NationStates Jolt Archive


California gun laws are harsh, and make me sad.

Pages : [1] 2 3
Chellis
27-04-2005, 07:06
I suppose I'm just venting... But I was recently made aware to just how harsh my state's gun laws are. I thought we had only been restricted under the 1994-2004 bill. I was unaware of the state legislature. To give a quick refresher, 18 rifle types(including all Ar-10 and Kalishnakov models), any weapon with at least one of the qualifiers for an assault weapon(Anything from a thumbhole stock, a flash muzzle, or length under 30 inches), bans any magazine with more than ten rounds...

Im not sure what I'm asking. Just discuss it, I suppose.
Sdaeriji
27-04-2005, 07:11
Are you being deprived of any of your treasured firearms?
Klonor
27-04-2005, 07:12
I'm a strict supporter of gun laws, but as long as the laws are within reason. One of my professors actually said that if he was offered a job in California he wouldn't go because he wouldn't be able to bring all but two or three of his guns. Now I feel that we do need to make sure that not every man and his younger brother has a gun, but not that nobody except that younger brothers mugger has one.
NERVUN
27-04-2005, 07:15
Just out of curiosity, why the hell do you NEED more than 10 rounds? Hunting doesn't take THAT much amo and anyone you can't scare off with one shot is going to kill you no matter how many bullets you have. So what do you need them for?
Chellis
27-04-2005, 07:19
Just out of curiosity, why the hell do you NEED more than 10 rounds? Hunting doesn't take THAT much amo and anyone you can't scare off with one shot is going to kill you no matter how many bullets you have. So what do you need them for?

Im not a hunter. There isnt a big need for me to hunt game. I like guns. Is that such a bad thing? I would like an AK-series weapon. I would like a nice weapon, incase of any...foreign problems. I would like to shoot guns, and as I'm soon to be joining the national guard, I would like a weapon to immediatly defend myself, if needed.
Karas
27-04-2005, 07:39
Just out of curiosity, why the hell do you NEED more than 10 rounds? Hunting doesn't take THAT much amo and anyone you can't scare off with one shot is going to kill you no matter how many bullets you have. So what do you need them for?


No one needs more than 10 rounds jusst like no one needs a hard drive that holds more than 100 megabytes.
Both are much more convienient.

Best most obvious reason for large capacity magazines is target shooting.
One can easily run through several hundred rounds of ammo in a couple of hours at the target range. If all you have is a 10 round magazine than you have to reload every 10 rounds. If you are shooting 500 rounds then that means that you have to reload the magazine 50 times.

You hould, of couse, buy 50 10-round magazines, but that would be expensive and it would be difficult to carry so many. Epecially if you could just get 10 50-round magazines.

Aside from recreation there is also competetive shooting, a sport that a US government agency dedicated to promoting. The rules for some competetions call for magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.


Self-defense is another reason.
If 3 people break into your home and you are forced to shoot each of them 5 times, how many times do you get killed while reloading?
NERVUN
27-04-2005, 08:06
Im not a hunter. There isnt a big need for me to hunt game. I like guns. Is that such a bad thing? I would like an AK-series weapon. I would like a nice weapon, incase of any...foreign problems. I would like to shoot guns, and as I'm soon to be joining the national guard, I would like a weapon to immediatly defend myself, if needed.
Liking guns isn't a bad thing, but if you're putting them on display, why do you need a big magazine? As for, uh, foreign problems, I would assume that any invading army would probably have to go through the US military (including you in the National Guard of course, no slight to them :)) who has bigger and better toys to play with. If they get through them, I doubt a bigger magazine is going to help matters.

No one needs more than 10 rounds jusst like no one needs a hard drive that holds more than 100 megabytes.
Both are much more convienient.
I assume you mean 100GB, not MB given that the standard Windows install is now a gig and a half. :P

You hould, of couse, buy 50 10-round magazines, but that would be expensive and it would be difficult to carry so many. Epecially if you could just get 10 50-round magazines.
So, it's more a convenice due to being unwilling to pack equipment around?

Aside from recreation there is also competetive shooting, a sport that a US government agency dedicated to promoting. The rules for some competetions call for magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
There's sporting competitions that call for assult weapons? I mean I seen the rifles used in the pro shooting sports I'm aware of, so this is new to me. What kind of sports do you use assult weapons in?

Self-defense is another reason.
If 3 people break into your home and you are forced to shoot each of them 5 times, how many times do you get killed while reloading?
If three people break into your home, and you shoot one of them, you really expect the rest to either hang around long enough to shoot them 5 times each or that they will use standard Imperial Stormtrooper battle tactics (Stand in a row for easy targeting and never move)?

I would think if you start spraying bullets they'd either run (which is why I'm asking why you need more than ten), or return fire, at which case with three against one, you still will not need more than ten bullets before you die.
Chellis
27-04-2005, 08:32
I don't quite care to put my guns on display. I dont need them as a symbol.

The foreign part was rushed. My point was, that I dont know what the future is going to be like. We could be invaded. We could have a civil war. Who knows? I have no want to use my guns for illegitimate reasons. I want them there when I need them, rather safe than sorry. And in war, a bigger magazine is always helpful. Would you rather fight an armed enemy with one bullet, or 30?

To give a real example, I point to the Beretta Cx4. Its a pistol-caliber Carbine, which uses certain pistol clips(depending on what caliber it is in). What makes it not valid in california? The stock has a hole in it, allowing someone to hold the grip of the gun(As opposed to rifles, where you grip around the stock). The barrel is 0.3 inches short of the regulation size. And certain magazines it uses hold more than 10 rounds. With these three things, its illegal for me to own this gun in california. If I really wanted it, however, or any gun for that matter, I would simply drive to nevada, pick one up at a gun show, and drive it back in my trunk. I go there quite often, they dont check your car or anything when you cross a state border. Its incredibly easy for criminals to get what guns they want(that are legal by federal standards), but law abiding citizens aren't allowed to have them. Even if you are a pro-gun control advocate, you can see how idiotic it is to have a state surrounded by three states with much looser gun laws.

His point with the 100mb hard-drive was that if all you want to do, say, is simple calculations or word processing, a 100mb harddrive could run an older version of windows, which could do it. Why need anything more than that?

Why have 10 round magazines instead of 50? Because criminals can use them? Again, a criminal could easily drive to reno, buy an Ar-15 and two 100-round C-mags, and drive right back into california. The next day, he robs a bank and kills 14 people.

There are competitions that use weapons that fall under california regulations. Many people like to shoot Ar-15's, etc, for sport.

Lets put it another way. You have a 10 round 9mm magazine. Its dark, and three people come into your house, armed. You hit one, while the other two take cover and fire back. You quickly find yourself out of ammo. You dont grab extra magazines, you were just awakened. Don't you wish you had your thirty-round shorty Ar-15? Or a Cx4? Would have made it much easier.

Again, even if you are for gun control, the situation at hand is idiotic. It is incredibly easy for criminals to break the law, while law abiding citizens are screwed. The least california could do is comply with federal regulations, and push for national gun control.
Kibolonia
27-04-2005, 08:34
Self-defense is another reason.
If 3 people break into your home and you are forced to shoot each of them 5 times, how many times do you get killed while reloading?
This is why. No one's going to take 5 rounds from a rifle, let alone one that fires a 7.62 round. If you spray and pray with a rifle in your neighborhood, those rounds are going to go flying through the houses next to you, and potentially through small trees, and whatever. That you would even consider behaving in such a manner is a perfect illustration of why guns not only need to be licensed, but there needs to be testing.
New Sancrosanctia
27-04-2005, 08:41
if you need more than 10 rounds to take down your target at any range you're likely to encounter, especially in your own home, then you need more time on the range, and less on web forums.
Chellis
27-04-2005, 08:43
This is why. No one's going to take 5 rounds from a rifle, let alone one that fires a 7.62 round. If you spray and pray with a rifle in your neighborhood, those rounds are going to go flying through the houses next to you, and potentially through small trees, and whatever. That you would even consider behaving in such a manner is a perfect illustration of why guns not only need to be licensed, but there needs to be testing.

Liscenced and testing gun owners is perfectly fine, I have no qualms with this. I just am against being deprived of firearms, especially when it is things that largely have nothing to do with how well the gun actually kills(A Pistol grip, for example. A 7.62x39mm kills just as well from an SKS with or without one).
Chellis
27-04-2005, 08:46
if you need more than 10 rounds to take down your target at any range you're likely to encounter, especially in your own home, then you need more time on the range, and less on web forums.

The only time you use guns isn't in self defense at home. Also, the ten rounds thing isnt simply from nessecity. For example, most beretta 92fs magazines are 15 rounds, glocks at 17, M1 Carbine's at 15, etc. Its more expensive, and less useful to buy magazines with less bullets. Having more bullets will never, ever hurt you to have.

Again, im not arguing this even from anti-gun control points. But to make it so easy for criminals to get 30-100 round magazines, while civilians in california can only get 10...its idiotic.
New Sancrosanctia
27-04-2005, 08:50
Liscenced and testing gun owners is perfectly fine, I have no qualms with this. I just am against being deprived of firearms, especially when it is things that largely have nothing to do with how well the gun actually kills(A Pistol grip, for example. A 7.62x39mm kills just as well from an SKS with or without one).
this is true.
NYAAA
27-04-2005, 09:06
There's sporting competitions that call for assult weapons? I mean I seen the rifles used in the pro shooting sports I'm aware of, so this is new to me. What kind of sports do you use assult weapons in?

AR-15s are inherantly accurate rifles. While 5.56 rifles dont have much power beyond a certain range but the bullet will stay true to its course for a very long way. Bigger 7.62s (AR10, M1A) or "battle rifles" also share this characteristic, although the projectile is more powerful. So yes, "assault" rifles are useful target pieces, especially when you consider time is a factor in many matches (also explains why a high cap magazine is so handy for it).
This is why. No one's going to take 5 rounds from a rifle, let alone one that fires a 7.62 round. If you spray and pray with a rifle in your neighborhood, those rounds are going to go flying through the houses next to you, and potentially through small trees, and whatever. That you would even consider behaving in such a manner is a perfect illustration of why guns not only need to be licensed, but there needs to be testing.
Guff. What harm is a gun lover with a high capacity magazine doing? All your doing is limiting their "fun factor", and its having no effect on violent crime.
Do you know how rediculously easy it is to turn a 5 round magazine (Canadian laws) into a full 15 rounder for my M1 carbine? It takes 30 seconds and a hacksaw. Remove the floorplate, and saw off the big steel rod that was welded (poorly) on. re-assemble mag, load it, slap it into your rifle, work the action and your ready to rock. Hell, theres even ways to make it look like a legal magazine after the fact. So you take a fun, HANDY firearm out of the hands of responsible people, and those who would break the law still get their toys. Congratulations, you have just taken a big shit on peoples hobbies.

I dont know of anyone who uses a 7.62 for home defence. Typically its a handgun or shotgun.
Chellis
27-04-2005, 09:14
AR-15s are inherantly accurate rifles. While 5.56 rifles dont have much power beyond a certain range but the bullet will stay true to its course for a very long way. Bigger 7.62s (AR10, M1A) or "battle rifles" also share this characteristic, although the projectile is more powerful. So yes, "assault" rifles are useful target pieces, especially when you consider time is a factor in many matches (also explains why a high cap magazine is so handy for it).

Guff. What harm is a gun lover with a high capacity magazine doing? All your doing is limiting their "fun factor", and its having no effect on violent crime.
Do you know how rediculously easy it is to turn a 5 round magazine (Canadian laws) into a full 15 rounder for my M1 carbine? It takes 30 seconds and a hacksaw. Remove the floorplate, and saw off the big steel rod that was welded (poorly) on. re-assemble mag, load it, slap it into your rifle, work the action and your ready to rock. Hell, theres even ways to make it look like a legal magazine after the fact. So you take a fun, HANDY firearm out of the hands of responsible people, and those who would break the law still get their toys. Congratulations, you have just taken a big shit on peoples hobbies.

I dont know of anyone who uses a 7.62 for home defence. Typically its a handgun or shotgun.

Unless its 7.62mm tokarev :P
BackwoodsSquatches
27-04-2005, 09:14
I suppose I'm just venting... But I was recently made aware to just how harsh my state's gun laws are. I thought we had only been restricted under the 1994-2004 bill. I was unaware of the state legislature. To give a quick refresher, 18 rifle types(including all Ar-10 and Kalishnakov models), any weapon with at least one of the qualifiers for an assault weapon(Anything from a thumbhole stock, a flash muzzle, or length under 30 inches), bans any magazine with more than ten rounds...

Im not sure what I'm asking. Just discuss it, I suppose.

Idiots with assault rifles make Baby Jesus cry.
Chellis
27-04-2005, 09:17
Idiots with assault rifles make Baby Jesus cry.

Idiots make me cry. Please stop making me cry.
Risukko
27-04-2005, 09:42
Where you all gun-crazy people come from?

In my country people truly needed guns for self defence over 60 years ago.

Not even police need to carry gun here every day.

I wonder how "civilized" people like Americans can even think that they´d shoot someone at their front doors. Don´t you have back doors in your houses?

Of course it´s fun to shoot with big guns. The largest one i´ve used was 130mm. But to even imagine that I´d truly shoot someone makes me sick.

Yuck!
Kibolonia
27-04-2005, 10:03
Liscenced and testing gun owners is perfectly fine, I have no qualms with this. I just am against being deprived of firearms, especially when it is things that largely have nothing to do with how well the gun actually kills(A Pistol grip, for example. A 7.62x39mm kills just as well from an SKS with or without one).
Honestly, I can't find a lot of fault with your argument. But you want to know why? It's attitudes like the one I responded to. That's why. It's politically impossible to get a Gun Registration Database implimented, and forget about testing as part of the basic licensing proceedures, Eddie the Eagle should be enough for anyone. But what is politically achievable? A hodge podge of metrics that will take out a lot of the weapons that are most threatening to police (who are a powerful political force) and a lot of collateral freedom that really isn't that threatening too.

You are right. A lot of what is done is non-sensical, and does diminish your freedoms. But you're also wrong, there is a very real public saftey issue that these laws, as asinine as they may be, are trying to address. There is a big spectrum of choice, and the people Governing California aren't the only one's involved, and collectively, the present system, as deeply flawed as it is, is the one that everyone agrees is the most livable.

That said, there are likely esoteric options open to you. You could pay for a lawyer to ferret these out, but I bet being buddies with a cop would probably be enough to get you started, as well as being cheaper and more fun. There are likely ways to own and legally discharge just about any weapon you could manage to legally procure. It's uncommon, but people in some places actually own artillery (that works). Now such licenses probably aren't cheap or easy to come by, but given that Hollywood is in California, and that you too can have your very own Nevada state corporation....
BackwoodsSquatches
27-04-2005, 10:07
Idiots make me cry. Please stop making me cry.


Very well then sluggo, lets talk.

What possible reason can you think of, that would justify owning an AK-47, especially one that had the three shot burst, or full auto capabilities, and used the standard 7.62 mm rounds?

Why should you be allowed to own one?

What on earth would you use it for?
Kibolonia
27-04-2005, 10:17
Where you all gun-crazy people come from?
Chalk it up to the American Identity, or the American Myth. Guns are part of American culture. You don't have to understand it, you're not American. It'd be like me going off on Soccer. I just don't get, and quite frankly I don't really want to.

Besides, it doesn't happen as much as it used to, but there is something special about going hunting or just target shooting with your father, on your families random pie shaped tract of land up in on some mountain. The people who had that, they like to try and recapture elements of those moments, or seek to pass them on to their children. And that's really where these laws make sparks The American concept of soveignty is based around home and family and letting the rest of the world go F themselves as long as you and yours are left alone. The public saftey issue which the bureaucracy is trying to address is "out there", where people can go F themselves. But the actual bureaucracy is intruding in the home, and between father and son. And that's about as taboo as it gets in America.
Legless Pirates
27-04-2005, 10:57
Self-defense is another reason.
If 3 people break into your home and you are forced to shoot each of them 5 times, how many times do you get killed while reloading?
*yawn*

What if 20 break into your house and you have to shoot them each 5 times, how many time would you get killied while reloading?

And how many times would you get killed if you hadn't start shooting in the first place?
Nhuttopia
27-04-2005, 11:09
Hmmmm? Bigger and 'better' guns? .... wouldn't a simple penis enlargement operation be cheaper and safer (for all concerned)?
Legless Pirates
27-04-2005, 11:12
Hmmmm? Bigger and 'better' guns? .... wouldn't a simple penis enlargement operation be cheaper and safer (for all concerned)?
:D

Excellent.

*hands over Post of the Day award*
Battery Charger
27-04-2005, 11:22
Just out of curiosity, why the hell do you NEED more than 10 rounds?Because 10 rounds might not be enough.
Hunting doesn't take THAT much amoHunting laws generally forbide the use of magazines over 5 or 10 rounds. But who cares about hunting? Not me. and anyone you can't scare off with one shot is going to kill you no matter how many bullets you have.Actually, most attackers will run from the sight of a gun. Still other may flee from a warning shot, but you can never be sure how anyone will react. So what do you need them for?
Most police in the US carry guns with magazine capacities over 10 rounds. What do they need them for?
Legless Pirates
27-04-2005, 11:24
Most police in the US carry guns with magazine capacities over 10 rounds. What do they need them for?
Errr.... To uphold the law? What they are supposed to do? I'm just guessing here
Battery Charger
27-04-2005, 11:26
Liking guns isn't a bad thing, but if you're putting them on display, why do you need a big magazine? As for, uh, foreign problems, I would assume that any invading army would probably have to go through the US military (including you in the National Guard of course, no slight to them :)) who has bigger and better toys to play with. If they get through them, I doubt a bigger magazine is going to help matters.Don't assume that. The U.S. military, including the majority of the National Guard, is currently tied up in Iraq of all places. The military is a government body, and like all government bodies, it should never be relied upon to sufficiently conduct it's ostensible purpose.
Battery Charger
27-04-2005, 11:30
This is why. No one's going to take 5 rounds from a rifle, let alone one that fires a 7.62 round. If you spray and pray with a rifle in your neighborhood, those rounds are going to go flying through the houses next to you, and potentially through small trees, and whatever. That you would even consider behaving in such a manner is a perfect illustration of why guns not only need to be licensed, but there needs to be testing.Your scenario assumes the defender lives near his neigboors. Some people live in the middle of nowhere, even in California.
Battery Charger
27-04-2005, 11:38
Very well then sluggo, lets talk.

What possible reason can you think of, that would justify owning an AK-47, especially one that had the three shot burst, or full auto capabilities, and used the standard 7.62 mm rounds?

Why should you be allowed to own one?

What on earth would you use it for?The AK-47 is a good all-purpose combat weapon. It comes in very handy for resisting foriegn invaders. For an example, see Iraq.
Laerod
27-04-2005, 11:39
The foreign part was rushed. My point was, that I dont know what the future is going to be like. We could be invaded. We could have a civil war. Who knows? I have no want to use my guns for illegitimate reasons. I want them there when I need them, rather safe than sorry. And in war, a bigger magazine is always helpful. Would you rather fight an armed enemy with one bullet, or 30?

How likely is it that Canada or Mexico are going to allow a foreign army into their territory with the purpose and capacity of invading the US or such a foreign army getting past the most powerful navy on earth with enough strength to get to where you live before you're too old to pull a trigger? Not very. A civil war? With the vast ammount of American patriotism around? Not likely.

