass player for The Clash, right?
 
2014-01-13 12:16:20 PM

dittybopper: demaL-demaL-yeH: dittybopper: mbillips: Saw an ad in Shotgun News awhile back. Somebody was taking antique (pre-1898) bolt-action magazine rifles, rechambering them for modern ammo (7.62 NATO) and selling them while emphasizing how they were untraceable and legal for felons to own. Never underestimate the avarice of assholes.

I think the real concern there is in getting firearms that aren't "on paper", because firearms that the government doesn't know you have can't be confiscated.

Whether you believe confiscation is likely or not, a sizable minority of the gun owning population in the US sees it as a real possibility, and they are planning for it.

Gullibility, stupidity, and paranoia should never be encouraged.

Then stop trying to ban shiat.  Don't give them any possible evidence that they are right.  Stop talking about further restrictions on guns.  That'll take the wind out of their sails.

Remember, that paranoia didn't just happen.  It's a *REACTION*, not an action.


Bro, what am I trying to ban?
Mandatory firearm training for everybody sixteen and over who is not encumbered by law, mental illness, or conscience. I want a real milita instead of some disorganized, poorly-led lardass paranoiacs running around in the woods.
 
2014-01-13 12:21:41 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Bro, what am I trying to ban?


Nobody knows who the fark you are, and nobody cares, so basically, whether or not you want to ban something is irrelevant, because some people do in fact want to bans guns, or certain subsets thereof, and you *KNOW* that.

Mandatory firearm training for everybody sixteen and over who is not encumbered by law, mental illness, or conscience. I want a real milita instead of some disorganized, poorly-led lardass paranoiacs running around in the woods.

Maybe we could make it part of the high school curriculum.  Like driver's ed.  Cover basic firearm safety, and basic marksmanship.
 
2014-01-13 12:22:58 PM

Dimensio: netwiz: It's a pity that the rest of your crime rates are a trainwreck compared to the US.

Do you not recognize that homicide (and other violent crimes) are more acceptable when committed without a firearm?


writingishard.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-01-13 12:26:21 PM

dittybopper: demaL-demaL-yeH: Bro, what am I trying to ban?

Nobody knows who the fark you are, and nobody cares, so basically, whether or not you want to ban something is irrelevant, because some people do in fact want to bans guns, or certain subsets thereof, and you *KNOW* that.

Mandatory firearm training for everybody sixteen and over who is not encumbered by law, mental illness, or conscience. I want a real milita instead of some disorganized, poorly-led lardass paranoiacs running around in the woods.

Maybe we could make it part of the high school curriculum.  Like driver's ed.  Cover basic firearm safety, and basic marksmanship.


Like we did when I was a kid?
Peachy.

But every Swingin' Richard and Whistlin' Wendy legally resident in the US becomes a militia member at 16 - enrolled, sworn (or affirmed), medically and mentally screened, regularly trained, weapon qualified, and has arms and ammo inspected, and subject to the UCMJ for (mis)use of militia arms.
 
2014-01-13 12:28:38 PM

Shirley Ujest: belhade: This can mean only one thing:

Time-traveling murderer!

What flick, please.


TV show "Castle"
 
2014-01-13 12:29:01 PM

dittybopper: Nobody knows who the fark you are, and nobody cares, so basically, whether or not you want to ban something is irrelevant, because some people do in fact want to bans guns, or certain subsets thereof, and you *KNOW* that.


So? I want a trillion US dollars tax free.
It.
Won't.
Farking.
Happen.

/And if your aunt had testes, she'd be your uncle.
 
2014-01-13 12:41:08 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Like we did when I was a kid?
Peachy.

But every Swingin' Richard and Whistlin' Wendy legally resident in the US becomes a militia member at 16 - enrolled, sworn (or affirmed), medically and mentally screened, regularly trained, weapon qualified, and has arms and ammo inspected, and subject to the UCMJ for (mis)use of militia arms.


Such requirements would change the 'Right to Bear Arms' into a 'Privilege to Bear Arms'.  Many of these would likely be arbitrary and capricious limitations on this right.  Not to mention that you would need to reverse the Heller decision.
 