Again, even if you are for gun control, the situation at hand is idiotic. It is incredibly easy for criminals to break the law, while law abiding citizens are screwed. The least california could do is comply with federal regulations, and push for national gun control.
Where do they get those guns? From what I hear a lot of guns sold and obtained illegaly were stolen from people that legally bought them and if no one owns assault rifles anymore, the chances of them appearing on the black market are diminished.
Legless Pirates
27-04-2005, 11:39
The AK-47 is a good all-purpose combat weapon. It comes in very handy for resisting foriegn invaders. For an example, see Iraq.
So who's gonna invade the US?
Estabarriba
27-04-2005, 11:43
Ok, now I feel like I need a gun for three reasons:

1. People break into my house all the time, and I usually just let them take my stuff, but I never thought about getting a gun and killing all these people who break into my house all the time.

2. I didn't realize how close we were to civil war. I know the wackos who try to overthrow the government can only succeed in getting appropriate changes with brute strength and firearms. This must mean I have to out wacko the wackos and get an assault rifles... or two or three.

3. Everyone seems to know a lot more about guns than me, and frankly, it scares the shiite out of me. Why in the hell does anyone think guns solve anything?

To quote a wise man
"That'll teach'em, Hoss. He dead now!"
:headbang: :mp5: :sniper:
Battery Charger
27-04-2005, 11:44
Errr.... To uphold the law? What they are supposed to do? I'm just guessing hereHaving police forces wasn't my idea, so I don't know what they're "supposed to" do. Do cops have to shoot people to uphold the law?
Battery Charger
27-04-2005, 11:47
So who's gonna invade the US?I don't know and neither do you.
Laerod
27-04-2005, 11:47
Because 10 rounds might not be enough.For what? Killing a vicious deer?
Hunting laws generally forbide the use of magazines over 5 or 10 rounds. But who cares about hunting? Not me.
Oh, I guess not. But the question remains, what for?
Actually, most attackers will run from the sight of a gun. Still other may flee from a warning shot, but you can never be sure how anyone will react.
Something interests me, how often have you been at home when your house was broken into?

Most police in the US carry guns with magazine capacities over 10 rounds. What do they need them for?
Normal citizens shouldn't go out and shoot criminals. That's what policemen are for, and hence why they have the privilege of carrying more than ten rounds. Their job requires them to use their guns, but no citizen is required to have an assault rifle around with 30 bullet clips to shoot someone if they happen to be at home when they are burglarized.
Legless Pirates
27-04-2005, 11:48
Having police forces wasn't my idea, so I don't know what they're "supposed to" do. Do cops have to shoot people to uphold the law?
It wasn't mine either, but they're there. And so are laws. Live with it :rolleyes:

And cops have to shoot people, if those people pose a serious threat to other people's lives.
Legless Pirates
27-04-2005, 11:49
I don't know and neither do you.
I do actually. No one
Laerod
27-04-2005, 11:53
Chalk it up to the American Identity, or the American Myth. Guns are part of American culture. You don't have to understand it, you're not American. It'd be like me going off on Soccer. I just don't get, and quite frankly I don't really want to.

Besides, it doesn't happen as much as it used to, but there is something special about going hunting or just target shooting with your father, on your families random pie shaped tract of land up in on some mountain. The people who had that, they like to try and recapture elements of those moments, or seek to pass them on to their children. And that's really where these laws make sparks The American concept of soveignty is based around home and family and letting the rest of the world go F themselves as long as you and yours are left alone. The public saftey issue which the bureaucracy is trying to address is "out there", where people can go F themselves. But the actual bureaucracy is intruding in the home, and between father and son. And that's about as taboo as it gets in America.
Yes but why would you need an assault rifle or more than 10 rounds to spend quality time with your father? My dad and I got along fine and I've never touched a real firearm.
Battery Charger
27-04-2005, 11:57
Something interests me, how often have you been at home when your house was broken into?Of the 0 times my home has been broken into: 0. In the US homes are normally broken into during the day, when nobody's home. However, there are some serious exceptions. Here in the Phoenix area, gang-bangers sometimes conduct home invasions where the whole point is to have a confrontation with the occupants. It's dick-waving to the psychotic degree.


Normal citizens shouldn't go out and shoot criminals. That's what policemen are for,Really? I think most police officers would disagree with you.

and hence why they have the privilege of carrying more than ten rounds. Their job requires them to use their guns, but no citizen is required to have an assault rifle around with 30 bullet clips to shoot someone if they happen to be at home when they are burglarized.Some cops don't carry guns at all, and some who do never draw them through years of duty. What do you think it is about their job that requires guns?
Nhuttopia
27-04-2005, 11:59
The usual justification for keeping lethal weapons lying around the house in the US appears to be "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." (Second Amendment to the Constitution.)

This does rather suggest that the need to keep arms is predicated upon membership of a 'well regulated' Militia .... not upon some incredibly pathetic need to wave unsuitable heavy armaments around the neighbourhood.

It is interesting (in the light of my earlier hint at 'penis envy') that the current manifestation of the Militia (The National Guard) was instituted and created by Congress as the Act of January 21 , 1903, known by the name of its sponsor as "The Dick Act".
Battery Charger
27-04-2005, 12:03
I do actually. No oneAre you psychic? I know it's "common knowledge" that the US is perfectly safe from foreign invaders, but common knowledge has been proven wrong before. Just because we spend hundereds of billions of dollars every year on our military and think we own the world, doesn't mean we're safe. Besides, there's at least as much a threat inside the borders.

For what it's worth, the Branch Davidians "needed" all the firepower they could afford. Actually, they had a great deal of firepower for a church group, but it still proved inadequate.
Legless Pirates
27-04-2005, 12:10
Are you psychic? I know it's "common knowledge" that the US is perfectly safe from foreign invaders, but common knowledge has been proven wrong before. Just because we spend hundereds of billions of dollars every year on our military and think we own the world, doesn't mean we're safe.
If someone was planning on invading the US would probably be the very first to know. An invasion of that scale is not something one can hide.

Besides, there's at least as much a threat inside the borders.
Yes, because the US insists on letting everone have a gun/guns
Laerod
27-04-2005, 12:12
I don't know and neither do you.
I know who isn't:
Canada - Wouldn't attack its most powerful ally, considering its population is a fraction of the US poplulation.
Mexico - Economically dependant on the US. Besides, they have the Zapatistas to worry about.
Russia - They might start an invasion of Alaska if they really wanted to (which they don't) but then they'd have to get through Canada first. And all of this is not taking the US navy into account.
China - Now there's a country with a population big enough to take on the US. However, they have a lot more Pacific Ocean to cross than the Russians would and hence a lot more opportunities for the Navy to sink any transports.
Japan - Same as China, except that the seizing of American military bases might hint that trouble lies ahead and give America an early warning.
EU countries - They don't want to and most certainly aren't capable of doing it all on their own, which it would come to since the EU isn't willing to agree on one foreign policy, and declaring war on the US unanimously would fall under that.
Cuba - Yeah, right.
Australia - Population is much too low, lots of Pacific to cross, and the current government is wannabe Bush.
India - They have enough trouble with Pakistan, and last I heard, no big disagreements with the US.
Arab League countries - None are powerful enough to do it on their own, the league itself wouldn't be powerful enough to do it on its own, and they'd have a heck of a lot more ocean to cross than any other examples. They are also as unlikely to come to an agreement, even less than the EU.
Indonesia - Has enough domestic problems and doesn't have the capability to invade the US.
Brazil - They would have to get around or through all the other Latin American states and either outmanouver the Navy or get all those states including the economically dependent Mexico to allow its troops to pass through. And that's just getting there. How would they be able to supply their troops?
Argentina - Same as Brazil, except that we know they couldn't hold the Falklands against the British after they took them.

That's all "realistic" candidates for an invasion of the US and they wouldn't do so within the lifetime of anyone here. In fact, if it ever did come to war, the US would probably get nuked and assault rifles with more or less than 10 rounds don't matter in that case.

PS:
Nuclear weapons is another reason the US wouldn't be likely to get involved with one of those.
Risukko
27-04-2005, 12:14
Chalk it up to the American Identity, or the American Myth. Guns are part of American culture. You don't have to understand it, you're not American. It'd be like me going off on Soccer. I just don't get, and quite frankly I don't really want to.

Besides, it doesn't happen as much as it used to, but there is something special about going hunting or just target shooting with your father, on your families random pie shaped tract of land up in on some mountain. The people who had that, they like to try and recapture elements of those moments, or seek to pass them on to their children. And that's really where these laws make sparks The American concept of soveignty is based around home and family and letting the rest of the world go F themselves as long as you and yours are left alone. The public saftey issue which the bureaucracy is trying to address is "out there", where people can go F themselves. But the actual bureaucracy is intruding in the home, and between father and son. And that's about as taboo as it gets in America.

Thank you for explaining me the microsocialistic part of American culture (we vs. the others, and there´s always too many of the others).

I can understand the point, but I think it´s a bit extreme to defend one´s home with semi-automatic rifle. If someone intrudes your home, why don´t you just go out and call police? It´s even safer than start a gunfight with an armed burglar. Oh. And why the burglar is armed? Because he´s scared of your guns. believe me, there is places in the world where this works. :D
Battery Charger
27-04-2005, 12:15
If someone was planning on invading the US would probably be the very first to know. An invasion of that scale is not something one can hide.So what if the part of the government that's supposed to notice these things did know? It wouldn't mean the could or would stop it.


Yes, because the US insists on letting everone have a gun/guns
Well, if you want to take away guns from the goverment you've got my blessing.
Cadillac-Gage
27-04-2005, 12:15
I suppose I'm just venting... But I was recently made aware to just how harsh my state's gun laws are. I thought we had only been restricted under the 1994-2004 bill. I was unaware of the state legislature. To give a quick refresher, 18 rifle types(including all Ar-10 and Kalishnakov models), any weapon with at least one of the qualifiers for an assault weapon(Anything from a thumbhole stock, a flash muzzle, or length under 30 inches), bans any magazine with more than ten rounds...

Im not sure what I'm asking. Just discuss it, I suppose.

You get the kind of government you deserve. I know that's a harsh statement, but it's like this: Most Californians favour the other parts of the Democratic platform (Social spending, Environmentalism, etc. etc.) with that, you have to accept a few other things- the same Legislator who brings the bacon home to your district in the form of State and Federal subsidies, is the same one that promotes and endorses any gun-control scheme (however ridiculous) is proposed, whether it's banning large-bore rifles on the remote chance that one might be used in a criminal or sociopathic way, to magazine bans, to import and 'appearance' bans. You, and your neighbours put these people into office, you vote them back in (or the neighbours do...depending), and thus, you have some laws that got and get passed to mollify HCI and The Brady Institute, yet fail utterly to curb criminals.
This is what you get, when you vote 'party line' year after year, decade after decade. It's also what you get when you don't vote-or you place emphasis on some things, without considering the particular pol's positions on others.

In government, the Coastal-blue states tend to want to be like New York, who tends in turn to want to follow the fads and trends of Europe. For a gun-person, this is a bad deal-it's also damn near unavoidable, because we're out-numbered in those states and will remain so eternally.
Laerod
27-04-2005, 12:21
Of the 0 times my home has been broken into: 0. In the US homes are normally broken into during the day, when nobody's home. However, there are some serious exceptions. Here in the Phoenix area, gang-bangers sometimes conduct home invasions where the whole point is to have a confrontation with the occupants. It's dick-waving to the psychotic degree.

Really? I think most police officers would disagree with you.
Some cops don't carry guns at all, and some who do never draw them through years of duty. What do you think it is about their job that requires guns?
So you keep a gun at home (and you've never been broken into) just in case one of those groups comes to your home to shoot it out with you? They come to your house because you have a gun, am I right? And besides, what good does a gun do you if you're not around to use it and it might get stolen to find its way into the hands of some criminal?
As for the cops. Would they disagree with me on the account that citizens shouldn't go out and shoot people or that they are there for shooting people? I assume its the latter. You're right cops aren't primarily there for shooting criminals, but it remains one of their duties when it is necessary. Cops are there to enforce the laws and sometimes they need guns to do that. It's great if they never have to but they need to be able to.
Risukko
27-04-2005, 12:24
Can you imagine that there´s countries where most of the policemen have never needed to threaten the suspects with gun. I live in one. :)

In my country, civilians can own a gun if they have proper gun licence.
31
27-04-2005, 12:36
Can you imagine that there´s countries where most of the policemen have never needed to threaten the suspects with gun. I live in one. :)

In my country, civilians can own a gun if they have proper gun licence.

I think you are Japanese, maybe I am wrong. Yeah, having lived here for 5 years I think your criminals are really strange. They give up without a fight, admit their crimes immediately and then help the police convict them. Really turns your police into wimps.
Japanese police are some of the weakest police I have ever seen. They let Bousouzoku do almost anything they want to and the bousouzoku are possibly the weakest gangstas I have ever seen. They would die in LA in about 5 minutes. . .
it does make life nice here though.
Risukko
27-04-2005, 12:50
I think you are Japanese, maybe I am wrong. Yeah, having lived here for 5 years I think your criminals are really strange. They give up without a fight, admit their crimes immediately and then help the police convict them. Really turns your police into wimps.
Japanese police are some of the weakest police I have ever seen. They let Bousouzoku do almost anything they want to and the bousouzoku are possibly the weakest gangstas I have ever seen. They would die in LA in about 5 minutes. . .
it does make life nice here though.

Nice guess, but a couple of thousand kilometres wrong. Here in Finland criminals don´t need to be scared for their lives, so they don´t need to defend themselves with guns. They usually give up without fight if they get caught.

Of course the police have special troops to handle more severe situations, but luckily those are quite rare.

If LA is that dangerous, what you think is the reason? Too many guns? Too severe punishments for criminals? Too many people? Inefficient (altough well armed) police? You name it.

People are usually more happy if they don´t need to be scared. Or at least I am. :)
31
27-04-2005, 13:01
Nice guess, but a couple of thousand kilometres wrong. Here in Finland criminals don´t need to be scared for their lives, so they don´t need to defend themselves with guns. They usually give up without fight if they get caught.

Of course the police have special troops to handle more severe situations, but luckily those are quite rare.

If LA is that dangerous, what you think is the reason? Too many guns? Too severe punishments for criminals? Too many people? Inefficient (altough well armed) police? You name it.

People are usually more happy if they don´t need to be scared. Or at least I am. :)

ah, I suspected Finland or Iceland also, the only other countries I could think of with names like that. I always managed to make an idiot out of myself. It is why I post less and less.
LA is terrible in some places because it is overpopulated. If they didn't have guns they would knife each other, if they didn't have knives it would be rocks and sticks. I am firmly convinced that large, impersonal populations are primarily responsible for criminal behavior. If I don't know my neighbors I am inclined to not give a damn about them.
Weapons have little to do with the instigation of crime, only the practice of it.
Nhuttopia
27-04-2005, 13:09
Good points, well made Risukko.

However, those of us who live in older, more established societies have to understand that (in political terms) the US is still a baby .... and, like most babies, still finds it difficult to control itself. Not only is it inclined to be rather noisy, but it also wants to grab all the toys (shortly before throwing them out the pram).

Give them time and (if they don't destroy the world first) they may develop into a more mature understanding of how society should be conducted.
Risukko
27-04-2005, 13:21
LA is terrible in some places because it is overpopulated. If they didn't have guns they would knife each other, if they didn't have knives it would be rocks and sticks. I am firmly convinced that large, impersonal populations are primarily responsible for criminal behavior. If I don't know my neighbors I am inclined to not give a damn about them.
Weapons have little to do with the instigation of crime, only the practice of it.

I agree with most of what you said. Overpopulation creates social problems and makes them harder to solve.

Weapons cause fear. That´s why they create more extreme situations wherever they´re used. Guns makes the killing easier. Just think two cowards, one with knife, one with gun. Which one is more likely to become a killer?

Of course people kill each other in Finland too. The most usual case is drunken man stabbing a drunken friend with knife. These cases are easy to solve and don´t put innocent people in danger.
31
27-04-2005, 13:26
I agree with most of what you said. Overpopulation creates social problems and makes them harder to solve.

Weapons cause fear. That´s why they create more extreme situations wherever they´re used. Guns makes the killing easier. Just think two cowards, one with knife, one with gun. Which one is more likely to become a killer?

Of course people kill each other in Finland too. The most usual case is drunken man stabbing a drunken friend with knife. These cases are easy to solve and don´t put innocent people in danger.

Social problems increase and so does a disconnection with your fellow citizens. Of course nasty crap happens in small populations as well. . .
Yeah, I agree the guy with the gun will more likely become a killer but the guy with the knife musta had it comin. . ;)
Humans cause fear, a weapon is nothing without a hand to wield it. Personally I'd rather be shot than knifed.
Asharpnumbertwopencil
27-04-2005, 13:48
I suppose I'm just venting... But I was recently made aware to just how harsh my state's gun laws are. I thought we had only been restricted under the 1994-2004 bill. I was unaware of the state legislature. To give a quick refresher, 18 rifle types(including all Ar-10 and Kalishnakov models), any weapon with at least one of the qualifiers for an assault weapon(Anything from a thumbhole stock, a flash muzzle, or length under 30 inches), bans any magazine with more than ten rounds...

Im not sure what I'm asking. Just discuss it, I suppose.


Then you'd LOVE New Jersey, 10 round magazines, assault weapons ban,
AND , here's the kicker,,,, Kevlar is illegal unless you're a police officer.

Yeah, the most defensive thing in the world is illegal,
I mean , nobody was ever shot with a kevlar vest.

Why? Well the police have a very strong lobby in NJ and
they don't want ordinary citizens to have it.

So any woman stalked by an ex, any entertainer stalked by a fan,
any pizza guy or cab driver is a sitting duck because the police don't like
it.

I gotta get out of here...
Risukko
27-04-2005, 13:51
Humans cause fear, a weapon is nothing without a hand to wield it. Personally I'd rather be shot than knifed.

Knifing happens most usually between people who already know each other and have strong emotional motives to do that (jealousy, hate, love, alchol...). When people knife someone, it´s usually personal.

Shooting is easier and happens more often in situations where people don´t know each other or the kill is not for "personal" reasons.

I can´t remember where I saw the study. :(

However, guns make it more liable that you get killed by an unknown person.
31
27-04-2005, 14:28
Knifing happens most usually between people who already know each other and have strong emotional motives to do that (jealousy, hate, love, alchol...). When people knife someone, it´s usually personal.

Shooting is easier and happens more often in situations where people don´t know each other or the kill is not for "personal" reasons.

I can´t remember where I saw the study. :(

However, guns make it more liable that you get killed by an unknown person.

Yeah, but is getting killed by someone you know preferable to getting killed by a stranger? Dead is dead. Murder is murder. Knife or gun I am still dead and the thought of some thin piece of metal sliding semi-slowly through my guts is a heck of a lot worse than a bullet slamming into me instantaneusly.

Both would suck though. I think I can state with certainty that I would not like to be killed by anykind of weapon.
Allanea
27-04-2005, 14:30
All I have to say about California's sucky gun laws is this

http://scottbieser.com/images/50-cal_duet_700.jpg
Whispering Legs
27-04-2005, 14:40
I suppose I'm just venting... But I was recently made aware to just how harsh my state's gun laws are. I thought we had only been restricted under the 1994-2004 bill. I was unaware of the state legislature. To give a quick refresher, 18 rifle types(including all Ar-10 and Kalishnakov models), any weapon with at least one of the qualifiers for an assault weapon(Anything from a thumbhole stock, a flash muzzle, or length under 30 inches), bans any magazine with more than ten rounds...

Im not sure what I'm asking. Just discuss it, I suppose.

There are 35 other states that fall into the gun friendly category.

Take my state, Virginia, as an example.

Concealed carry, open carry, and no restrictions on "assault weapons".

Oh, and we have low violent crime rates.
Allanea
27-04-2005, 14:44
Ever considered joining the Free State Project (http://www.freestateproject.org) , Chellis?
Kibolonia
27-04-2005, 16:13
Your scenario assumes the defender lives near his neigboors. Some people live in the middle of nowhere, even in California.
Dude. I seriously recommend you look into how far a rifle round will fly. Futhermore take a gander at any of the population density maps to be found on the internet. The vast majority of people live VERY near other people. The people who live on a 10k acre spread in Misery, Wyoming, or own a Vineyard are very few, in addition to being far between.
Chellis
28-04-2005, 00:11
Dude. I seriously recommend you look into how far a rifle round will fly. Futhermore take a gander at any of the population density maps to be found on the internet. The vast majority of people live VERY near other people. The people who live on a 10k acre spread in Misery, Wyoming, or own a Vineyard are very few, in addition to being far between.

Exactly how far will a 5.56mm bullet fly, after hitting multiple walls? Especially if one is brick, or thick wood, etc?
Chellis
28-04-2005, 00:13
The usual justification for keeping lethal weapons lying around the house in the US appears to be "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." (Second Amendment to the Constitution.)

This does rather suggest that the need to keep arms is predicated upon membership of a 'well regulated' Militia .... not upon some incredibly pathetic need to wave unsuitable heavy armaments around the neighbourhood.

It is interesting (in the light of my earlier hint at 'penis envy') that the current manifestation of the Militia (The National Guard) was instituted and created by Congress as the Act of January 21 , 1903, known by the name of its sponsor as "The Dick Act".

The constitution denotes the militia as being "all able bodied males from age 17 to 44", as well as the national guard.
Chellis
28-04-2005, 00:25
Ok, now I feel like I need a gun for three reasons:

1. People break into my house all the time, and I usually just let them take my stuff, but I never thought about getting a gun and killing all these people who break into my house all the time.

2. I didn't realize how close we were to civil war. I know the wackos who try to overthrow the government can only succeed in getting appropriate changes with brute strength and firearms. This must mean I have to out wacko the wackos and get an assault rifles... or two or three.

3. Everyone seems to know a lot more about guns than me, and frankly, it scares the shiite out of me. Why in the hell does anyone think guns solve anything?

To quote a wise man
"That'll teach'em, Hoss. He dead now!"
:headbang: :mp5: :sniper:

1. You are ok with people constantly breaking into your house? Don't take it. If they come in with a weapon, kill them. If they dont have a weapon, make sure they know you have one(You dont even need to fire. Point it at them, and they will get the hell out of there). If you are ok with taking things laying down, go ahead. I wont be taken advantage of like that.

2. Are you clairvoyent? Do you know what the future holds? I don't. I would much rather err on the side of caution, being safe rather than being sorry. Even if my services are not needed, I would rather be ready just incase.

3. Because, in the united states, loose gun laws go hand in hand with lesser crime rates. Guns are used much more often to defend people in the states, then they are to kill others.
Chellis
28-04-2005, 00:36
How likely is it that Canada or Mexico are going to allow a foreign army into their territory with the purpose and capacity of invading the US or such a foreign army getting past the most powerful navy on earth with enough strength to get to where you live before you're too old to pull a trigger? Not very. A civil war? With the vast ammount of American patriotism around? Not likely.


The times change. I would prefer to be ready, than to be caught with my pants down. Even if I never need to use my guns.


Where do they get those guns? From what I hear a lot of guns sold and obtained illegaly were stolen from people that legally bought them and if no one owns assault rifles anymore, the chances of them appearing on the black market are diminished.


Try nevada, or arizona. These states follow federal guidelines, which are much looser than california gun laws are. You dont get searched, or even checked, when you cross the border. A criminal can easily keep an illegal gun in a box in his closet, and nobody will know about it until he kills large numbers of people, while those who cant have similar guns, are killed.



Answer is in the quote.
Spizzo
28-04-2005, 00:47
Because 10 rounds might not be enough.
Hunting laws generally forbide the use of magazines over 5 or 10 rounds. But who cares about hunting? Not me.Actually, most attackers will run from the sight of a gun. Still other may flee from a warning shot, but you can never be sure how anyone will react.
Most police in the US carry guns with magazine capacities over 10 rounds. What do they need them for?
I don't think any guns should have magazine that carry more than 5 rounds. What do you need more than 5 rounds for? You can just reload when you are out.
On a side note, I don't think any vehicle should carry more than 5 gallons of gas. I mean, what do you need more than 5 gallons for? You can just refill when you are out.
Chellis
28-04-2005, 00:51
I don't think any guns should have magazine that carry more than 5 rounds. What do you need more than 5 rounds for? You can just reload when you are out.
On a side note, I don't think any vehicle should carry more than 5 gallons of gas. I mean, what do you need more than 5 gallons for? You can just refill when you are out.

With the second part, im guessing you were being sarcastic?

Btw, where in the bay area? Im a concord man.
Spizzo
28-04-2005, 00:56
With the second part, im guessing you were being sarcastic?

Btw, where in the bay area? Im a concord man.
Actually, the entire post was in satire. I'm of the school that says "gun control means using both hands."

San Jose, for a while.
CSW
28-04-2005, 01:00
The constitution denotes the militia as being "all able bodied males from age 17 to 44", as well as the national guard.
Where the hell is that little tidbit.
Super-power
28-04-2005, 01:00
They make me sad too :(
Derscon
28-04-2005, 01:40
Honestly, I can't find a lot of fault with your argument. But you want to know why? It's attitudes like the one I responded to. That's why. It's politically impossible to get a Gun Registration Database implimented, and forget about testing as part of the basic licensing proceedures, Eddie the Eagle should be enough for anyone. But what is politically achievable? A hodge podge of metrics that will take out a lot of the weapons that are most threatening to police (who are a powerful political force) and a lot of collateral freedom that really isn't that threatening too.

You are right. A lot of what is done is non-sensical, and does diminish your freedoms. But you're also wrong, there is a very real public saftey issue that these laws, as asinine as they may be, are trying to address. There is a big spectrum of choice, and the people Governing California aren't the only one's involved, and collectively, the present system, as deeply flawed as it is, is the one that everyone agrees is the most livable.

That said, there are likely esoteric options open to you. You could pay for a lawyer to ferret these out, but I bet being buddies with a cop would probably be enough to get you started, as well as being cheaper and more fun. There are likely ways to own and legally discharge just about any weapon you could manage to legally procure. It's uncommon, but people in some places actually own artillery (that works). Now such licenses probably aren't cheap or easy to come by, but given that Hollywood is in California, and that you too can have your very own Nevada state corporation....

There's a simple phrase to sum up everything the Californian government has done to address the problem.

Symbolism over Substance.
Derscon
28-04-2005, 01:44
Actually, the entire post was in satire. I'm of the school that says "gun control means using both hands."

No, it's making sure the pullup from the automatic fire from your assault rifle doesn't move your shots up too much. :D
Earths Orbit
28-04-2005, 02:19
This is a regular argument in our household.

It seems that looking at statistics and historical facts, we discover two things.

1. In a society without weapons, dangerous crime is very low

and

2. In an armed society, dangerous crime is very low

It seems to be the middle ground where we have a problem. This means that people on both sides of the discussion can point to examples and say "See? I'm right". You're both right. The problem isn't the guns (well, not entirely), the problem is the society, and the attitudes.

Every time I see a discussion like this, and someone says "What if the country is invaded" or "what if there is a civil war" I shudder. I think "and that's exactly why I don't want YOU to have a gun". See, the thing is, the constitution is an old document. I'm not going to say that it isn't still relevant, but we need to accept that things change with time, and need to be reexamined. Doesn't the constitution say that it's important to keep weapons in case of government oppression?
OK, Let's be serious. In the modern day and age, with tanks and gunships and the like, is a ragtag collection of gun owners really going to be able to stand up against the government? Realistically?
Maybe they could. If they also had tanks and gunships, and so on. Let's either extend the constitution to allow mini-armies, just in case. Or decide that it doesn't apply anymore.

Really, if a foreign army attacks, believe me the government will be number one, first organization to make sure that every able bodied man who wants a gun to help the fight will be given one. You don't need to worry about an enemy army sneaking into your home in the dead of night.

I say to people "I really like the fact that when I go to a party, I know that nobody will be carrying a gun. I really like the fact that if I get into an argument, there's no chance I'll get shot".
They say to me "well, the parties I go to, nobody has guns either". And I say "well, then why do you need guns?" All you are achieving is the people at the party have no weapons, but someone with a gun could turn up. And cause trouble. At least here if they did that there would be something that could be done.

Ever seen someone who thinks he's going to get into a fight, and doesn't have adrenalin pumping? Most inexperienced fighters get scared. If their friends are there they will often act tough. I've had to drag someone out of a party, and almost have a brawl on the street, because he was scared. Not because he was a jerk, but because he had his friends watching, and didn't know what to do, and was afraid of me. I could tell that he didn't want to fight, and it was easily solved. After a bit of bravado from us both, I walked away, backed down, let him be "the big man" and I was the "cowardly wimp", and he left the party. All well and good. I was lucky in that I know enough how to fight that I could have landed him on his back without any serious injury to anyone. I made sure we were standing on the grass, and other minor-until-it-happens details. Then I backed down.
At quite a few points I thought he was going to throw a punch, I was jumpy, waiting for it, ready for it. But, know what? If he throws a punch, and I'm slow, I get hurt. And my friends get hurt, since his friends, "backing him up" were lined up against my friends. And at least a few of them, not being in the direct line, and somewhat drunk, were just looking for a fight. Still, injured people, no big deal.
He didn't have a gun. I didn't have a gun.
If he did have a gun, how was I expected to make him leave the party? Pull out my own? Have you any idea how unpredictable scared people get?
He'd be just as likely to pull his gun, from fear of embarassment to his friends, or fear of his life, or who knows what he could be thinking. The responsible thing to do would be to let him know I have a gun, but not threaten him with it. Again, that's assuming I make the right choice, and he doesn't go for his own gun. If we did have guns in that situation, god, I don't know if I would have shot him. He really was scared enough that he'd be unpredicatable. He was standing up to me, threatening me, even though he was terrified that I'd beat his head in. Why should he act differently if he has a gun? If anything, having guns would "level the field".
Plus, hey, without a gun, if he did go crazy, and his friends were responsible, they could have all just dragged him off, with nothing but a few bruises to show. Can you do that to someone with a gun? Reliably?
So..upshot of this was that he left. Some people congratulated me. Some people thought I wimped out and ran from a fight. People who knew me, and know I can fight said "hey, I bet you were raring for a fight" or "Must have been hard not to just knock the jerk down". I said something like "yeah, well, he was asking for it, but I'm meant to be stopping fights" or something stupid like that. Honestly? I was feeling sick, and glad it was over. I just really didn't want to hurt the guy. And I didn't want to get hurt myself. I hate violence, and I know how it can be when you've had a bit to drink, you feel someone is threatening you, and you feel that they are "walking all over you" if you don't "stand up for yourself".

Which is why I'm really worried when I see arguments like "I need a gun to protect my house. Do you want to let criminals just take your stuff, and not stand up for yourself?"

If I hear a noise, and think it's a burglar, I'm going to go check. While making lots of noise. Knowing that the burglar will hear me and (most likely) leave. Knowing that the burglar knows I don't have a gun. If the burglar sees me, he'll run. I'd be scared, sure.
In America, I'd be terrified, because if the burglar sees me, I don't know if he'll run or shoot. Heck, if I was the burglar, I'm shooting. I don't want to run the risk of getting shot first.

Maybe the burglar is more likely to break in here, knowing I don't have a gun. Maybe we get more crime, although the crime is less lethal.
Maybe you get less crime in gun-states, and the crime there is more lethal.

I just know that there hasn't, yet, been a situation in my life where I would have been more safer if I had a gun. I might have felt safer, but I don't think there is a case where, in real terms, I would have been safer.

I like only the police having guns. The criminals can get guns, sure. But they don't.

Having said that, I think it's equally valid to arm everyone, as long as there is training along with it. I have no problem with farmers having guns. They grew up with them, and know they are tools, and how to respect their guns. Give everyone guns. Train people to use them at school. Make society have this huge "what the hell are you thinking" reaction if anyone ever pulls a gun on another person. Then I'll consider civilian weaponry to be fine.
Kecibukia
28-04-2005, 03:56
There's a simple phrase to sum up everything the Californian government has done to address the problem.

Symbolism over Substance.

California also has "sanctuary laws" which prevent the police from arresting people based on their immigration status alone. So if a cop sees a guy that was deported a month ago for a crime, that person can't be arrested as an illegal alien unless they're commiting another crime.
NYAAA
28-04-2005, 04:05
Has anyone considered "fun" as a big factor here? Some people like guns and you all know why, you understand the attraction. We arent hurting anyone so leave us alone.

Self defence: If I am attacked, I dont have time to "call the police". It is MY life. The government does not have the right to tell me that I cannot defend it or even if I CAN defend it. I KNOW I can, it is a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT.

An M1 carbine (yes I do own one, and I have not gone on a rampage to date) is considered an "assault weapon" even though it isnt full auto, and has a 15 round clip. Do I need a 15 round clip for defence? No, I'm a very good shot and I doubt my home will be infiltrated by an army. The fact is that I WANT the high capacity magazine. Its fun. And once again, harmless.

If you really want to stop massacres, stop people from going nuts. Be nice to the fat kid at school for once.
Kecibukia
28-04-2005, 04:24
Has anyone considered "fun" as a big factor here? Some people like guns and you all know why, you understand the attraction. We arent hurting anyone so leave us alone.

Self defence: If I am attacked, I dont have time to "call the police". It is MY life. The government does not have the right to tell me that I cannot defend it or even if I CAN defend it. I KNOW I can, it is a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT.

An M1 carbine (yes I do own one, and I have not gone on a rampage to date) is considered an "assault weapon" even though it isnt full auto, and has a 15 round clip. Do I need a 15 round clip for defence? No, I'm a very good shot and I doubt my home will be infiltrated by an army. The fact is that I WANT the high capacity magazine. Its fun. And once again, harmless.

If you really want to stop massacres, stop people from going nuts. Be nice to the fat kid at school for once.


You notice that many of the anti-selfdefense individuals keep touting the "need" for firearms? I wonder what they would do if the (or their) gov't decided to establish rules for people "needing" to have freedom of speech, or a fast car, or a powerful computer, or a big home, etc. ?

Hoplophobia, plain and simple.
Chellis
28-04-2005, 06:11
Where the hell is that little tidbit.

I suppose constitution is a misnomer; I should have said United States code.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=10&sec=311

Title 10, Section 311
Chellis
28-04-2005, 06:23
This is a regular argument in our household.

It seems that looking at statistics and historical facts, we discover two things.

1. In a society without weapons, dangerous crime is very low

and

2. In an armed society, dangerous crime is very low

It seems to be the middle ground where we have a problem. This means that people on both sides of the discussion can point to examples and say "See? I'm right". You're both right. The problem isn't the guns (well, not entirely), the problem is the society, and the attitudes.

Every time I see a discussion like this, and someone says "What if the country is invaded" or "what if there is a civil war" I shudder. I think "and that's exactly why I don't want YOU to have a gun". See, the thing is, the constitution is an old document. I'm not going to say that it isn't still relevant, but we need to accept that things change with time, and need to be reexamined. Doesn't the constitution say that it's important to keep weapons in case of government oppression?
OK, Let's be serious. In the modern day and age, with tanks and gunships and the like, is a ragtag collection of gun owners really going to be able to stand up against the government? Realistically?
Maybe they could. If they also had tanks and gunships, and so on. Let's either extend the constitution to allow mini-armies, just in case. Or decide that it doesn't apply anymore.

Really, if a foreign army attacks, believe me the government will be number one, first organization to make sure that every able bodied man who wants a gun to help the fight will be given one. You don't need to worry about an enemy army sneaking into your home in the dead of night.

I say to people "I really like the fact that when I go to a party, I know that nobody will be carrying a gun. I really like the fact that if I get into an argument, there's no chance I'll get shot".
They say to me "well, the parties I go to, nobody has guns either". And I say "well, then why do you need guns?" All you are achieving is the people at the party have no weapons, but someone with a gun could turn up. And cause trouble. At least here if they did that there would be something that could be done.

Ever seen someone who thinks he's going to get into a fight, and doesn't have adrenalin pumping? Most inexperienced fighters get scared. If their friends are there they will often act tough. I've had to drag someone out of a party, and almost have a brawl on the street, because he was scared. Not because he was a jerk, but because he had his friends watching, and didn't know what to do, and was afraid of me. I could tell that he didn't want to fight, and it was easily solved. After a bit of bravado from us both, I walked away, backed down, let him be "the big man" and I was the "cowardly wimp", and he left the party. All well and good. I was lucky in that I know enough how to fight that I could have landed him on his back without any serious injury to anyone. I made sure we were standing on the grass, and other minor-until-it-happens details. Then I backed down.
At quite a few points I thought he was going to throw a punch, I was jumpy, waiting for it, ready for it. But, know what? If he throws a punch, and I'm slow, I get hurt. And my friends get hurt, since his friends, "backing him up" were lined up against my friends. And at least a few of them, not being in the direct line, and somewhat drunk, were just looking for a fight. Still, injured people, no big deal.
He didn't have a gun. I didn't have a gun.
If he did have a gun, how was I expected to make him leave the party? Pull out my own? Have you any idea how unpredictable scared people get?
He'd be just as likely to pull his gun, from fear of embarassment to his friends, or fear of his life, or who knows what he could be thinking. The responsible thing to do would be to let him know I have a gun, but not threaten him with it. Again, that's assuming I make the right choice, and he doesn't go for his own gun. If we did have guns in that situation, god, I don't know if I would have shot him. He really was scared enough that he'd be unpredicatable. He was standing up to me, threatening me, even though he was terrified that I'd beat his head in. Why should he act differently if he has a gun? If anything, having guns would "level the field".
Plus, hey, without a gun, if he did go crazy, and his friends were responsible, they could have all just dragged him off, with nothing but a few bruises to show. Can you do that to someone with a gun? Reliably?
So..upshot of this was that he left. Some people congratulated me. Some people thought I wimped out and ran from a fight. People who knew me, and know I can fight said "hey, I bet you were raring for a fight" or "Must have been hard not to just knock the jerk down". I said something like "yeah, well, he was asking for it, but I'm meant to be stopping fights" or something stupid like that. Honestly? I was feeling sick, and glad it was over. I just really didn't want to hurt the guy. And I didn't want to get hurt myself. I hate violence, and I know how it can be when you've had a bit to drink, you feel someone is threatening you, and you feel that they are "walking all over you" if you don't "stand up for yourself".

Which is why I'm really worried when I see arguments like "I need a gun to protect my house. Do you want to let criminals just take your stuff, and not stand up for yourself?"

If I hear a noise, and think it's a burglar, I'm going to go check. While making lots of noise. Knowing that the burglar will hear me and (most likely) leave. Knowing that the burglar knows I don't have a gun. If the burglar sees me, he'll run. I'd be scared, sure.
In America, I'd be terrified, because if the burglar sees me, I don't know if he'll run or shoot. Heck, if I was the burglar, I'm shooting. I don't want to run the risk of getting shot first.

Maybe the burglar is more likely to break in here, knowing I don't have a gun. Maybe we get more crime, although the crime is less lethal.
Maybe you get less crime in gun-states, and the crime there is more lethal.

I just know that there hasn't, yet, been a situation in my life where I would have been more safer if I had a gun. I might have felt safer, but I don't think there is a case where, in real terms, I would have been safer.

I like only the police having guns. The criminals can get guns, sure. But they don't.

Having said that, I think it's equally valid to arm everyone, as long as there is training along with it. I have no problem with farmers having guns. They grew up with them, and know they are tools, and how to respect their guns. Give everyone guns. Train people to use them at school. Make society have this huge "what the hell are you thinking" reaction if anyone ever pulls a gun on another person. Then I'll consider civilian weaponry to be fine.