2014-01-13 12:43:16 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: So? I want a trillion US dollars tax free.
It.
Won't.
Farking.
Happen.


unless we quit pushing back against these nutjobs. . . . .

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
 
2014-01-13 12:51:12 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Dimensio: netwiz: It's a pity that the rest of your crime rates are a trainwreck compared to the US.

Do you not recognize that homicide (and other violent crimes) are more acceptable when committed without a firearm?

[writingishard.files.wordpress.com image 850x1275]


You are correct; my statement was a "strawman", and was not in any way based upon the fact that firearm regulation extremists cite "gun murder" statistics when comparing nations, rather than overall "murder" statistics, in an effort to exaggerate the higher rate of homicide in the United States of America. Similarly, my statement is not all related to a history of citing "gun suicide" statistics rather than overall "suicide" statistics to hide the fact that the suicide rate of the United States of America is not substantially higher than that of other developed nations (and in fact that it is lower than several nations).
 
2014-01-13 12:53:41 PM

Molavian: mbillips: Saw an ad in Shotgun News awhile back. Somebody was taking antique (pre-1898) bolt-action magazine rifles, rechambering them for modern ammo (7.62 NATO) and selling them while emphasizing how they were untraceable and legal for felons to own. Never underestimate the avarice of assholes.

I would never fire modern ammunition in antique weapons.


 Mostly this, but I've fired an original Gatling Gun that was converted from 30-40 Krag (yes, it was used in the Spanish-American War) to 7.62x51 (.308).Having said that, even modern replicas like my Uberti 1873 in .45 LC can't handle modern +P ammo.
 
2014-01-13 12:59:54 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: dittybopper: Nobody knows who the fark you are, and nobody cares, so basically, whether or not you want to ban something is irrelevant, because some people do in fact want to bans guns, or certain subsets thereof, and you *KNOW* that.

So? I want a trillion US dollars tax free.
It.
Won't.
Farking.
Happen.

/And if your aunt had testes, she'd be your uncle.


You don't have a powerful grassroots lobby preventing you from getting a trillion dollars tax free.
 
2014-01-13 01:06:58 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: So? I want a trillion US dollars tax free.
It.
Won't.
Farking.
Happen.


If so, please start with trying for $100 tax free. If you get that, go for $1000.  If you get that try for $10,000 and so on.

At any time you get rejected, scream "WHY WON'T YOU COMPROMISE??????"
 
2014-01-13 01:17:39 PM

ArcadianRefugee: wildcardjack: belhade: This can mean only one thing:

Time-traveling murderer!

Very Dirk Gently, but their time travelers were a cat and murder victim.

What does Molly Quinn have to do with Dirk Gently?

[www.hawtcelebs.com image 425x552]


You were just looking for a reason to post her picture. Not that I'm complaining.
 
2014-01-13 01:40:35 PM

Diebesbeute: ZeroCorpse: Diebesbeute: Diebesbeute: Pribar: Several truck drivers I know carry cap and ball revolvers (usually repro Remingtons) because many states prohibit firearms in commercial vehicles but most states classify cap and ball revolvers as relics and not firearms (NY, Massachusetts, and California classify em as firearms and prohibit them in commercial vehicles the last I checked). Getting shot with a .44 cal cap and ball pistol will kill ya just as dead as a modern .44 will.

Cap and ball "revolver"? Are you the author of the news story as well?

My apologies! I've learned something new. I did not realize they made those back in the day. Sorry!

Not a fan of westerns, are you?

Apparently not.  I'm not sure why, but I had always assumed that cap and ball were only single shot.

I was trying to comment on how the reporter had several little errors in the story (referring to the slug itself as a cartridge, etc etc).  All I ended up doing was showing off my own ignorance.  So, Score!?  Again, Sorry Pribar.


For further reference on the cap-and-ball revolver and its effectiveness look up Wild bill Hickok, William "Buffalo Bill" Cody. Both men used Cap-and-Ball guns long after cartridge guns were available. A personal favorite of mine is the LeMat Revolver. Because the only way to make 9 shots of .36 or .44 caliber lead balls more effective in a handgun is to add a 20 Gauge shotgun barrel to the mix.