I wont address your personal story, I didnt read it(too long and messy). Personal stories have little to do with actuality, anyways. However, you assume two things.

1. People with weapons are the malcontents, and if they cant change things, neither will anyone else.

Its quite possible that certain things could happen. A military coup could occur, if a general got enough support within the military. A president could get approved, with a supportive congress, and wreak havoc on our constitution. Regardless of whats happening this moment, we dont know what will happen the next. I would rather be trained and prepared, than slow and screwed.

2. A rebel force cannot win with guerilla's alone.

This is quite contradictory to history. The vietnamese had some higher military equipment, but mostly infantry. The Afghans, mostly infantry. There are plenty of other examples. In a nation of 300 million, if 2/3rds of them armed, and 1/100th of those are willing to fight for the US(whether invaded or oppressed), thats still two million men who are well trained in weaponry, fighting against the enemy. If its a foreign invasion, the US can provide things like armour, AA, etc. If its inner oppresion, the US people would most likely recieve support from other nations, just like the afghans recieved US support, and the Vietnamese got chinese and russian support. It may not be the cold war, but to see the superpower lose, you can bet your ass nations would want to send whatever possible to help a civil war be devastating(And seeing as the people would be less armed, they would surely support the people).
Dadave
28-04-2005, 07:31
I suppose I'm just venting... But I was recently made aware to just how harsh my state's gun laws are. I thought we had only been restricted under the 1994-2004 bill. I was unaware of the state legislature. To give a quick refresher, 18 rifle types(including all Ar-10 and Kalishnakov models), any weapon with at least one of the qualifiers for an assault weapon(Anything from a thumbhole stock, a flash muzzle, or length under 30 inches), bans any magazine with more than ten rounds...

Im not sure what I'm asking. Just discuss it, I suppose.
here in lovely new germany...errr.new jersey,we have similar assinine laws.
my personal fave...no bayonet,cause of all those drive by bayonetings we were having.
the whole assault weapon ban is retarded,feel good legislation.does zero about crime.
i am lucky enough to have dual residences,so i keep all my evil guns ouuta here,except my shotgun(for home defense)
if i was crimminally inclined and wanted to kill someone,i would make a zip gun(untraceable) or a shotgun(untraceable)
i have a post ban ak,as a collectible,but the bayo lug had to be milled off to be legal..grrrr,like i need a bayo with an ak in other then a hand to hand scenario.i just want it for the genuine military look.
violent crimes involving assault weapons is probably on the order of less then 1 1/2 of 1%...to big and conspicuos to carry and employ.not a crimminals first choice for a weapon to comit a crime,if i wanted to be a crimminal,i would...read above.
i have had guns my whole life,never fired a shot in anger..ever.i also do not hunt,though i have no problem with it,i just don't like killing things is all.i guess if i was starving i would.
my point is i enjoy the precision of firearms,and i love shootin the hell outta water jugs with the ak.i also know the cops won't be here if someone attacks me or my family in my home..i'm rural.i also don't see why i should have to retreat and have my property stolen because a CRIMMINAL came into my home.that's his dumb luck.i hate to hurt any living thing,but if you break into my home you will get shot.and odds are,if i didn't stop the CRIMMINAL he may move on to the next victim,which could be a defenseless women or girl,and hurt them very badly or worse.
and as far as a comment i read earlier,i am quite content with the size of my penis..lol,i just love that argument,if i own a firearm i feel sexually inadequate..lol,come over and see for yourself..hahahaha,i just enjoy shooting and the technical aspect of firearms.
and i am a firm believer in my right to bear arms,never hurt a soul in my life,but i want the same right to defend myself as the police do.
sorry for the rant....if someone doesnt understand guns they either are scared of them(like with different cultures)or try to demean you.
another one of my awb faves...since my bayo lug was milled it has 1 less "evil feature"so to remove the thumbhole stock and replace it with a pistol grip.."another evil feature..like if i get shot i care if it had a thumbhole or pistol grip"all i do to be compliant with federal law is replace the trigger group from bulgaria,with a u.s. made one.that makes it all better,what a joke.
i hate feel good laws that do nothing but make honest people crimminals,and has zero impact on crime or violence. :sniper:
Chellis
28-04-2005, 07:44
You have an AK series weapon? Lucky. Kalishnakov models are banned in california by name.
Dadave
28-04-2005, 08:34
You have an AK series weapon? Lucky. Kalishnakov models are banned in california by name.
however,in new joisy,they are banned as in cali.i have to keep it in my other home in pa.or i get a nice 5 year prison visit..wtf is that.did't commit a crime,did't hurt a fly...mere possession get's me serious prison time and a felony record.
and like previously posted,99.9% of gun crime is not perpatrated with an assault weapon
i love how honest people that enjoy a particular type of weapon are demonized,yet the weapon is almost never used in a crime.shoot,no pun,handguns are the real problem,but these pussy politicians know they will never get them all,so they make a big fuss about assault weapons(which tech.they aren't..no auto capability)so as to act like they are tough on crime.and doing something.sad part is..like you read here..people will say"why do you need 30 round magazines"what does it matter,they are totally buying the bs that that is the issue,makes them feel good like they are making a sensible stand about something..not.30 round mag's is not the problem,crimminals are,and courts letting violent felons out so they can pack the jails with the more profitable drug user/buyer.
if i get shot to death by a crimminal..think i care how many rounds are in the gun?
another funny smoke and mirror game the pol's/anti gun pepes use is equating.."assault rifles" with machine guns.a semi auto .22 is no different,and is tech.an assault rifle by there definition.
a true assault rifle is capable of full auto fire or burst fire.and oddly enough,no one has been killed buy a mg since the thirties i think,unless illegally converted.i know lot's of people that have class 3 licenses,and there are ton's of people that legally own them,but not one used in a crime of violence.no one seems to get that...crimminals will not obey any law,legislation affects the non crimminal that obeys said laws..like me.
the only solution is an outrite ban of guns,that being said,u think the crimminal will turn theres in?plus if i had to..i could make a gun in about 30 minutes.
by the way,i have a bulgarian sa-93,milled receiver...very well made,accurate as all.got it off a cop as a matter of fact.
this should piss people off...i also have 10 thirty round mag's for it.so i don't have to reload the mag's when we are shooting jugs.
i need them,cause i learned how to bump fire it.very inaccurate but really fun,can empty a clip in like 4 seconds.
another thing,full auto is fun to shoot,but if i was really trying to shoot someone..single shot(aimed fire)is the only way.i tried full auto guns,the first shot hits, maybe,the rest go who know's were.just waste ammo.full auto is only usefull in combat as a crew served weapon.so much for everyone's hollywood idea of bullets being sprayed into some poor soul.just a waste of bullets..but fun as shit. :sniper:
Bogstonia
28-04-2005, 08:39
This is a regular argument in our household.

It seems that looking at statistics and historical facts, we discover two things.

1. In a society without weapons, dangerous crime is very low

and

2. In an armed society, dangerous crime is very low

It seems to be the middle ground where we have a problem. This means that people on both sides of the discussion can point to examples and say "See? I'm right". You're both right. The problem isn't the guns (well, not entirely), the problem is the society, and the attitudes.

Every time I see a discussion like this, and someone says "What if the country is invaded" or "what if there is a civil war" I shudder. I think "and that's exactly why I don't want YOU to have a gun". See, the thing is, the constitution is an old document. I'm not going to say that it isn't still relevant, but we need to accept that things change with time, and need to be reexamined. Doesn't the constitution say that it's important to keep weapons in case of government oppression?
OK, Let's be serious. In the modern day and age, with tanks and gunships and the like, is a ragtag collection of gun owners really going to be able to stand up against the government? Realistically?
Maybe they could. If they also had tanks and gunships, and so on. Let's either extend the constitution to allow mini-armies, just in case. Or decide that it doesn't apply anymore.

Really, if a foreign army attacks, believe me the government will be number one, first organization to make sure that every able bodied man who wants a gun to help the fight will be given one. You don't need to worry about an enemy army sneaking into your home in the dead of night.

I say to people "I really like the fact that when I go to a party, I know that nobody will be carrying a gun. I really like the fact that if I get into an argument, there's no chance I'll get shot".
They say to me "well, the parties I go to, nobody has guns either". And I say "well, then why do you need guns?" All you are achieving is the people at the party have no weapons, but someone with a gun could turn up. And cause trouble. At least here if they did that there would be something that could be done.

Ever seen someone who thinks he's going to get into a fight, and doesn't have adrenalin pumping? Most inexperienced fighters get scared. If their friends are there they will often act tough. I've had to drag someone out of a party, and almost have a brawl on the street, because he was scared. Not because he was a jerk, but because he had his friends watching, and didn't know what to do, and was afraid of me. I could tell that he didn't want to fight, and it was easily solved. After a bit of bravado from us both, I walked away, backed down, let him be "the big man" and I was the "cowardly wimp", and he left the party. All well and good. I was lucky in that I know enough how to fight that I could have landed him on his back without any serious injury to anyone. I made sure we were standing on the grass, and other minor-until-it-happens details. Then I backed down.
At quite a few points I thought he was going to throw a punch, I was jumpy, waiting for it, ready for it. But, know what? If he throws a punch, and I'm slow, I get hurt. And my friends get hurt, since his friends, "backing him up" were lined up against my friends. And at least a few of them, not being in the direct line, and somewhat drunk, were just looking for a fight. Still, injured people, no big deal.
He didn't have a gun. I didn't have a gun.
If he did have a gun, how was I expected to make him leave the party? Pull out my own? Have you any idea how unpredictable scared people get?
He'd be just as likely to pull his gun, from fear of embarassment to his friends, or fear of his life, or who knows what he could be thinking. The responsible thing to do would be to let him know I have a gun, but not threaten him with it. Again, that's assuming I make the right choice, and he doesn't go for his own gun. If we did have guns in that situation, god, I don't know if I would have shot him. He really was scared enough that he'd be unpredicatable. He was standing up to me, threatening me, even though he was terrified that I'd beat his head in. Why should he act differently if he has a gun? If anything, having guns would "level the field".
Plus, hey, without a gun, if he did go crazy, and his friends were responsible, they could have all just dragged him off, with nothing but a few bruises to show. Can you do that to someone with a gun? Reliably?
So..upshot of this was that he left. Some people congratulated me. Some people thought I wimped out and ran from a fight. People who knew me, and know I can fight said "hey, I bet you were raring for a fight" or "Must have been hard not to just knock the jerk down". I said something like "yeah, well, he was asking for it, but I'm meant to be stopping fights" or something stupid like that. Honestly? I was feeling sick, and glad it was over. I just really didn't want to hurt the guy. And I didn't want to get hurt myself. I hate violence, and I know how it can be when you've had a bit to drink, you feel someone is threatening you, and you feel that they are "walking all over you" if you don't "stand up for yourself".

Which is why I'm really worried when I see arguments like "I need a gun to protect my house. Do you want to let criminals just take your stuff, and not stand up for yourself?"

If I hear a noise, and think it's a burglar, I'm going to go check. While making lots of noise. Knowing that the burglar will hear me and (most likely) leave. Knowing that the burglar knows I don't have a gun. If the burglar sees me, he'll run. I'd be scared, sure.
In America, I'd be terrified, because if the burglar sees me, I don't know if he'll run or shoot. Heck, if I was the burglar, I'm shooting. I don't want to run the risk of getting shot first.

Maybe the burglar is more likely to break in here, knowing I don't have a gun. Maybe we get more crime, although the crime is less lethal.
Maybe you get less crime in gun-states, and the crime there is more lethal.

I just know that there hasn't, yet, been a situation in my life where I would have been more safer if I had a gun. I might have felt safer, but I don't think there is a case where, in real terms, I would have been safer.

I like only the police having guns. The criminals can get guns, sure. But they don't.

Having said that, I think it's equally valid to arm everyone, as long as there is training along with it. I have no problem with farmers having guns. They grew up with them, and know they are tools, and how to respect their guns. Give everyone guns. Train people to use them at school. Make society have this huge "what the hell are you thinking" reaction if anyone ever pulls a gun on another person. Then I'll consider civilian weaponry to be fine.

Awesome, you fast becoming a member of the prestigious 'My top 3 posters' club.
Battery Charger
28-04-2005, 10:35
So you keep a gun at home (and you've never been broken into) just in case one of those groups comes to your home to shoot it out with you? They come to your house because you have a gun, am I right? And besides, what good does a gun do you if you're not around to use it and it might get stolen to find its way into the hands of some criminal?
As for the cops. Would they disagree with me on the account that citizens shouldn't go out and shoot people or that they are there for shooting people? I assume its the latter. You're right cops aren't primarily there for shooting criminals, but it remains one of their duties when it is necessary. Cops are there to enforce the laws and sometimes they need guns to do that. It's great if they never have to but they need to be able to.
Who comes to my house because I have a gun? What the hell are you talking about? Obviously, a gun doesn't help much if you're not around to use it. But do you know why most home break-ins occur when nobody's home? It's got something to do with guns.

I should hope that no police force exists with a mandate to "shoot criminals" as a primary or secondary purpose.
Battery Charger
28-04-2005, 10:42
If LA is that dangerous, what you think is the reason? Too many guns? Too severe punishments for criminals? Too many people? Inefficient (altough well armed) police? You name it.The War on Drugs is the number one reason. While the same drugs are illegal almost everywhere around the world. High levels of illegal immigration don't help. Nor does the number of single-parent families. You might even blame Hollywood, which is part of LA.
BackwoodsSquatches
28-04-2005, 10:54
The AK-47 is a good all-purpose combat weapon. It comes in very handy for resisting foriegn invaders. For an example, see Iraq.


Im gonna take a wild stab, here, but im gonna guess you have not not now, nor will you ever be likely to resist any foreign invaders.

Thus, you are unable to give any reason why the average citizen should be allowed to own an aasualt rifle.

Home protection?
Hardly. a shotgun will just as easily do the same job, and those are legal to own.

Hunting?
Nope, thats illegal too.


So then, what on earth would you personally, or the average citizen need an assualt weapon for?
Battery Charger
28-04-2005, 11:08
Dude. I seriously recommend you look into how far a rifle round will fly. Futhermore take a gander at any of the population density maps to be found on the internet. The vast majority of people live VERY near other people. The people who live on a 10k acre spread in Misery, Wyoming, or own a Vineyard are very few, in addition to being far between.
Yes yes, rifle rounds will go far. And I know that most people live in cities. It's just that some people don't so they don't have to worry as much or at all about accidently shooting their neighboors.
Battery Charger
28-04-2005, 11:11
The constitution denotes the militia as being "all able bodied males from age 17 to 44", as well as the national guard.
The Constitution does not say that. It's in the US Code. Clicky (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html)
However, state constitutions usually do define the militia.
Cadillac-Gage
28-04-2005, 11:11
Im gonna take a wild stab, here, but im gonna guess you have not not now, nor will you ever be likely to resist any foreign invaders.

Thus, you are unable to give any reason why the average citizen should be allowed to own an aasualt rifle.

Home protection?
Hardly. a shotgun will just as easily do the same job, and those are legal to own.

Hunting?
Nope, thats illegal too.


So then, what on earth would you personally, or the average citizen need an assualt weapon for?


Why do Cops need them? For that matter, why do Cops need more than six bullets in their pistols? In a firefight, if you need more than six shots in your pistol, you probably really need backup and to not-leave the long-rifle in the car.


Squatches, "NEED" has nothing to do with it. You don't 'need' a 4x4 in most places, you don't 'need' a sports-car. In New York, you don't 'need' a car at all.
You can live your life in a single room, in an apartment complex, with no furniture and only the most basic of foods to eat.

you don't 'need' coffee, tea, or Cigarettes, either. Most people 'shouldn't' eat Candy.

You Definitely don't 'need' Beer, Wine, or Hard Liquor (which substances do kill something like 100 times the number of total shootings per year, impair judgement, and do through their users billions, not millions, of dollars in damage.)

These things are Luxuries, Sir. A lot of small-framed people have found that the 'assault-rifle' type weapons are easier to use than weapons configured in more traditional formats, (I know a small lady that uses a converted AR-15 in 7.62x39 for a deer-rifle, with a 5 round mag to make it legal, it doesn't abuse her like a .30-30 does, and the ballistics are identical) there is also the sport of Target shooting, including leagues that have events specifically for semiautomatic military-style carbines and rifles, and DCM events. Particularly the Rapid-fire portion. Having shot DCM with a Garand, I can certify that the AR-15 in the next lane beat me on both time, and accuracy on the 100 meter target.
He didn't have to stop every eight rounds and jam another clip in.
Battery Charger
28-04-2005, 11:21
This is a regular argument in our household.

It seems that looking at statistics and historical facts, we discover two things.

1. In a society without weapons, dangerous crime is very low

and

2. In an armed society, dangerous crime is very low

It seems to be the middle ground where we have a problem. This means that people on both sides of the discussion can point to examples and say "See? I'm right". You're both right. The problem isn't the guns (well, not entirely), the problem is the society, and the attitudes.

Every time I see a discussion like this, and someone says "What if the country is invaded" or "what if there is a civil war" I shudder. I think "and that's exactly why I don't want YOU to have a gun". See, the thing is, the constitution is an old document. I'm not going to say that it isn't still relevant, but we need to accept that things change with time, and need to be reexamined. Doesn't the constitution say that it's important to keep weapons in case of government oppression?
OK, Let's be serious. In the modern day and age, with tanks and gunships and the like, is a ragtag collection of gun owners really going to be able to stand up against the government? Realistically?
Maybe they could. If they also had tanks and gunships, and so on. Let's either extend the constitution to allow mini-armies, just in case. Or decide that it doesn't apply anymore.

I've addressed much of what you're saying here (http://www.xanga.com/private/home.aspx?user=gavnook&nextdate=1%2f18%2f2005+16%3a22%3a35.327&direction=n).


This is the "resistance is futile" argument. I see that as defeatist. To what extent it's true, it's a problem in need of a solution. The solution is either to degrade the government's force capability or to upgrade that of the ordinary civilians.
Battery Charger
28-04-2005, 11:24
If you really want to stop massacres, stop people from going nuts. Be nice to the fat kid at school for once.And if you have kids, for the love of Pete, keep them off drugs (like Prozac and Xanax) and pull them out of school if they're seriously depressed.
Battery Charger
28-04-2005, 11:29
Im gonna take a wild stab, here, but im gonna guess you have not not now, nor will you ever be likely to resist any foreign invaders.

Thus, you are unable to give any reason why the average citizen should be allowed to own an aasualt rifle.

Home protection?
Hardly. a shotgun will just as easily do the same job, and those are legal to own.

Hunting?
Nope, thats illegal too.


So then, what on earth would you personally, or the average citizen need an assualt weapon for?To shoot your opressive ass.
Secular Europe
28-04-2005, 11:42
If you ban all guns, then you know everyone with a gun is a criminal...that helps stop violent crime, because the moment the police find anyone with a gun then they can arrest them.

and what's all this about states with armed civilians having low crime rates? I think you'll find that the fewer weapons in a state, the lower the rate of violent crime. The US and Colombia are 2 of the most armed states in the world, and they have the highest murder rates in the world. Europe on the other hand, has very tight gun control laws and some of the lowest violent crime rates in the world.

The thing is, if an attacker has a weapon, he is more likely to use that weapon against you if he sees that you have a weapon.

Down with guns!!
Allanea
28-04-2005, 12:07
and what's all this about states with armed civilians having low crime rates? I think you'll find that the fewer weapons in a state, the lower the rate of violent crime. The US and Colombia are 2 of the most armed states in the world, and they have the highest murder rates in the world. Europe on the other hand, has very tight gun control laws and some of the lowest violent crime rates in the world.



That is entirely untrue... the US murder rate has fallen 50% in the last 14 year,s and the amount of gun rose. It is now not even near to being one of the highest in the wold
Violent crime in those US states that have more guns is notably lower [ compare Vermont vs. New York]]. And violent crime in Britain in all areas but mruder is higher than that in the US.
Whispering Legs
28-04-2005, 14:13
If you ban all guns, then you know everyone with a gun is a criminal...that helps stop violent crime, because the moment the police find anyone with a gun then they can arrest them.

and what's all this about states with armed civilians having low crime rates? I think you'll find that the fewer weapons in a state, the lower the rate of violent crime. The US and Colombia are 2 of the most armed states in the world, and they have the highest murder rates in the world. Europe on the other hand, has very tight gun control laws and some of the lowest violent crime rates in the world.

The thing is, if an attacker has a weapon, he is more likely to use that weapon against you if he sees that you have a weapon.

Down with guns!!


In the US, if you look county by county and compare gun ownership rate and gun laws, you'll find that the locations with the highest firearm murder rates and highest violent crime rates are those locations that have the strictest gun laws and the least legal gun ownership.

It's been proven over and over again in the US.
Kecibukia
28-04-2005, 15:32
In the US, if you look county by county and compare gun ownership rate and gun laws, you'll find that the locations with the highest firearm murder rates and highest violent crime rates are those locations that have the strictest gun laws and the least legal gun ownership.

It's been proven over and over again in the US.

But Hoplophobes don't want to see that. They want to go by the media glorifying shootings and the cries of "shootouts" by HCI and VPC. They want to ignore that the majority of crime is caused by/due to drugs, illegal immigrants and attributing social factors.
Zaxon
28-04-2005, 16:54
Where you all gun-crazy people come from?

In my country people truly needed guns for self defence over 60 years ago.

Not even police need to carry gun here every day.

I wonder how "civilized" people like Americans can even think that they´d shoot someone at their front doors. Don´t you have back doors in your houses?

Of course it´s fun to shoot with big guns. The largest one i´ve used was 130mm. But to even imagine that I´d truly shoot someone makes me sick.

Yuck!

It's up to you if you decide to flee or not. Just like it is anyone else's. I won't tell you to run or defend--that's up to you.

It's my house--I'm not giving up what I worked for all my life without a fight. Nor will I let my family come to harm--some of us have two stories, and can't just run out the back without having to go through the assailant first.

And what rights do someone that comes into my house without permission retain? When you infringe on others, you lose your rights. They know it's wrong, they know they're not supposed to be there. Why do they get a break? Why should I have to potentially hurt myself or my family (climbing out a two-story window) just so someone can rob or come after me (or just stay there and torture my cats)?

Utter horse-shit.

There are bad people in the world. Most people are good, however. You shouldn't need the weapon at all times. But when you do, it's best to have it there, instead of locked up in a safe.
Confederated Advocates
28-04-2005, 17:42
Battery, in all of your arguments, considering that you are a fellow Phoenix resident, I am surprised that you didnt point out the current invasion that is being stopped by a group of well armed gun toting americans. The Minuteman Project is making an impact on illegal immigration.

Let us also not forget that certain dissenting groups such as MEChA have openly stated that Mexico will take certain states back from the US person by person, house by house, block by block. If that statement and the flood of illegals isnt a slow invasion, what the hell is?

Look, it is the federal government's sworn duty to protect us as a nation. That also means our borders. But when they are undermanned and underequipped, it falls to the citizens to pick up the slack.

Additionally, look at the SSgt who was recently released after he stopped a group of illegals with an armed citizens arrest.

Armed Private Citizens are making a difference, especially on the border states. Taking away their ability to be armed how they see fit prevents the overall ability of a nation as large as ours from defending itself. This is especially true since we dont have mandatory military/civil service.

Oh, and if you dont want bullets to go too far or through walls and what not, use softer bullets that mushroom earlier.
Volvo Villa Vovve
28-04-2005, 17:45
It's up to you if you decide to flee or not. Just like it is anyone else's. I won't tell you to run or defend--that's up to you.

It's my house--I'm not giving up what I worked for all my life without a fight. Nor will I let my family come to harm--some of us have two stories, and can't just run out the back without having to go through the assailant first.

And what rights do someone that comes into my house without permission retain? When you infringe on others, you lose your rights. They know it's wrong, they know they're not supposed to be there. Why do they get a break? Why should I have to potentially hurt myself or my family (climbing out a two-story window) just so someone can rob or come after me (or just stay there and torture my cats)?

Utter horse-shit.

There are bad people in the world. Most people are good, however. You shouldn't need the weapon at all times. But when you do, it's best to have it there, instead of locked up in a safe.

I just want to warn you for a very big and armed threat: You, your children and your wife! No I don't think you your wife or your children is crazy maniacs. Just that a gun can also be a risk fo example that you and you wife get into a fight and someone gets killed because of the guns or the children get their hands on it and by accident hurt eatcheter or you (you maybee have no children or too old kids but is just a example) or you or your wife get really depress and use the gun on yourselfs. Of course all this is highly unlikely but so are someone breaking into your house. I don't know the statistic but it could be intresting to look and compare, because evryone ecpecially in the USA seems to think the "others" as threath even if the familly can also be a threath maybee as big.
Zaxon
28-04-2005, 19:11
I just want to warn you for a very big and armed threat: You, your children and your wife! No I don't think you your wife or your children is crazy maniacs. Just that a gun can also be a risk fo example that you and you wife get into a fight and someone gets killed because of the guns or the children get their hands on it and by accident hurt eatcheter or you (you maybee have no children or too old kids but is just a example) or you or your wife get really depress and use the gun on yourselfs.


Hoo boy. You seem to see a firearm as a solution to an argument. This is not the case. Maybe you shouldn't have guns yourself. Firearms are only for defensive use in my house (and the states where I can carry concealed). My wife is of the same mind. We aren't all that weak in the head, to even propose suicide, and the guns are locked up when we are not in the house. Both myself and my wife were raised in houses that had guns. We were taught at fairly early ages that guns weren't toys. No one in either of our familes has ever had an accident with a gun. No children killed, no suicides, etc.


Of course all this is highly unlikely but so are someone breaking into your house. I don't know the statistic but it could be intresting to look and compare, because evryone ecpecially in the USA seems to think the "others" as threath even if the familly can also be a threath maybee as big.

Homes in my area have been broken into. With people in the house, still. They were threatened and robbed. ANYONE that attacks me (family or friend or stranger) will be on the wrong end of a pistol, provided I have it with me (and in every legal instance it is). My friends and family know this--they also would never dream of attacking someone else, unless they were attacked first. That's how you're supposed to behave--you don't attack, you only defend yourself.
Spizzo
28-04-2005, 19:28
I just want to warn you for a very big and armed threat: You, your children and your wife! No I don't think you your wife or your children is crazy maniacs. Just that a gun can also be a risk fo example that you and you wife get into a fight and someone gets killed because of the guns or the children get their hands on it and by accident hurt eatcheter or you (you maybee have no children or too old kids but is just a example) or you or your wife get really depress and use the gun on yourselfs. Of course all this is highly unlikely but so are someone breaking into your house. I don't know the statistic but it could be intresting to look and compare, because evryone ecpecially in the USA seems to think the "others" as threath even if the familly can also be a threath maybee as big.
I think some people are missing the point on legalizing guns. I am under the understanding that most people do not want to see guns given out freely to any who asks for one, just as anyone that wants to cannot legally drive a car. Before one even touches a gun they should know the 4 rules of gun safety. Just as you should know the rules of the road before you get behind the wheel. A gun in the hand of a trained and knowledgeable individual is not a dangerous thing. Stupid people cause accidents and those are the only people the media tends to highlight. Responsible gun owners (like Legs) have never shot a family member on accident or on purpose. Just like responsible car owners have never run over their daughter. Any tool requires training and the proper respect before it can be used.
Cadillac-Gage
28-04-2005, 19:29
If you ban all guns, then you know everyone with a gun is a criminal...that helps stop violent crime, because the moment the police find anyone with a gun then they can arrest them.

and what's all this about states with armed civilians having low crime rates? I think you'll find that the fewer weapons in a state, the lower the rate of violent crime. The US and Colombia are 2 of the most armed states in the world, and they have the highest murder rates in the world. Europe on the other hand, has very tight gun control laws and some of the lowest violent crime rates in the world.

The thing is, if an attacker has a weapon, he is more likely to use that weapon against you if he sees that you have a weapon.

Down with guns!!

Um... NO. Don't know many Felons, do you? If an attacker sees you're UNARMED, he's going to have a little fun with you. If you're armed (and can shoot back) he'll keep moving until he finds someone who [i]isn't[i].
Battery Charger
28-04-2005, 21:31
Battery, in all of your arguments, considering that you are a fellow Phoenix resident, I am surprised that you didnt point out the current invasion that is being stopped by a group of well armed gun toting americans. The Minuteman Project is making an impact on illegal immigration.
Hmm. People who don't live in the US Southwest can't really relate to what's going on down here. And even most of the people who live here don't know much of what happens at the border. Actually, there are smaller groups than the minutemen that have been patrolling the border for years now and some of them have had armed confrontations with well-armed border crossers. I'm talking about shots being fired back and forth between what appear to be uniformed Mexican soldiers and American border milita members. There's a little war going on between two big countries and our politicians are on the enemy's side. I would not encourage anyone to buy property down there along the border, especially if you do not and will not own guns.

I generally don't go there because most people won't know what I'm talking about and discussing it gets away from my general point which is that the right to keep and bear arms (to own and carry guns) is part of the right to self-defense which all free people have. Beyond that, I shouldn't have to prove any "need", but if you're interested: http://www.ranchrescue.com/stories.htm
CSW
28-04-2005, 21:39
I suppose constitution is a misnomer; I should have said United States code.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=10&sec=311

Title 10, Section 311
Sorry, you're misreading the title.

"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard."
The title states that all citizens who are members of the national guard are members of the milita.

Rather confusing, but take out all of the clauses and you see "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males who are citizens of the United States, and of female citizens of the United States, who are members of the National Guard."
Imperial Guard
28-04-2005, 22:25
Ok I have not read all of this thread, but after what happened here in LA a couple years ago, I am a strong supporter of CA's Gun laws. Plus what do people need an assault rifle for? Are we at war with Canada yet?
Kibolonia
28-04-2005, 23:50
You have an AK series weapon? Lucky. Kalishnakov models are banned in california by name.
Well go find the graves of the guys who commited the North Hollywood bank robbery and crap on their graves. People couldn't live with a sensible attempt to deal with the problem, police are powerful politically, so a solution which doesn't work well for anyone, and only intrudes on the lives of a very few, is the comprimise. Next time be a vocal member for a reasonable solution. You're one of the few, so to get your way you need to be loud.
CthulhuFhtagn
29-04-2005, 00:56
To shoot your opressive ass.
The mods don't take kindly to threats. Just a little heads up.
NERVUN
29-04-2005, 01:05
In the US, if you look county by county and compare gun ownership rate and gun laws, you'll find that the locations with the highest firearm murder rates and highest violent crime rates are those locations that have the strictest gun laws and the least legal gun ownership.

It's been proven over and over again in the US.

Homicide and non-negligent manslaughter counts for 2003.
United States of America: 16,503 (scource, FBI)
Japan: 1,388 (scource, National Police Agency)

Yup, Japan is far more violent than America. Yup, I can see it all right here.
Earths Orbit
29-04-2005, 01:33
Awesome, you fast becoming a member of the prestigious 'My top 3 posters' club.
High flattery indeed :)
Thank you
Earths Orbit
29-04-2005, 01:36
But do you know why most home break-ins occur when nobody's home? It's got something to do with guns.
Does it?
Then why do most home break-ins occur here in Sydney when nobody's home? When we don't carry guns?

And why do most burglars run when disturbed, despite us not carrying guns?
Chellis
29-04-2005, 01:42
Sorry, you're misreading the title.

"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard."
The title states that all citizens who are members of the national guard are members of the milita.

Rather confusing, but take out all of the clauses and you see "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males who are citizens of the United States, and of female citizens of the United States, who are members of the National Guard."


You seem to be the one misreading.

Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32,[/b] under 45 years of age who are[/b], or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


Note where the bold stops. I included the bold for emphasis. There is an AND there.

Even if you want to interpret it differently, look at the classes of the militia. Do you blatantly disreguard (2), where is says the unorganized militia constists of members who are not a part of the national guard? If the militia is only guardsmen, then how is there a class for guardsmen, and one not for them?

(And by the way, well-regulated does not mean organized. The whole point for the second amendment is so that the people could fight if nessecary, whether it be from forces within or from without.)
Chellis
29-04-2005, 01:49
Ok I have not read all of this thread, but after what happened here in LA a couple years ago, I am a strong supporter of CA's Gun laws. Plus what do people need an assault rifle for? Are we at war with Canada yet?

Canada isnt the threat.

We dont know what the threat is. Does that mean its non-existant? Possibly. Can we know if its non-existant? No. Even if it isnt here now, it could be soon. In 1860, germany was a number of unorganized, weak states(Im not sure if it was still 300, or if they had already started grouping by 1860). In 1860, the United states was in a civil war, with little power projection. In 1860, the powerful nations of the world were just starting to colonize africa extensively.

In 1870, germany had many of its states combined, and headed successful wars under the name of prussia. France, one of the strongest nations in the world, was quickly defeated by this new state, which they had kept down for hundreds of years.

In 1898, the US defeated Spain, and taken a number of its colonies. Its primary victory was naval, despite its weak naval history(Gunboats were the major US ship before civil war).

1914, germany has united under a strong leader, and lead strong attacks on four of the other large power in europe(Britain, France, Russia, and Italy joins in later).

Things change. With wars being quicker and revolutions faster, things can change in an instant. Maybe nothing will happen; maybe we will live in a world where the US is a superpower forever. Maybe, soon, we will be in conflict, or invaded, or oppressed, or anything else. If I own a weapon, it wont hurt anyone, even if nothing big happens. If I dont own a weapon, and something happens, I am screwed. I would rather be safe than sorry.
CSW
29-04-2005, 01:51
Even if I did, read United States v. Miller 307 U.S. 174 (1939), which I believe to be standing case law on the second amendment at the moment.
Khvostof Island
29-04-2005, 01:51
I assume you mean 100GB, not MB given that the standard Windows install is now a gig and a half. :P

.

So, you then only need a 2gb hard drive :p .

I think it would be real nice to have a 30 round clip, for at the target range. Sadly my .45-70 Government caliber Marlin only holds 5 rounds.
Chellis
29-04-2005, 01:52
Homicide and non-negligent manslaughter counts for 2003.
United States of America: 16,503 (scource, FBI)
Japan: 1,388 (scource, National Police Agency)

Yup, Japan is far more violent than America. Yup, I can see it all right here.

GJ, you pulled two nations out of 187, and compared them.

When looking through nations, studies show that on a whole, gun ownership and gun restriction does not play a large factor in homicides, etc.

I ask anyone to give me one good reason why the california laws shouldnt be repealed. This has to be taking into consideration that anyone who wishes to commit a crime, can simply drive out of state, and get a weapon legal under federal standards.
Chellis
29-04-2005, 01:55
Even if I did, read United States v. Miller 307 U.S. 174 (1939), which I believe to be standing case law on the second amendment at the moment.

Why couldnt you have been in my last gun thread, when nobody believed that anyone believed that the national guard is the modern militia?

Even if the Supreme court considers the national guard the militia, it doesnt matter. If they consider it as such, then guardsmen should not have their right to purchase firearms impeded. This means they should be allowed to purchase any firearms that they can, including machine guns, sniper rifles, high-caliber weapons, etc. However, in america, guardsmen have to follow the same rules as citizens; ergo, someone is having their constitutional rights denied to them either way.
Zaxon
29-04-2005, 01:57
Homicide and non-negligent manslaughter counts for 2003.
United States of America: 16,503 (scource, FBI)
Japan: 1,388 (scource, National Police Agency)

Yup, Japan is far more violent than America. Yup, I can see it all right here.

He said in the US.

County by county--and he's right.
Earths Orbit
29-04-2005, 02:06
I think there seem to be two discussions here happening side by side. (well, more than two, but two main threads of arguments).

There is the argument that guns are useful, and serve a good purpose. I won't argue with that at all. The border patrol along mexico, while I know nothing about that, seems a good example. Protection of your rights against the government seems another.
I'm not arguing that point, guns are tools, and as such are useful. I fully support our farmers and police having guns, here in Australia. I fully support certain americans having guns.

The other argument is "guns being around the place is dangerous", which I happen to agree with. I fully support the laws here saying that, if you are licenced to carry a gun, when it's not on your person it must be locked in a safe, or in the gun club safe. Stops kids getting the gun, and accidentally shooting themselves. Or a burglar breaking into your house and (easily) getting a weapon. Most police have a small safe in their bedroom, so they can be armed quickly should a nighttime emergency happen.

We allow guns here in Australia. We do. We just have restrictions on them, I couldn't carry a gun around. Even if I was licenced, my workplace probably has a "no guns" policy (I know my last one had a flat no-weapons policy).
If I want to take up rifle shooting, I can. I can take up pistol shooting. I can easily get a licence, that will let me buy a gun, and keep it at a gun club, and do shooting there, enter in competitions and the like.
If I was serious about it, and an experienced gun owner vouched for me being responsible, I could get a licence to buy and keep my own weapons at home, too (I believe). I certainly could not carry them around with me, nor discharge them outside of certain areas. Honestly, I've never looked into this, I don't know the specifics. I do know that there was no problem with me doing rifle shooting at school, nor was there a problem with my friend who did rifle shooting as a sport going to gun meetings, and shooting matches. We don't tend to have sports which use auto weapons or the like, but that's probably because we don't have as much of a gun culture as America.

What I'm trying to say is that I do support guns as a fun hobby, as a sport, as useful tools. Anyone with a *valid* reason to have guns should have access. Farmers can have (crimped - only one shot at a time) guns, as long as they are kept un-loaded. Citizens in a city need a really good reason to own one.

Someone said that my claim that using guns wouldn't stop an opressive government is defeatist. I don't think so. I understand the value of guerilla tactics (heck, I've got cypriot descent...they basically invented modern guerilla fighting, although I'm sure people will disagree). I don't think arming the citizens is a particularly good way of defending your civil liberties. Here in Australia we don't have the same guarantees, nor right to bear arms. Our government isn't exactly opressing us. Neither is Britains.
Surely there are better ways of avoiding an opressive government, in a democracy? Like...put in some checks and balances. Support the military's use of "illegal orders", or whatever it's called, when soldiers are meant to ignore orders in certain situations. Make it illegal for the military to occupy American territory, something like that? So if the government tries to opress, the military, legally, will say no?
The other question is, if, in your democracy, an opressive government gets voted in...doesn't that kind of mean that the population wants an opressive government?
What counts as opressive? A government you don't like? When can you go to war?

As for armed militias...shouldn't the government be giving their approval before citizens form armed vigilante groups? And if so, they can issue gun licences? The government could be as local as your member of local government. If nobody in the government is willing to give permission for this armed group...hey....should it really be there?

I'm kind of relieved that we don't have groups of armed vigilantes running around here. I'm more glad that we don't *need* them, and if there was a need and the government didn't do anything, I'd change my opinion. I just doubt that is the case for many of the armed americans.

Look, if the jews could smuggle guns *into* a concentration camp and arm themselves, I'm sure that with Americas huge coastline it would be possible to smuggle guns in, to defend against a corrupt goverment. That sort of thing isn't going to happen overnight while you're asleep.
Earths Orbit
29-04-2005, 02:07
He said in the US.