/Cap-and-ball guns (reproductions) can be purchased at most sporting goods stores in the U.S.
 
2014-01-13 02:00:06 PM

washington-babylon: Cap-and-ball guns (reproductions) can be purchased at most sporting goods stores in the U.S.


You can buy them through the mail, shipped to your door, no questions asked.
 
2014-01-13 02:02:57 PM

dittybopper: washington-babylon: Cap-and-ball guns (reproductions) can be purchased at most sporting goods stores in the U.S.

You can buy them through the mail, shipped to your door, no questions asked.


And I should point out a couple things:

1. You can convert Remington-style revolvers into cartridge guns by just swapping out the cylinder, and

2. You can quickly reload even a cap-and-ball Remington style revolver by dropping the loading lever, pulling the cylinder pin forward, popping out the fired cylinder, popping in a fresh loaded cylinder, pushing the cylinder pin back, and bringing the loading lever up.

Takes more time to explain it than to actually do it, once you get the hang of it.
 
2014-01-13 02:16:32 PM
washington-babylon:

For further reference on the cap-and-ball revolver and its effectiveness look up Wild bill Hickok, William "Buffalo Bill" Cody. Both men used Cap-and-Ball guns long after cartridge guns were available. A personal favorite of mine is the LeMat Revolver. Because the only way to make 9 shots of .36 or .44 caliber lead balls more effective in a handgun is to add a 20 Gauge shotgun barrel to the mix.

/Cap-and-ball guns (reproductions) can be purchased at most sporting goods stores in the U.S.


An original Le Mat can set you back up to 5 figures & even the modern repros that were made some years back are several thousand when you can find them.
 
2014-01-13 03:41:29 PM

dittybopper: dittybopper: washington-babylon: Cap-and-ball guns (reproductions) can be purchased at most sporting goods stores in the U.S.

You can buy them through the mail, shipped to your door, no questions asked.

And I should point out a couple things:

1. You can convert Remington-style revolvers into cartridge guns by just swapping out the cylinder, and

2. You can quickly reload even a cap-and-ball Remington style revolver by dropping the loading lever, pulling the cylinder pin forward, popping out the fired cylinder, popping in a fresh loaded cylinder, pushing the cylinder pin back, and bringing the loading lever up.

Takes more time to explain it than to actually do it, once you get the hang of it.


I am quite familiar with these items myself, having been in the reenacting circuit with Freeman's battery a few years. Have you ever made the pilgrimage to Dixie Gun Works in Union City TN? I went there many times growing up which fueled my love of Black powder guns. I used to hit the Rendezvous in Friendship Indiana pretty frequently as well.
 
2014-01-13 04:03:44 PM

washington-babylon: I am quite familiar with these items myself, having been in the reenacting circuit with Freeman's battery a few years. Have you ever made the pilgrimage to Dixie Gun Works in Union City TN? I went there many times growing up which fueled my love of Black powder guns. I used to hit the Rendezvous in Friendship Indiana pretty frequently as well.


I was *BORN* with a flintlock in my hand:

img144.imageshack.us

Old Turner hisself took one look at me at that age and said "That boy really knows how work a rock lock".  Then he let me nail his wife.  Both ends.  At the same time.
 
2014-01-13 04:08:51 PM

Doom MD: Oops 103.


It was made in 1911?  What kind of gun is it?

j/k
 
2014-01-13 04:21:57 PM

washington-babylon: Diebesbeute: ZeroCorpse: Diebesbeute: Diebesbeute: Pribar: Several truck drivers I know carry cap and ball revolvers (usually repro Remingtons) because many states prohibit firearms in commercial vehicles but most states classify cap and ball revolvers as relics and not firearms (NY, Massachusetts, and California classify em as firearms and prohibit them in commercial vehicles the last I checked). Getting shot with a .44 cal cap and ball pistol will kill ya just as dead as a modern .44 will.

Cap and ball "revolver"? Are you the author of the news story as well?

My apologies! I've learned something new. I did not realize they made those back in the day. Sorry!

Not a fan of westerns, are you?

Apparently not.  I'm not sure why, but I had always assumed that cap and ball were only single shot.