County by county--and he's right.
Um, yeah.
but as has been pointed out, gun control is less effective if you can drive across the border, pick up a gun, and drive back. A lot of the benefits are lost.
EL JARDIN
29-04-2005, 02:15
I have travelled to countries in the third world were gun laws are very loose, fire arms are easy to acquire and the threat of armed robbery is very real. To defend themselves from the possibility of being robbed store owners and taxi drivers arm themselves and residential owners get together with their neighbours to hire vigilantes to patrol the neighbourhood. Thus, it is not uncommon to walk down the street and see a gas station attendant carrying a shotgun or hear shots being fired in the middle of the night. It is not uncommon to see bullet holes in the chassis of a police car or learn that a child has been gunned down during a drive by shooting. I am curious to hear logical arguments from anyone who believes the civil liberty of being able to own a gun is more important than living in a world where children don't have to be afraid of getting hit by a stray bullet on their way to school.
CSW
29-04-2005, 02:16
Why couldnt you have been in my last gun thread, when nobody believed that anyone believed that the national guard is the modern militia?

Even if the Supreme court considers the national guard the militia, it doesnt matter. If they consider it as such, then guardsmen should not have their right to purchase firearms impeded. This means they should be allowed to purchase any firearms that they can, including machine guns, sniper rifles, high-caliber weapons, etc. However, in america, guardsmen have to follow the same rules as citizens; ergo, someone is having their constitutional rights denied to them either way.
You didn't read the court case.
Chellis
29-04-2005, 02:38
You didn't read the court case.

You didnt link it.

I have read the relevent ones before, im sure that one too, I just dont remember them completely. Instead of just asking me to go searching, you could maybe actually argue your point? Or is that asking too much?

By the way, anyone own an Sr-16? Im looking at getting one, one of the few legal's in california that is promising. Im curious about muzzle velocity, as I know how bad 5.56 is after it slows down.
Dadave
29-04-2005, 03:29
Well go find the graves of the guys who commited the North Hollywood bank robbery and crap on their graves. People couldn't live with a sensible attempt to deal with the problem, police are powerful politically, so a solution which doesn't work well for anyone, and only intrudes on the lives of a very few, is the comprimise. Next time be a vocal member for a reasonable solution. You're one of the few, so to get your way you need to be loud.
you are completely correct..it is pathetic how politicians pass feel good laws.accomplish zero on the problem,and imfringe on law abiding people.

and the kicker about the whole north hollywood disaster,they..p.o had to go to a local gunshop to get weapons to contend with the scumbags.maybe a concerned citizen could have picked off one of the robber's with his own assault rifle.or hunting rifle.would have been arrested though probably.

if i remember correctly,i may be wrong,the gunmen had illegal weapons purchased off the street from a gun smuggler.

as an aside,not to clinton bash,but the majority of illegal machine guns in cali,and elsewhere,were illegally imported by i think norinco?who was found to have illegally contributed to clinton/gore...campaign.the whole temple scandal thing.some say they looked the other way and impeded the batf's investigation of afore mentioned contributor.

the main point is,the crimminals did not purchase legally,so how is any legislation going to change that.oh yea,a convicted felon is going to buy a gun legal...and obey laws.

i suppose you can argue that they could have stolen them or had a friend buy them that was legal.then converted(quite difficult to do and a ten year mand.sentence...and 10,000.00 fine.)

still does not change the fact that there is millions of guns out there,and i don't see that changing,so i would prefer to be able to defend myself.

they are smuggled across the border everyday..right into the hands of people who can't legally buy.that's the problem.the black market is arming crimminal's,not gun stores.banning drugs has done alot of good..lol..they are doing a great job with that.

these pol's are doing nothing to prevent crime,yet grandstand when they pass another pos bill that just crimminalizes honest people to zilch affect on the real problem they can't solve.

if they took away every gun in the us tomorrow,legal ones and all the crimminals just had them just dissapear into thin air.gee what would happen,any semi equipped garage has a lathe in it.sooo..maybe some one who wants to make some money could whip a gun up in about 20 minutes..i know i can.back to the black market..damn.

i think i'll err on the side of caution...u go trust your life and your families to the law,which may or not be there.just don't exspect me too.

by the way..gun control means being able to hit your target... :D


i think i'll shit on the pol's who pander to the public and act like they are doing something.while scapegoating honest people to further their own agenda's...scumbags.

don't even get me started on how these elitist pos have carry permits and bodyguards,shit,this rabid,antigun columnist in dc shot and killed an intruder in his home a few years back,and you can't have handguns in dc!
guess he and his ilk are more important then i am,they can be defended but i can't be trusted..fuckin hypocrite snobs.

finally,sorry for the rant.the police can't be everywhere,so by definition they react after the fact,then investigate.small comfort for all the dead victims out there who may have been able to defend themselves,like the thousands that used guns in self defense and survived...and even managed to not even shoot the perp.
Zaxon
29-04-2005, 03:35
Um, yeah.
but as has been pointed out, gun control is less effective if you can drive across the border, pick up a gun, and drive back. A lot of the benefits are lost.

Considering I'm not one that sees the "benefits" of restricting law abiding citizens....I'm not all that heartbroken when citizens thumb their noses at those that would oppress them.
NERVUN
29-04-2005, 03:40
He said in the US.

County by county--and he's right.

Ah, my apologies, I mis-read and thought that was country by country. ^_^;;

I do not know the stats for county by county.
This is what happens when you reply to a post first thing in the morning *grumble grumble grumble*
Zaxon
29-04-2005, 03:42
This is what happens when you reply to a post first thing in the morning *grumble grumble grumble*

Been there. :D
The Cat-Tribe
29-04-2005, 04:42
You didnt link it.

I have read the relevent ones before, im sure that one too, I just dont remember them completely. Instead of just asking me to go searching, you could maybe actually argue your point? Or is that asking too much?

By the way, anyone own an Sr-16? Im looking at getting one, one of the few legal's in california that is promising. Im curious about muzzle velocity, as I know how bad 5.56 is after it slows down.

Too lazy to Google in defense of your so-called rights?

Anyway, here ya go: United States v. Miller (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/307/174.html ), 307 US 174 (1939)

As you are such an expert, can you cite a single federal case in which a law has been held to violate the Second Amendment?

A single one in the history of our Republic?

I can cite scores upon scores saying gun control laws don't violate the Second Amendment.
Chellis
29-04-2005, 06:53
Too lazy to Google in defense of your so-called rights?

Anyway, here ya go: United States v. Miller (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/307/174.html ), 307 US 174 (1939)

As you are such an expert, can you cite a single federal case in which a law has been held to violate the Second Amendment?

A single one in the history of our Republic?

I can cite scores upon scores saying gun control laws don't violate the Second Amendment.

Like I've said, I've read these cases before. I just read it again, and I didnt see anything especially relevant to what I said. I know the courts hold that this means the national guard. I personally dont believe this, as the founders have quotes attributed to them(I dont have them on me at this second) about how they believe it takes an armed populace to fully protect their rights, or at least is makes sure their rights arent taken.

Please dont put words into my mouth, it makes you look like an idiot. I never called myself an expert.

The courts make misconceptions, in my mind, about the second amendment. However, even if the constitution doesn't protect the right to bear arms by the people, I still have not seen any good arguments for banning guns, or heavily restricting them. Every argument for gun control includes cons that outweigh the pro's. Especially so in this case. The law does not stop criminals, whatsoever, from obtaining these weapons if they really want them. I asked this first: Can you, or anybody, give me one benefit of the california firearms ban, taking into account that it does not stop criminals from getting the weapons?
The Cat-Tribe
29-04-2005, 07:16
Like I've said, I've read these cases before. I just read it again, and I didnt see anything especially relevant to what I said.

Bully for you. Perhaps you should read more carefully.

I know the courts hold that this means the national guard.

Actually, no. That is not what the courts hold.

I personally dont believe this, as the founders have quotes attributed to them(I dont have them on me at this second) about how they believe it takes an armed populace to fully protect their rights, or at least is makes sure their rights arent taken.

You are free to believe whatever you like whether it is right or wrong.


Please dont put words into my mouth, it makes you look like an idiot. I never called myself an expert.

The courts make misconceptions, in my mind, about the second amendment.

Little thing called sarcasm. You might look it up between reading all the cases.

I take that as an admission that no, you do not know of a single case in the history of the Republic where a gun law was held to violate the Second Amendment.

However, even if the constitution doesn't protect the right to bear arms by the people, I still have not seen any good arguments for banning guns, or heavily restricting them. Every argument for gun control includes cons that outweigh the pro's. Especially so in this case. The law does not stop criminals, whatsoever, from obtaining these weapons if they really want them. I asked this first: Can you, or anybody, give me one benefit of the california firearms ban, taking into account that it does not stop criminals from getting the weapons?

Speaking of putting words in someone's mouth ...

I didn't make any argument for gun control. I merely challenged your fallacy.
Kibolonia
29-04-2005, 09:52
you are completely correct..it is pathetic how politicians pass feel good laws.accomplish zero on the problem,and imfringe on law abiding people.
Like I mentioned in response to Chellis,

It's hard to find fault with a lot of the gun ownership argument. And it does go back to American ideas of sovereinty, which, being an American, find no small resonance with me. Where the argument fails it's cause is where there is a denial of the public saftey issue. Area wise, there isn't, but since so many people live in cities, that's not a compelling argument for a huge sum of people. That's a truth that everyone just needs to accept. And as the tremendous economies of cities find more avenues to excercise their power to excecute their agenda, the denial of that fact will only cause more acrimony, and insure deaf ears.

The gun owners, and especially the collectors will have to chose their poison. If they don't it'll just be chosen for them, and then they'll have to choose how important it is to live in one state or another. That is if some tragedy doesn't cause the pendulum to swing wildly to gun control on a national level. A database system with ballistics, and instant background checks, using licenses much like a drivers license that can carry various endorsements, and require tests could be quite convienent and go along way. If the next door neighbor knew the cops knew the guy who probably lives down the street was a serious collector, who knew enough to be endorsed, who properly secured his weapons, it'd go along way. If he doesn't have any assurence that there isn't some guy out there amassing an arsenal, he's going to be a lot more wary about gun issues (if he's not a gun owner). It doesn't even matter if the system works really well, it just has to appear to be working, and that gives him his peace of mind back.

As to California's specific instance. There is a secondary effect of the law, which was almost certainly intentional. Guns with those features are now more expensive. It would increase under the counter trades somewhat, but it would freeze a large quantity of weapons in collections, and suck a lot of the most threatening weapons off the market into responsible hand of good gun owners. Furthermore, it shuts down a huge market, causing manufactures, who do over supply, to still scale back production runs are even cancel some products all together. That increases the cost/item, which is passed on to all consumers, legit or not. That keeps a lot of the most threatening weapons to law enforcement out of the hands of just any criminal. They need to possess some ability to exist within the system at better than a subsistance level.

One thing I would like to see is liability for a weapon that used in a crime attach to the owner of the weapon. Say if your gun is stolen, and it kills someone, you're on the hook for that death. UNLESS, it's duly reported to the police, and they find you weren't careless. Responsible people handle their stuff, so it's not a burden to them. Irresponsible people suffer the consequences of their careless actions in proportion to the grief it caused others. It would also shut down a number of the really bad gun dealers overnight, but wrongful death lawsuits will no doubt do that in time.

Re earlier random comments:
Given that we were talking about an AK I'll mention a 7.62 round will blow through a 4" tree. A smaller .22, I doubt it. But sheet rock and siding wouldn't be a problem. Bricks or even cinder blocks might not be enough to stop either. Handguns are more dangerous to people, probably even police. But assault weapons necessitate the expense of SWAT teams, and modern body armor to keep a tragedy from turning into a massacre, and the upkeep on those is like four shields. Not to mention the capital investment. They are a special case since they greatly reduce the advantage of -> training <-, which normally the police can trust will keep them safe. That said, for home defense, it's hard to beat either a shotgun, or some sort of club. The problem with this issue really isn't the reasonableness of people on either side, it's just the fear of people on both sides that their way of life must change suddenly, and the complexity of the issue keep the most vocal members from seeing its horizon.
Whispering Legs
29-04-2005, 14:36
Given that we were talking about an AK I'll mention a 7.62 round will blow through a 4" tree. A smaller .22, I doubt it. But sheet rock and siding wouldn't be a problem. Bricks or even cinder blocks might not be enough to stop either. Handguns are more dangerous to people, probably even police. But assault weapons necessitate the expense of SWAT teams, and modern body armor to keep a tragedy from turning into a massacre, and the upkeep on those is like four shields. Not to mention the capital investment. They are a special case since they greatly reduce the advantage of -> training <-, which normally the police can trust will keep them safe. That said, for home defense, it's hard to beat either a shotgun, or some sort of club. The problem with this issue really isn't the reasonableness of people on either side, it's just the fear of people on both sides that their way of life must change suddenly, and the complexity of the issue keep the most vocal members from seeing its horizon.

I train women who were victims of domestic violence and stalking to carry handguns.

It works for them - none of the women I've trained have any trouble with their stalkers at this time. Other women who are unarmed are continually attacked, and some are dead. What would you say to them, carry a shotgun?

Additionally, I am far, far more dangerous with a bolt action hunting rifle than any "assault weapon". The typical "assault rifle" cartridge is underpowered compared to any real hunting round.

I used to shoot at the same range as some Maryland State Police SWAT team members. I was using a single-shot falling block action 300 Winchester magnum rifle - a rifle that is excellent for hunting, and yet has no bayonet, no flash suppressor, no high capacity magazine, no folding stock, etc.

When compared to TWO SWAT snipers who were engaging targets past 500 yards with accurized M-16 rifles with scopes (highly advanced versions of "assault rifles"), I put more rounds on target in less time even though I had to reload after every shot. Extend the range, and I dominated them completely.

You can't wear enough armor to stop a 300 Win Mag round, either. Especially since I'm making head shots out to 400 yards.

They were all convinced that there was no way that the entire SWAT team would survive an encounter with someone equipped with a standard hunting rifle who knew how to shoot. No way.

I prefer a hunting rifle any day to an "assault rifle".
Ravea
29-04-2005, 15:16
I'd just carry a knife or sword to proteect myself.
Whispering Legs
29-04-2005, 15:18
I'd just carry a knife or sword to proteect myself.
Been in knife fights before.

I, and the women I train, have found a pistol to be a much greater deterrent than a knife.
Kecibukia
29-04-2005, 15:21
I'd just carry a knife or sword to proteect myself.

and when they start banning those?
Kibolonia
29-04-2005, 21:34
I train women who were victims of domestic violence and stalking to carry handguns.

It works for them - none of the women I've trained have any trouble with their stalkers at this time. Other women who are unarmed are continually attacked, and some are dead. What would you say to them, carry a shotgun?
Honestly, I'm totally not following what you're going for here.

<I'm a great shot>
Sure, John Lee Malvo. And the Barrett 50 ban. But you'd have much more difficulty pinning down police officers. They'd be able to outflank you. The swat team would no doubt be called, but in a North Hollywood situation, you wouldn't be anywhere near the threat the bank robbers were.

Notice the other economic end of this. You've invested a lot of time, effort and resources in the cultivation of your skill. Someone snapping with a "sniper" rifle is what a once every twenty year phenomina? (although we'd expect that period to shorten somewhat.) You're much less likely to end up a problem, as are hunting rifles in general.
Cadillac-Gage
29-04-2005, 21:49
Honestly, I'm totally not following what you're going for here.


Sure, John Lee Malvo. And the Barrett 50 ban. But you'd have much more difficulty pinning down police officers. They'd be able to outflank you. The swat team would no doubt be called, but in a North Hollywood situation, you wouldn't be anywhere near the threat the bank robbers were.

Notice the other economic end of this. You've invested a lot of time, effort and resources in the cultivation of your skill. Someone snapping with a "sniper" rifle is what a once every twenty year phenomina? (although we'd expect that period to shorten somewhat.) You're much less likely to end up a problem, as are hunting rifles in general.

"Assault Rifles'" factor into a tiny percentage of firearms used in crimes, Kib. Most weapons used in shootings are your rather bland, garden-variety handguns. this is no 'change', it's what it's been since long before anyone coined the term 'gun-control'.

California has a Crime problem, not a Gun Problem. It also has a Legislative and leadership culture that discounts individual responsibility and tries to look like it's doing 'something' about that crime problem by attacking straw-men and dangling red-herrings. It's much, much, simpler to accuse an inanimate object of evil, than to acknowledge that your 'enlightened' policies are a failure that generates the kind of social and societal illness that spawns rampant Crime. California has systematically driven its industries out of state, leaving an urban blight, while passing 'sanctuary' laws that prevent police from doing their duty in arresting and removing illegal immigrants.
The natural result, is a large and permanent underclass prone to violence and unlawful activity, a shrinking middle-working class, and all of that capped by a microscopic Elite drawn from the International Class of White Trash (Limousine Liberals, Celebrities, and Entertainment people), governed by the fiat of those who use form-over-substance and 'feelgood' laws to try and paper over the decline of that state's ability to cope.
United East Asia
29-04-2005, 21:51
*still wonders why someone would need an AK-47-type weapon lol*

Self defense? lol, na
Compensating? yep
Derscon
30-04-2005, 00:04
"Assault Rifles'" factor into a tiny percentage of firearms used in crimes, Kib. Most weapons used in shootings are your rather bland, garden-variety handguns. this is no 'change', it's what it's been since long before anyone coined the term 'gun-control'.

California has a Crime problem, not a Gun Problem. It also has a Legislative and leadership culture that discounts individual responsibility and tries to look like it's doing 'something' about that crime problem by attacking straw-men and dangling red-herrings. It's much, much, simpler to accuse an inanimate object of evil, than to acknowledge that your 'enlightened' policies are a failure that generates the kind of social and societal illness that spawns rampant Crime. California has systematically driven its industries out of state, leaving an urban blight, while passing 'sanctuary' laws that prevent police from doing their duty in arresting and removing illegal immigrants.
The natural result, is a large and permanent underclass prone to violence and unlawful activity, a shrinking middle-working class, and all of that capped by a microscopic Elite drawn from the International Class of White Trash (Limousine Liberals, Celebrities, and Entertainment people), governed by the fiat of those who use form-over-substance and 'feelgood' laws to try and paper over the decline of that state's ability to cope.

The Holy Grail of US DNC Doctrine:

Symbolism over Substance
Chellis
30-04-2005, 01:35
*still wonders why someone would need an AK-47-type weapon lol*

Self defense? lol, na
Compensating? yep

Just look at Iraq. I bet that the americans there would be much happier of that particular piece of equipment was out of there.

You assume defense means defending your home. It may end up meaning defending your country. It may mean defending innocents(I've had a gang beating on my street before. An AK-47 would have quickly deterred that confrontation).

7.62mm is too powerful for home defense. However, a 5.56mm isnt implausible, especially if its from a gun with a short barrel. The big issue with 5.56 is its lethality at range. As its velocity lowers, it has trouble tumbling in targets(making it much harder to kill the person). This makes 5.56 a strong enough bullet to do the job of stopping an intruder, while the bullet is likely to be stopped before it could hit another person. Even in the very unlikely situation that this would happen, the bullet probably would only wound the innocent. Additionally, 5.56mm is light, and many rounds can be fit into a small gun. I would defidentally use an AKS-74U for home defense, its bullet is even smaller.
Santa Barbara
30-04-2005, 01:47
I suppose I'm just venting... But I was recently made aware to just how harsh my state's gun laws are. I thought we had only been restricted under the 1994-2004 bill. I was unaware of the state legislature. To give a quick refresher, 18 rifle types(including all Ar-10 and Kalishnakov models), any weapon with at least one of the qualifiers for an assault weapon(Anything from a thumbhole stock, a flash muzzle, or length under 30 inches), bans any magazine with more than ten rounds...