I was trying to comment on how the reporter had several little errors in the story (referring to the slug itself as a cartridge, etc etc).  All I ended up doing was showing off my own ignorance.  So, Score!?  Again, Sorry Pribar.

For further reference on the cap-and-ball revolver and its effectiveness look up Wild bill Hickok, William "Buffalo Bill" Cody. Both men used Cap-and-Ball guns long after cartridge guns were available. A personal favorite of mine is the LeMat Revolver. Because the only way to make 9 shots of .36 or .44 caliber lead balls more effective in a handgun is to add a 20 Gauge shotgun barrel to the mix.

/Cap-and-ball guns (reproductions) can be purchased at most sporting goods stores in the U.S.


Even better you can get a reproduction of a cap-and-ball gun that's chambered for a .38 round for less than $500 bucks.  They're a heck of a lot of fun to shoot.
 
2014-01-13 07:21:15 PM

HeadLever: demaL-demaL-yeH: Like we did when I was a kid?
Peachy.

But every Swingin' Richard and Whistlin' Wendy legally resident in the US becomes a militia member at 16 - enrolled, sworn (or affirmed), medically and mentally screened, regularly trained, weapon qualified, and has arms and ammo inspected, and subject to the UCMJ for (mis)use of militia arms.

Such requirements would change the 'Right to Bear Arms' into a 'Privilege to Bear Arms'.  Many of these would likely be arbitrary and capricious limitations on this right.  Not to mention that you would need to reverse the Heller decision.


The Founders would like a word, nimrod.
 
2014-01-13 07:26:01 PM

Dimensio: demaL-demaL-yeH: Dimensio:   homicide (and other violent crimes) are more acceptable when committed without a firearm


said nobody ever.

/Strawman.
 
2014-01-13 07:33:35 PM

HeadLever: demaL-demaL-yeH: So? I want a trillion US dollars tax free.
It.
Won't.
Farking.
Happen.

unless we quit pushing back against these nutjobs. . . . .

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.


All that is necessary for you to convince me that you're not a trolling sockpuppet or severely mentally ill is for you to take a position that is not paranoid, stupid, trollish, (self)delusion(al) and any combination thereof.

My money's on:
Won't.
Ever.
Farking.
Happen.

NB: I do not consider bearing arms in defense of the State in a well regulated militia in any way evil. YMMV.
 
2014-01-13 08:09:32 PM

dittybopper: demaL-demaL-yeH: dittybopper: Nobody knows who the fark you are, and nobody cares, so basically, whether or not you want to ban something is irrelevant, because some people do in fact want to bans guns, or certain subsets thereof, and you *KNOW* that.

So? I want a trillion US dollars tax free.
It.
Won't.
Farking.
Happen.

/And if your aunt had testes, she'd be your uncle.

You don't have a powerful grassroots lobby preventing you from getting a trillion dollars tax free.


There's no powerful grassroots lobby preventing you from owning firearms that are legal in your jurisdiction.
There are, however, families of victims and gunshot victims who want the government to do a better job of keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.
 
2014-01-13 08:17:18 PM
One benefit, if you want to call it that, is that with only six or twelve shots per shooter, plus having to recock the hammer after each shot, spray and pray drive-bys will be a thing of the past unless it's a school bus full of shooters....

Black powder is fun, keep looking at those revolvers and Hawkin rifles.  The long reload cycle prevents you from shooting up $100 bills every range visit.
 
2014-01-13 10:31:02 PM
What kind of a dick would do that?

epguides.com
 
2014-01-13 11:40:23 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: The Founders would like a word, nimrod.


Since Heller held that the right to bear arms is not contingent upon militia service, I am not sure what you are getting at.  You want to define what is needed for a militia back in the day, fine.  However, bearing arms is not associated with these requirements.

My point stands
 
2014-01-13 11:42:57 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: All that is necessary for you to convince me that you're not a trolling sockpuppet or severely mentally ill is for you to take a position that is not paranoid, stupid, trollish, (self)delusion(al) and any combination thereof.


The same could be said about you since you seem to conflate the right to bear arms with being in a militia. Since that has been decided (and not in your favor) it appears that you don't have much to stand on other than your impotent rage.
 