Im not sure what I'm asking. Just discuss it, I suppose.

Heh it's funny when people legislate things based on how "long" they are. Makes you wonder just what it is the gun control fanatics are really afraid of? Certainly not crime. The guns themselves compete psychologically as they are a symbol of power they neither understand nor possess.

At least that's my take on it.
Allanea
30-04-2005, 01:53
Heh it's funny when people legislate things based on how "long" they are. Makes you wonder just what it is the gun control fanatics are really afraid of? Certainly not crime. The guns themselves compete psychologically as they are a symbol of power they neither understand nor possess.

At least that's my take on it.

I agree fully.
Allanea
30-04-2005, 01:55
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." - S. Freud
Dadave
30-04-2005, 02:44
Like I mentioned in response to Chellis,

It's hard to find fault with a lot of the gun ownership argument. And it does go back to American ideas of sovereinty, which, being an American, find no small resonance with me. Where the argument fails it's cause is where there is a denial of the public saftey issue. Area wise, there isn't, but since so many people live in cities, that's not a compelling argument for a huge sum of people. That's a truth that everyone just needs to accept. And as the tremendous economies of cities find more avenues to excercise their power to excecute their agenda, the denial of that fact will only cause more acrimony, and insure deaf ears.

The gun owners, and especially the collectors will have to chose their poison. If they don't it'll just be chosen for them, and then they'll have to choose how important it is to live in one state or another. That is if some tragedy doesn't cause the pendulum to swing wildly to gun control on a national level. A database system with ballistics, and instant background checks, using licenses much like a drivers license that can carry various endorsements, and require tests could be quite convienent and go along way. If the next door neighbor knew the cops knew the guy who probably lives down the street was a serious collector, who knew enough to be endorsed, who properly secured his weapons, it'd go along way. If he doesn't have any assurence that there isn't some guy out there amassing an arsenal, he's going to be a lot more wary about gun issues (if he's not a gun owner). It doesn't even matter if the system works really well, it just has to appear to be working, and that gives him his peace of mind back.

As to California's specific instance. There is a secondary effect of the law, which was almost certainly intentional. Guns with those features are now more expensive. It would increase under the counter trades somewhat, but it would freeze a large quantity of weapons in collections, and suck a lot of the most threatening weapons off the market into responsible hand of good gun owners. Furthermore, it shuts down a huge market, causing manufactures, who do over supply, to still scale back production runs are even cancel some products all together. That increases the cost/item, which is passed on to all consumers, legit or not. That keeps a lot of the most threatening weapons to law enforcement out of the hands of just any criminal. They need to possess some ability to exist within the system at better than a subsistance level.

One thing I would like to see is liability for a weapon that used in a crime attach to the owner of the weapon. Say if your gun is stolen, and it kills someone, you're on the hook for that death. UNLESS, it's duly reported to the police, and they find you weren't careless. Responsible people handle their stuff, so it's not a burden to them. Irresponsible people suffer the consequences of their careless actions in proportion to the grief it caused others. It would also shut down a number of the really bad gun dealers overnight, but wrongful death lawsuits will no doubt do that in time.

Re earlier random comments:
Given that we were talking about an AK I'll mention a 7.62 round will blow through a 4" tree. A smaller .22, I doubt it. But sheet rock and siding wouldn't be a problem. Bricks or even cinder blocks might not be enough to stop either. Handguns are more dangerous to people, probably even police. But assault weapons necessitate the expense of SWAT teams, and modern body armor to keep a tragedy from turning into a massacre, and the upkeep on those is like four shields. Not to mention the capital investment. They are a special case since they greatly reduce the advantage of -> training <-, which normally the police can trust will keep them safe. That said, for home defense, it's hard to beat either a shotgun, or some sort of club. The problem with this issue really isn't the reasonableness of people on either side, it's just the fear of people on both sides that their way of life must change suddenly, and the complexity of the issue keep the most vocal members from seeing its horizon.

very good point's.and very lucid arguments.

i am all for ballistic fingerprinting,i think that would aid the police in their investigations of gun crimes.i have no qualms about every gun having it,because i would never shoot someone unless in self defense.
unless of coarse, if it is a shotgun..impossible to ballistically test for.(slug guns as the exception)

i agree also with people being resonsible for there weapons,and being liable for any results of there irresponsibility.

i will disagree with you on endorcements,if you are not a felon and can legally buy a gun,any gun..i think that is where it should stop.i am very strongly against government involvement in my life other then doing there job to protect society as a whole.i am not even sure about the felon exclusion,alot of felons were convicted of non violent crimes and they lose there right to defend themselves?just mho.

ak's kick ass...i love mine :sniper:
Derscon
30-04-2005, 03:05
Heh it's funny when people legislate things based on how "long" they are. Makes you wonder just what it is the gun control fanatics are really afraid of? Certainly not crime. The guns themselves compete psychologically as they are a symbol of power they neither understand nor possess.

At least that's my take on it.

Again, Symbolism over Substance.

Although, I imagene the DNC does want guns out of our hands, so we can't revolt when they take over the courts and force their crap down our throats.....*snaps out of conspiracy mode*

Oh hello.
Scnarf
30-04-2005, 03:13
I cant believe your whining about not being able to have assualt weapons. Boo didily hoo. In Australia semi auotmatics are illegal, and no one complains. No one would ever dream of having an assualt rifle. Bolt action, lever action and pump action work well. ecspecially for hunting as their are rarely anny acciedents :headbang:
Kecibukia
30-04-2005, 03:16
I cant believe your whining about not being able to have assualt weapons. Boo didily hoo. In Australia semi auotmatics are illegal, and no one complains. No one would ever dream of having an assualt rifle. Bolt action, lever action and pump action work well. ecspecially for hunting as their are rarely anny acciedents :headbang:

"assualt weapons" are semi-automatics.
Nhuttopia
30-04-2005, 11:09
It's truly amazing to read through the 10 pages (to date) of this thread and see the consistent levels of miscomprehension that even manage to beat the divide between 'The Big Enders' -v- 'The Little Enders'.

On one side you have an intelligent debate about the lethal nature of uncontrolled gun use .... on the other, a selection of pimply male youths arguing about the relative merits of the PR1ck.45 as opposed to the T0ss-ER.38.

One thing does ring true though ... there is a constant demand, from the latter, for bigger caliber automatic weapons with larger magazines. This need for 'overkill' reflects the US military's manner of conducting war - an indiscriminate use of over-powerful force, with no regard for collateral damage or the deaths of civilians and allies. There isn't a separate part of the cemetry for the victims of US 'friendly fire' ... but, if there was it would be getting pretty full by now.

Is all this merely a sign that the US (a relatively new country) is still in the thrall of it's infancy? Or should we expect the country, that has such a capacity for wanton destruction, to start moving towards a more mature outlook?
Zaxon
30-04-2005, 12:49
i am all for ballistic fingerprinting,i think that would aid the police in their investigations of gun crimes.i have no qualms about every gun having it,because i would never shoot someone unless in self defense.
unless of coarse, if it is a shotgun..impossible to ballistically test for.(slug guns as the exception)


It's also proven impossible in rifles and pistols, too. Everytime you shoot, the lands and grooves change--they become more worn or brass, copper, or lead build up and change the "fingerprint". The only way to get a SIMILAR print (it will never be an exact match) is to fire a bullet from the exact same box the first round came from--same manufacturer, same lot, etc.
Zaxon
30-04-2005, 13:01
One thing does ring true though ... there is a constant demand, from the latter, for bigger caliber automatic weapons with larger magazines. This need for 'overkill' reflects the US military's manner of conducting war - an indiscriminate use of over-powerful force, with no regard for collateral damage or the deaths of civilians and allies. There isn't a separate part of the cemetry for the victims of US 'friendly fire' ... but, if there was it would be getting pretty full by now.


It's not a new demand for bigger caliber firearms with larger capacity magazines. We want back what we had in the first place. It's already been proven that the "assault weapons" ban did NOTHING to change crime stats. It just drove the cost of everything up for those of us who obey the laws already. We do think about what's behind targets--that's rule #4. It seems you also think the mere possession of one of these "overkill" weapons turns someone into a raving lunatic. It doesn't work that way.


Is all this merely a sign that the US (a relatively new country) is still in the thrall of it's infancy? Or should we expect the country, that has such a capacity for wanton destruction, to start moving towards a more mature outlook?

Ah yes, the "more mature outlook" argument. If rolling up into a ball and waiting for my assailant to stop is the more mature outlook....I don't ever want to get there. What a waste. "It's okay to be beaten, they'll stop when they're tired." "It's okay to be raped--they'll stop eventually."
Battery Charger
30-04-2005, 15:10
You didnt link it.

I have read the relevent ones before, im sure that one too, I just dont remember them completely. Instead of just asking me to go searching, you could maybe actually argue your point? Or is that asking too much?

By the way, anyone own an Sr-16? Im looking at getting one, one of the few legal's in california that is promising. Im curious about muzzle velocity, as I know how bad 5.56 is after it slows down.I don't know what the Sr-16 is, but I've read some good things about Kel-tec's SU-16 (http://www.kel-tec.com/su-16_rifle.htm), if that's what you're talking about. I think I'm in love. It's got a low price, weighs only 5 pounds, folds in half, has a hollow stock for holding magazines, can use AR-15/M-16 magazines, has an integrated sight rail, and functionally combines the best of both world's from the mechanics of ARs and AKs. But I'd really like to shoot one first.

The B and C models are even cooler, but the C model is unavailable in Kalifornistan.
Zaxon
30-04-2005, 16:15
I don't know what the Sr-16 is, but I've read some good things about Kel-tec's SU-16 (http://www.kel-tec.com/su-16_rifle.htm), if that's what you're talking about. I think I'm in love. It's got a low price, weighs only 5 pounds, folds in half, has a hollow stock for holding magazines, can use AR-15/M-16 magazines, has an integrated sight rail, and functionally combines the best of both world's from the mechanics of ARs and AKs. But I'd really like to shoot one first.

The B and C models are even cooler, but the C model is unavailable in Kalifornistan.

I've got an A model. It's VERY nice. Lightweight, comfortable, and is freely accepting of a red dot scope. The 20 round AR mags look and feel natural on it, too! :)

Bought it without shooting it. It was one of the best purchases I've made.
Westmorlandia
30-04-2005, 16:27
For as long as guns are fetishised and held in awe, gun crime rates will remain stratospheric in the US. Some people seem to assume that criminals live in an entirely separate world, so it doesn't matter if legal gun owners create an atmosphere where legal guns are seen as hobbies, symbols of power or whatever. That is a misconception. If the general population is anti-gun, fewer criminals will use them. Why? Because criminals come from the general population, and most of them are just chancers on the go, who spend most of their lives interacting with normal people, rather than evil hardcases who don't give a monkey's what other people think.

Gun crime is a result of gun culture, and fetishising guns is a part of that.
Kecibukia
30-04-2005, 16:39
For as long as guns are fetishised and held in awe, gun crime rates will remain stratospheric in the US. Some people seem to assume that criminals live in an entirely separate world, so it doesn't matter if legal gun owners create an atmosphere where legal guns are seen as hobbies, symbols of power or whatever. That is a misconception. If the general population is anti-gun, fewer criminals will use them. Why? Because criminals come from the general population, and most of them are just chancers on the go, who spend most of their lives interacting with normal people, rather than evil hardcases who don't give a monkey's what other people think.

Gun crime is a result of gun culture, and fetishising guns is a part of that.

So instead of going after the cause of crime, you only care about one single symptom?

The majority of crimes are committed by a minority of criminals. It's these that are the" evil hardcases who don't give a monkey's what other people think".
Chellis
30-04-2005, 22:26
Yes, I meant the Su-16. I got mixed up with those damned SR's. Im wondering, do you know what the muzzle velocity is? I cant find it online.

Btw, once I turn 18(13 months, and I'll have been in the national guard for 12), Im thinking of getting an Su-16CA. It has the newer features, such as a decent rail for mounting sights, but its legal to purchase here in california. It seems the best alternative to an Ar-15 here in california... Though I wish I could just get the C model.
Zaxon
01-05-2005, 13:47
Yes, I meant the Su-16. I got mixed up with those damned SR's. Im wondering, do you know what the muzzle velocity is? I cant find it online.

Btw, once I turn 18(13 months, and I'll have been in the national guard for 12), Im thinking of getting an Su-16CA. It has the newer features, such as a decent rail for mounting sights, but its legal to purchase here in california. It seems the best alternative to an Ar-15 here in california... Though I wish I could just get the C model.

It should come out the pipe the same as an AR, though I haven't measured it with my chrony yet (~3000 fps with a 55 gr. bullet).

It's a perfectly viable target/defense/brush rifle--especially the C model with the ability to fire when the stock is folded (though I'm guessing that in Kalifornia, you won't be able to use that particular feature).
CanuckHeaven
01-05-2005, 14:08
Lets put it another way. You have a 10 round 9mm magazine. Its dark, and three people come into your house, armed. You hit one, while the other two take cover and fire back. You quickly find yourself out of ammo. You dont grab extra magazines, you were just awakened. Don't you wish you had your thirty-round shorty Ar-15? Or a Cx4? Would have made it much easier.
Just how dangerous is the place where you are living? How often does something like this happen? This sounds like an incredible case of paranoia?
CanuckHeaven
01-05-2005, 14:54
There are 35 other states that fall into the gun friendly category.

Take my state, Virginia, as an example.

Concealed carry, open carry, and no restrictions on "assault weapons".

Oh, and we have low violent crime rates.
Low violent crime rate? Murder is the most violent crime? Using the statistics from the FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, in 2000, Virginia has a 5.7 per 100,000 murder rate, and when you multiply that by the number of residents (7,078,515), you end up with 403 murders.

In Canada, the not so "gun friendly" country, the number of murders in 2003 was 548, which is the lowest level in over 35 years. That is a total of 548 for a country with a population of 31,946,300 (2004). If you applied the Virginia murder rate to Canada, Canada's murder total would be 1820.

BTW, "gun friendly" Florida has the most violent crime rate in the US, and has had a carry concealed law since 1987.
Neo Cannen
01-05-2005, 15:24
Chalk it up to the American Identity, or the American Myth. Guns are part of American culture. You don't have to understand it, you're not American. It'd be like me going off on Soccer. I just don't get, and quite frankly I don't really want to.


Big diffrence. Football (Yes football, as Americans call it "Soccer" but "soccer" is real football) doesnt kill anyone of itself. Guns do.
Whispering Legs
01-05-2005, 16:30
Low violent crime rate? Murder is the most violent crime? Using the statistics from the FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, in 2000, Virginia has a 5.7 per 100,000 murder rate, and when you multiply that by the number of residents (7,078,515), you end up with 403 murders.

In Canada, the not so "gun friendly" country, the number of murders in 2003 was 548, which is the lowest level in over 35 years. That is a total of 548 for a country with a population of 31,946,300 (2004). If you applied the Virginia murder rate to Canada, Canada's murder total would be 1820.

BTW, "gun friendly" Florida has the most violent crime rate in the US, and has had a carry concealed law since 1987.


You're the one who always complains about comparing one country to another whenever I do it.

If I compare Virginia to Maryland, we're 60 percent lower. Maryland has stiff anti-gnu laws, and Virginia does not.

You still haven't told me what you'll tell an abused woman - how you'll be happy that she gets attacked and killed by her stalking abusive ex-husband while she waits for nearly an hour for police to arrive.

One woman killed in our area (she didn't attend my class or take my advice) was killed 30 seconds after dialing 911. She was killed with a tire iron. Want to tell me what you're going to tell her surviving children? That the result is morally superior to having her defend herself with a gun and kill the ex-husband?
Chellis
01-05-2005, 16:39
Just how dangerous is the place where you are living? How often does something like this happen? This sounds like an incredible case of paranoia?

Again, safe > sorry.

Having more bullets will not hurt someone. Do you have any reasons that having more bullets will hurt someone(taking into account criminals can go out of state and buy anything from 30-100 round magazines)?

It doesnt hurt criminals. It hurts civilians who do things legally. We have to reload more, at the range. We have to buy more expensive magazines, so that we can handicap ourselves. Hell, I cant buy a ww2, underpowered M1 carbine, because it uses the 15 round magazine. I have to buy special ones with special 10 round magazines...its Idiotic.
Kecibukia
01-05-2005, 16:57
You're the one who always complains about comparing one country to another whenever I do it.

If I compare Virginia to Maryland, we're 60 percent lower. Maryland has stiff anti-gnu laws, and Virginia does not.

You still haven't told me what you'll tell an abused woman - how you'll be happy that she gets attacked and killed by her stalking abusive ex-husband while she waits for nearly an hour for police to arrive.

One woman killed in our area (she didn't attend my class or take my advice) was killed 30 seconds after dialing 911. She was killed with a tire iron. Want to tell me what you're going to tell her surviving children? That the result is morally superior to having her defend herself with a gun and kill the ex-husband?

See, it's wrong when YOU do it but OK when he does it, OK?

The rest of the post he'll ignore and go to "but Florida and New York...."
CanuckHeaven
01-05-2005, 16:57
You're the one who always complains about comparing one country to another whenever I do it.

If I compare Virginia to Maryland, we're 60 percent lower. Maryland has stiff anti-gnu laws, and Virginia does not.

You still haven't told me what you'll tell an abused woman - how you'll be happy that she gets attacked and killed by her stalking abusive ex-husband while she waits for nearly an hour for police to arrive.

One woman killed in our area (she didn't attend my class or take my advice) was killed 30 seconds after dialing 911. She was killed with a tire iron. Want to tell me what you're going to tell her surviving children? That the result is morally superior to having her defend herself with a gun and kill the ex-husband?
How about supplying women with tazer guns (http://www.securityprousa.com/stunguns1.html) instead? Why does it have to be guns, that could actually be used against the woman? Isn't it a fact that 20% of police officers are killed by their own weapons? (http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/crime/20040916/4/1119)

New York has gun control and has the 3rd lowest rape percentage.

A person is more likely to get murdered in Virginia (5.6 per 100,000) then in New York State (4.9 per 100,000).

Texas in 2000 had a murder rate of 5.9 per 100,000, and in 2003, that rate went up to 6.4.

Virginia in 2000 had a forcible rape rate of 22.8 per 100,000, and in 2003, that rate went up to 24.0.
CanuckHeaven
01-05-2005, 17:04
See, it's wrong when YOU do it but OK when he does it, OK?

The rest of the post he'll ignore and go to "but Florida and New York...."
I don't mind comparisons with other countries as long as the facts are presented. I go to Florida because you like going to NRA or pro gun sites for your "truths", and often those pro gun sites will mention Florida as a shining example of the RTC law, but the "facts" there are definitely skewed.
Kecibukia
01-05-2005, 17:09
How about supplying women with tazer guns (http://www.securityprousa.com/stunguns1.html) instead? Why does it have to be guns, that could actually be used against the woman? Isn't it a fact that 20% of police officers are killed by their own weapons? (http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/crime/20040916/4/1119)

New York has gun control and has the 3rd lowest rape percentage.

A person is more likely to get murdered in Virginia (5.6 per 100,000) then in New York State (4.9 per 100,000).

Texas in 2000 had a murder rate of 5.9 per 100,000, and in 2003, that rate went up to 6.4.

Virginia in 2000 had a forcible rape rate of 22.8 per 100,000, and in 2003, that rate went up to 24.0.

So you're saying the police should be disarmed?

In NY 2000, Rape was 18.6, in '03 it was 19.7. What, it went up? how could that be. Florida went from 44.2 to 39.5. How could that be?