2014-01-14 12:09:38 AM

dj_spanmaster: ArcadianRefugee: wildcardjack: belhade: This can mean only one thing:

Time-traveling murderer!

Very Dirk Gently, but their time travelers were a cat and murder victim.

What does Molly Quinn have to do with Dirk Gently?

[www.hawtcelebs.com image 425x552]

You were just looking for a reason to post her picture. Not that I'm complaining.


I'd dirk her, but not gently.
 
2014-01-14 01:25:09 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Gleeman: [i.imgur.com image 660x320]
Not all old weapons are obsolete.

Ma! What are you doing hanging around with sailors?


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-01-14 03:07:39 AM

Mad_Radhu: If you pay cash for a Tracfone at the local bodega, it doesn't really matter because unless they track the phone back to that specific store and run the security tapes, there is nothing to link you to the phone if you ditch it.


Uh, what about the records of the calls the phone made? Are you sure you don't know anybody who'd betray your trust?

"We're not going to care what's on your computer if you tell us who called you last Thursday night from 8:16 to 8:37 and what you talked about."

HKW: The One True TheDavid: One big problem with antique firearms is they use bullets that are uncommon and expensive when you can find them. E.g., ammoseek.com can't find any 7.5mm swiss ordnance ammo. Some of those weapons were apparently very accurate as well as durable, especially revolvers and bolt-action rifles.

I'm sure its available from European ammo suppliers.   But meh..  Just reform .284 winchester brass, and use standard .308 bullets.  The bore diameter of the Swiss was .307.  If you want to get really technical, just pass a standard .308 bullet through a .307 forming die -- but its more a waste of time.


Isn't such equipment expensive?


Dimensio: The One True TheDavid: How lucky we are in the USA to have oodles of cheap .22LR or .380 handguns around.

Unfortunately, finding cheap .22LR or .380 ammunition is no longer possible.


www.ammoseek.com

dittybopper: Remember, that paranoia didn't just happen. It's a *REACTION*, not an action.


You mean I didn't create the Illuminati all by myself? What a relief that something's not my fault; too bad my ex still won't believe it.
 
2014-01-14 08:11:41 AM

bmwericus: One benefit, if you want to call it that, is that with only six or twelve shots per shooter, plus having to recock the hammer after each shot, spray and pray drive-bys will be a thing of the past unless it's a school bus full of shooters....

Black powder is fun, keep looking at those revolvers and Hawkin rifles.  The long reload cycle prevents you from shooting up $100 bills every range visit.


Never heard of the Starr Double Action revolver?  Shoots just as fast as any semi-auto handgun.

Pietta makes Starr Double Actions, btw.   You can buy one from Dixie Gun Works, and unless you live in New Jersey or Canada, it'll show up on your doorstep with no questions asked.
 
2014-01-14 08:23:22 AM

The One True TheDavid: Isn't such equipment expensive?


Not really.  If you were to start from scratch, a Lee Challenger Breech Lock Single Stage Reloading Press kit is about $130 from Midway.

That's got everything you need, except for the actual die, shell holder, and case length gauge.  Case length gauge and shell holder will set you back about $5-$10,   and a die set will cost you somewhere between $25 and $45.

So all in, excluding the actual powder, cases, bullets, and primers (which are your recurring costs), you can do it for less than $200.
 
2014-01-14 08:35:23 AM

HeadLever: demaL-demaL-yeH: The Founders would like a word, nimrod.

Since Heller held that the right to bear arms is not contingent upon militia service, I am not sure what you are getting at.  You want to define what is needed for a militia back in the day, fine.  However, bearing arms is not associated with these requirements.

My point stands


Yes, it does.  Apparently  demaL-demaL-yeH never actually bothered to *READ* the Heller decision:

    Besides ignoring the historical reality that the Second Amendment was not intended to lay down a "novel principl[e]" but rather codified a right "inherited from our English ancestors," Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281 (1897) , petitioners' interpretation does not even achieve the narrower purpose that prompted codification of the right. If, as they believe, the Second Amendment right is no more than the right to keep and use weapons as a member of an organized militia, see Brief for Petititioners 8-if, that is, the organized militia is the sole institutional beneficiary of the Second Amendment 's guarantee-it does not assure the existence of a "citizens' militia" as a safeguard against tyranny. For Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia, which must include the authority to say who will belong to the organized force.17 That is why the first Militia Act's requirement that only whites enroll caused States to amend their militia laws to exclude free blacks. See Siegel, The Federal Government's Power to Enact Color-Conscious Laws, 92 Nw. U. L. Rev. 477, 521-525 (1998). Thus, if petitioners are correct, the Second Amendment protects citizens' right to use a gun in an organization from which Congress has plenary authority to exclude them. It guarantees a select militia of the sort the Stuart kings found useful, but not the people's militia that was the concern of the founding generation.
 
2014-01-14 11:49:37 AM

dittybopper: HeadLever: demaL-demaL-yeH: The Founders would like a word, nimrod.

Since Heller held that the right to bear arms is not contingent upon militia service, I am not sure what you are getting at.  You want to define what is needed for a militia back in the day, fine.  However, bearing arms is not associated with these requirements.

My point stands

Yes, it does.  Apparently  demaL-demaL-yeH never actually bothered to *READ* the Heller decision:

    Besides ignoring the historical reality that the Second Amendment was not intended to lay down a "novel principl[e]" but rather codified a right "inherited from our English ancestors," Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281 (1897) , petitioners' interpretation does not even achieve the narrower purpose that prompted codification of the right. If, as they believe, the Second Amendment right is no more than the right to keep and use weapons as a member of an organized militia, see Brief for Petititioners 8-if, that is, the organized militia is the sole institutional beneficiary of the Second Amendment 's guarantee-it does not assure the existence of a "citizens' militia" as a safeguard against tyranny. For Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia, which must include the authority to say who will belong to the organized force.17 That is why the first Militia Act's requirement that only whites enroll caused States to amend their militia laws to exclude free blacks. See Siegel, The Federal Government's Power to Enact Color-Conscious Laws, 92 Nw. U. L. Rev. 477, 521-525 (1998). Thus, if petitioners are correct, the Second Amendment protects citizens' right to use a gun in an organization from which Congress has plenary authority to exclude them. It guarantees a select militia of the sort the Stuart kings found useful, but not the people's militia that was the concern of the founding generation.


Bro, you're reversing what I said and reading into the text you quoted in order to make it fit your preconceived notions.
I never said anybody has to be a militia member in order to bear arms.
I've repeatedly said that every person legally resident in the United States becomes member of the organized Militia of the United States (like the one the Founders instituted) at sixteen and remains a member and subject to the discipline, training, safe storage, arms inspection, and qualification requirements, and must participate for life.

As your block-quote wall of text points out, the Constitution specifies that Congress makes the rules about Militia membership, training, discipline, arms, and specifies the regulations.
 
2014-01-14 12:15:35 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: I never said anybody has to be a militia member in order to bear arms.


Then why did you rebut my point about the right to bear arms with a link to the Militia Act of 1792 with the the context that the founders would disagree with my point?

I've repeatedly said that every person legally resident in the United States becomes member of the  organized Militia of the United States (like the one the Founders instituted) at sixteen and remains a member and subject to the discipline, training, safe storage, arms inspection, and qualification requirements, and must participate for life.

You realize that the Militia act of 1903 repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and organized the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between 18 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.

Right?
 
2014-01-14 12:44:12 PM

HeadLever: demaL-demaL-yeH: I never said anybody has to be a militia member in order to bear arms.

Then why did you rebut my point about the right to bear arms with a link to the Militia Act of 1792 with the the context that the founders would disagree with my point?

I've repeatedly said that every person legally resident in the United States becomes member of the  organized Militia of the United States (like the one the Founders instituted) at sixteen and remains a member and subject to the discipline, training, safe storage, arms inspection, and qualification requirements, and must participate for life.

You realize that the Militia act of 1903 repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and organized the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between 18 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.

Right?


You realize that the job of Congress is to make and reform laws, right?
I, for one, realize that Congress has a named constitutional  duty to fix the stupid mess they created.
 
Displayed 156 of 156 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report