Florida Violent crime dropped from 812 to 730 while NY went from 553-465. The drops are the almost thesame. How could that be? Even while Florida had a population increase of over 2 million people while NY stayed near the same.

Chicago has strict gun control and has a murder rate of 22/100K. Why is that? If you take out Chicago, Illinois (which generally allows firearms but not CC) drops down to .38/100K Why is that?

Vermont's murder is 2.3/100K w/ a population of about 700K. Washington DC has a rate of 44/100K w/ a population of about 550K.

How is that apples and oranges?
Kecibukia
01-05-2005, 17:11
I don't mind comparisons with other countries as long as the facts are presented. I go to Florida because you like going to NRA or pro gun sites for your "truths", and often those pro gun sites will mention Florida as a shining example of the RTC law, but the "facts" there are definitely skewed.

You're calling the numbers skewed? That's like a skunk complaining about the smell.

As a point ,you've used quite a bit of data mined from HCI, VPC, etc.

No you go to Florida because it you it is one of the few places you can use as a state. And yet you always ignore the fact that NY's crime reduction had nothing to do w/ it's gun control laws.

Once again, howabout VT & DC? or is that "apples and oranges" still?
Eutrusca
01-05-2005, 17:12
I suppose I'm just venting... But I was recently made aware to just how harsh my state's gun laws are. I thought we had only been restricted under the 1994-2004 bill. I was unaware of the state legislature. To give a quick refresher, 18 rifle types(including all Ar-10 and Kalishnakov models), any weapon with at least one of the qualifiers for an assault weapon(Anything from a thumbhole stock, a flash muzzle, or length under 30 inches), bans any magazine with more than ten rounds...

Im not sure what I'm asking. Just discuss it, I suppose.
Vitually everything about California makes me sad. There are, after all, quite a few children in that State. My God! Think of the children! Think of the children!
Pracus
01-05-2005, 17:17
Self-defense is another reason.
If 3 people break into your home and you are forced to shoot each of them 5 times, how many times do you get killed while reloading?

If there are three people and they all require five bullets to stop them, you are either a really bad shot or they are going to kill you anyways.
Kibolonia
01-05-2005, 19:45
Big diffrence. Football (Yes football, as Americans call it "Soccer" but "soccer" is real football) doesnt kill anyone of itself. Guns do.
Do you even read what you're writing and responding to? But I like soccer, it's a great sport for children and girls, and the idea of flare day, though unconventional, shows promise.
Ravea
01-05-2005, 21:24
and when they start banning those?

Then I carry a giant Mallet.

Bonk.
Zaxon
01-05-2005, 21:34
Just how dangerous is the place where you are living? How often does something like this happen? This sounds like an incredible case of paranoia?

Just because you don't feel like being prepared doesn't mean anyone who is, is paranoid. People wear seat belts because there is a chance something may happen, yet much more often than not, nothing does. This is not paranoia--this is preparedness.
Zaxon
01-05-2005, 21:35
Big diffrence. Football (Yes football, as Americans call it "Soccer" but "soccer" is real football) doesnt kill anyone of itself. Guns do.

Didn't someone die in South America, after a World Cup loss? I don't recall, but Soccer fans can get quite violent, from what I understand....
Kecibukia
01-05-2005, 21:37
Big diffrence. Football (Yes football, as Americans call it "Soccer" but "soccer" is real football) doesnt kill anyone of itself. Guns do.

UK soccer fans have killed more people than my guns.
Zaxon
01-05-2005, 21:40
If there are three people and they all require five bullets to stop them, you are either a really bad shot or they are going to kill you anyways.

Then you REALLY don't know much about how bullets affect humans. You have a 60% chance of surviving being shot. Police have had to shoot drug-hopped criminals up to ELEVEN times before they dropped--and some STILL survive.
Kecibukia
01-05-2005, 21:42
I don't mind comparisons with other countries as long as the facts are presented. I go to Florida because you like going to NRA or pro gun sites for your "truths", and often those pro gun sites will mention Florida as a shining example of the RTC law, but the "facts" there are definitely skewed.

You're calling the numbers skewed? That's like a skunk complaining about the smell.

As a point ,you've used quite a bit of data mined from HCI, VPC, etc.
Pracus
01-05-2005, 23:07
Then you REALLY don't know much about how bullets affect humans. You have a 60% chance of surviving being shot. Police have had to shoot drug-hopped criminals up to ELEVEN times before they dropped--and some STILL survive.

Having been in the ER when gunshot victims come in, I am quite aware of what bullets can and cannot do. However, my major point was that by the time you send five rounds into each one of them, someone is going to have shot you back--unless you are spraying machine gun fire and, while I do not care too much about gun laws, I don't think anyone actually can justify owning an automatic weapon outside of the military.
CthulhuFhtagn
01-05-2005, 23:16
Then you REALLY don't know much about how bullets affect humans. You have a 60% chance of surviving being shot. Police have had to shoot drug-hopped criminals up to ELEVEN times before they dropped--and some STILL survive.
Let me guess. None of them got shot above the torso.
Whispering Legs
02-05-2005, 00:01
How about supplying women with tazer guns (http://www.securityprousa.com/stunguns1.html) instead? Why does it have to be guns, that could actually be used against the woman? Isn't it a fact that 20% of police officers are killed by their own weapons? (http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/crime/20040916/4/1119)

New York has gun control and has the 3rd lowest rape percentage.

A person is more likely to get murdered in Virginia (5.6 per 100,000) then in New York State (4.9 per 100,000).

Texas in 2000 had a murder rate of 5.9 per 100,000, and in 2003, that rate went up to 6.4.

Virginia in 2000 had a forcible rape rate of 22.8 per 100,000, and in 2003, that rate went up to 24.0.


The area I'm in has gone down steadily since 1995, when the concealed carry was put into effect. Last year we got unlicensed open carry, and it went down again. Of the suburbs around Washington, D.C., Fairfax County has the lowest crime rate. 60 percent lower than any other county - and the counties are demographically identical except that in Fairfax, you have a lot of guns legally carried.

A taser is one shot. If you miss, you're dead meat. A gun also has a threatening effect on would-be wife beaters that no other weapon has.

None of the women I've trained has ever been stalked or attacked again. Not one out of nearly a hundred now. There is NO women's shelter program that has that enviable record - and these women now go about their daily business without fear.

The idea you bring up of people having their guns taken away and used on them is laughable. A policeman is three times more likely to be killed with his own gun in an altercation than a civilian in a similar altercation. Even then, it's fairly rare - just a few police per year, and even fewer civilians. There are on the other hand MILLIONS of times per year when civilians defend themselves successfully with guns.

The best part - these women haven't had to draw or kill anyone - their ex-husbands are shit scared because they know the protective order is a de facto hunting permit - some of them have left the state out of abject fear.

You won't get that effect with a Taser.
Whispering Legs
02-05-2005, 00:21
Honestly, I'm totally not following what you're going for here.


I'll repeat it, then.

I train women who are victims of stalking and domestic violence - they learn to shoot and carry pistols.

You don't want them to do this.

The women who rely on a protective order alone have a very, very high chance of being killed, and a certainty of being assaulted within 30 days.

None of the nearly 100 women I've trained have EVER been bothered again in any way.

Of course, what I'm getting at is that you would rather see a woman beaten to death by her ex-husband with a tire iron - which happened recently to a woman who did NOT take my advice and who put her trust in a protective order. She died while on the phone talking to the dispatcher.

You don't want women to have guns, and you don't want the innocent, law-abiding people to have an effective means of defense. To you, that woman's death is your moral high ground - to you, it is far, far better that she die than have her defend herself and live.
Whispering Legs
02-05-2005, 11:55
Here's Canuck's idea of what is ideal - women beaten to death because they can't defend themselves effectively.

I'll repeat it, then.

I train women who are victims of stalking and domestic violence - they learn to shoot and carry pistols.

You don't want them to do this.

The women who rely on a protective order alone have a very, very high chance of being killed, and a certainty of being assaulted within 30 days.

None of the nearly 100 women I've trained have EVER been bothered again in any way.

Of course, what I'm getting at is that you would rather see a woman beaten to death by her ex-husband with a tire iron - which happened recently to a woman who did NOT take my advice and who put her trust in a protective order. She died while on the phone talking to the dispatcher.

You don't want women to have guns, and you don't want the innocent, law-abiding people to have an effective means of defense. To you, that woman's death is your moral high ground - to you, it is far, far better that she die than have her defend herself and live.
Zaxon
02-05-2005, 15:33
Having been in the ER when gunshot victims come in, I am quite aware of what bullets can and cannot do. However, my major point was that by the time you send five rounds into each one of them, someone is going to have shot you back--unless you are spraying machine gun fire and, while I do not care too much about gun laws, I don't think anyone actually can justify owning an automatic weapon outside of the military.

Not necessarily. Most humans dive for cover when shot at....they don't just stand there and fire back.
Zaxon
02-05-2005, 15:35
Let me guess. None of them got shot above the torso.

Actually, no. You can get hit just about anywhere (barring brain and heart), and you have a chance of surviving.

I love all those movies where one shot or one stab in the gut kills....sheesh.
Martel France
02-05-2005, 15:42
The best part - these women haven't had to draw or kill anyone - their ex-husbands are shit scared because they know the protective order is a de facto hunting permit - some of them have left the state out of abject fear.



What do you mean "de facto hunting permit" how so?
Whispering Legs
02-05-2005, 15:50
What do you mean "de facto hunting permit" how so?
It is difficult to get a protective order in Virginia. You have to prove to the judge that the person in question poses an immediate threat of lethal harm to your person.

Once proven, the abusive person is forbidden to be in the same place as the protected person at the same time - no excuses. The protected person may call the police, and the abusive person is subject to immediate arrest for violating the order.

However, many women are killed while waiting for the police to show up. And, if the man leaves before the police show up, the man is rarely arrested.

It does, however, serve as solid proof that the abusive person is a lethal threat.

In Virginia, you only need prove that a) you're in fear for your life and b) the person you're shooting poses an immediate lethal threat.

Hasn't been tested in court, but the DA has given the nod - he's not going to prosecute any woman who shoots her ex, provided she has a protective order.

Once told about the gun, the training, and the protective order, these men have run away. They don't come back.
CanuckHeaven
02-05-2005, 16:44
The area I'm in has gone down steadily since 1995, when the concealed carry was put into effect. Last year we got unlicensed open carry, and it went down again. Of the suburbs around Washington, D.C., Fairfax County has the lowest crime rate. 60 percent lower than any other county - and the counties are demographically identical except that in Fairfax, you have a lot of guns legally carried.

A taser is one shot. If you miss, you're dead meat. A gun also has a threatening effect on would-be wife beaters that no other weapon has.

None of the women I've trained has ever been stalked or attacked again. Not one out of nearly a hundred now. There is NO women's shelter program that has that enviable record - and these women now go about their daily business without fear.

The idea you bring up of people having their guns taken away and used on them is laughable. A policeman is three times more likely to be killed with his own gun in an altercation than a civilian in a similar altercation. Even then, it's fairly rare - just a few police per year, and even fewer civilians. There are on the other hand MILLIONS of times per year when civilians defend themselves successfully with guns.

The best part - these women haven't had to draw or kill anyone - their ex-husbands are shit scared because they know the protective order is a de facto hunting permit - some of them have left the state out of abject fear.

You won't get that effect with a Taser.
How well does Virginia fare with RTC laws?

http://home.earthlink.net/~crankytaxpayer/Crime/crime_4.gif

From the graph, you will notice that not only is there a higher murder rate in Richmond, Virginia, but there is also a higher murder rate in Norfolk, Virginia, than the city of New York.

If the State of New York was on that graph, their "blue bar" would be less than the State of Virginia.

What this tells me, is that I would be more likely to get murdered in Richmond, Virginia (pop. 197,790) or Norfolk, Virginia (pop. 234,403), than I would be in New York City (pop. 8,008,278).

If you take the murder rate in Richmond. Virginia (46 per 100,000) and apply that to New York City, the number of murders would be an alarming 3680.
Monkeybonia
02-05-2005, 16:57
Thats fucking bullshit. Whats wrong with banning guns? The way i see it, if no guns at all are made, no guns at all are needed.
Mt-Tau
02-05-2005, 17:01
Thats fucking bullshit. Whats wrong with banning guns? The way i see it, if no guns at all are made, no guns at all are needed.

Thanks for the morning laugh monkey! I really needed that. I will add that to my board of irrational qoutes.
Zaxon
02-05-2005, 18:02
Thats fucking bullshit. Whats wrong with banning guns? The way i see it, if no guns at all are made, no guns at all are needed.

Considering that Pandora opened that particular box, and that firearms generally last longer than a human, you're too late.
Whispering Legs
02-05-2005, 19:16
Thats fucking bullshit. Whats wrong with banning guns? The way i see it, if no guns at all are made, no guns at all are needed.
Oh, I see.

Since 89 percent of women raped in the US are subdued with bare hands, and most women killed by their ex-husbands are killed with bare hands, we should deprive these women of the effective means of defending themselves.

When are you going to stop beating your wife?
Whispering Legs
02-05-2005, 19:19
How well does Virginia fare with RTC laws?

http://home.earthlink.net/~crankytaxpayer/Crime/crime_4.gif

From the graph, you will notice that not only is there a higher murder rate in Richmond, Virginia, but there is also a higher murder rate in Norfolk, Virginia, than the city of New York.

If the State of New York was on that graph, their "blue bar" would be less than the State of Virginia.

What this tells me, is that I would be more likely to get murdered in Richmond, Virginia (pop. 197,790) or Norfolk, Virginia (pop. 234,403), than I would be in New York City (pop. 8,008,278).

If you take the murder rate in Richmond. Virginia (46 per 100,000) and apply that to New York City, the number of murders would be an alarming 3680.

New York City has had the same gun laws since the 1960s. Their violent crime has gone up and down regardless of the laws - and is rising again over the past few years.

Virginia's rate has been falling since 1995 - and even further since last July, when open carry became the law.

By your logic, we should be seeing MORE murder and MORE violent crime.

Why are we seeing less?

And why is it OK for you to compare two demographically disparate places, but when I compare demographically identical locations, you declare it invalid?

I know the reason why - you want women to die at the hands of their attackers. Go ahead and say it. You want women to die defenseless.
Kibolonia
02-05-2005, 21:39
I'll repeat it, then.

I train women who are victims of stalking and domestic violence - they learn to shoot and carry pistols.

You don't want them to do this.

The women who rely on a protective order alone have a very, very high chance of being killed, and a certainty of being assaulted within 30 days.

None of the nearly 100 women I've trained have EVER been bothered again in any way.

Of course, what I'm getting at is that you would rather see a woman beaten to death by her ex-husband with a tire iron - which happened recently to a woman who did NOT take my advice and who put her trust in a protective order. She died while on the phone talking to the dispatcher.

You don't want women to have guns, and you don't want the innocent, law-abiding people to have an effective means of defense. To you, that woman's death is your moral high ground - to you, it is far, far better that she die than have her defend herself and live.
How about we try a little excercise to help you with your religion. It'll be low effort for me, and enlightening for you. Why don't you find where, in any of my posts, that I wrote anything that would deprive anyone, women or not, of the right to defend themselves with a firearm, let alone at all.

You want to know why gun laws pass. You're the opposition. If you can't make your argument in a calm reasonable way, injecting emotion, though hardly laudable, is a reasonable tactic. However, when it's done, it's probably best to at least prevent it from appearing as a non-sequitur.
Chellis
03-05-2005, 07:56
This thread is about california gun laws, guys... I dont mind some more abstract thoughts, but lets not switch the topic to general gun control...
Lacadaemon
03-05-2005, 10:16
Its true though,

I once killed a guy with my bare hands. It would have been a whole fuck of a lot harder if he had had a gun, lanky git.

Of course it would have been easier if I had a gun too. The skull is like an egg in certain respects, and you don't want to know why.
CanuckHeaven
03-05-2005, 14:51
New York City has had the same gun laws since the 1960s. Their violent crime has gone up and down regardless of the laws - and is rising again over the past few years.
Absolutely false. In regards to New York City (http://www.nycvisit.com/content/index.cfm?pagePkey=1091):

New York City is the safest big city in the country, according to a report from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The FBI’s 2002 "Crime in the United States" indicates that while crime increased nationwide, New York City’s crime rate actually decreased 5% to the lowest level since the 1960s. In addition, the city’s murder rate dropped 9.6% in 2002 to reach the lowest level since 1963.

The FBI’s ranking of New York City as the safest large city in the United States means that, of all American cities with populations of 1 million or more, New York City has the lowest rate of total crime committed.

In regards to New York State, according to data obtained from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm#cius) since 1990, New York's Violent Crime Rate (VCR) has gone from 1,180 down to 465 in 2003, a decrease of 61%. The murder rate has gone from 11.4 in 1990 down to 4.9 in 2003, a decrease of 66%.

Virginia's rate has been falling since 1995 - and even further since last July, when open carry became the law.
Again, absolutely false. While VCR fell from 361 in 1995, it increased 4% in 2001, and the murder rate which fell from 8.8 in 1990 down to 5.1 in 2001, actually increased by 10% in 2003 to 5.6.

How does New York State (gun control) compare with Virginia (RTC), regarding Violent Crime Rate?

Since 1995 to 2003, New York's VCR has decreased 61%.

Since 1995 to 2003, Virginia's VCR has decreased only 21%.

How does New York State (gun control) compare with Virginia (RTC), regarding murder rates?

Since 1995 to 2003, New York's murder rate has decreased 66%.

Since 1995 to 2003, Virginia's murder rate has decreased only 36%.

By your logic, we should be seeing MORE murder and MORE violent crime.

Why are we seeing less?
Overall we are seeing a general decline in crime rates, except for the noted increases in Virginia. The significant point to consider is that New York State's reduction in VCR, and murder rates has by far outstripped Virginia's.

The Brady Bill was enacted in 1995 and perhaps this has helped lower overall crime rates in the US?

I know the reason why - you want women to die at the hands of their attackers. Go ahead and say it. You want women to die defenseless.
This is a cheap attempt to play with my sensibilities, and is utterly false. It is people like you that are making your environment less safe. You have zero respect for any kind of gun control, and it is through irresponsible actions that many guns end up in the hands of criminals. But then again, I guess that is good for your business?
Kecibukia
03-05-2005, 15:02
Absolutely false. In regards to New York City (http://www.nycvisit.com/content/index.cfm?pagePkey=1091):

Again, absolutely false. While VCR fell from 361 in 1995, it increased 4% in 2001, and the murder rate which fell from 8.8 in 1990 down to 5.1 in 2001, actually increased by 10% in 2003 to 5.6.

How does New York State (gun control) compare with Virginia (RTC), regarding Violent Crime Rate?

Since 1995 to 2003, New York's VCR has decreased 61%.

Since 1995 to 2003, Virginia's VCR has decreased only 21%.

How does New York State (gun control) compare with Virginia (RTC), regarding murder rates?

Since 1995 to 2003, New York's murder rate has decreased 66%.

Since 1995 to 2003, Virginia's murder rate has decreased only 36%.


Overall we are seeing a general decline in crime rates, except for the noted increases in Virginia. The significant point to consider is that New York State's reduction in VCR, and murder rates has by far outstripped Virginia's.

The Brady Bill was enacted in 1995 and perhaps this has helped lower overall crime rates in the US?


This is a cheap attempt to play with my sensibilities, and is utterly false. It is people like you that are making your environment less safe. You have zero respect for any kind of gun control, and it is through irresponsible actions that many guns end up in the hands of criminals. But then again, I guess that is good for your business?

None of that actually says that the gun laws have been changed or that crime has not followed nat'l trends. What gun laws have been enacted in NY recently that have affected crime?

Has it decreased since 1995? Notice the part, "since last July". then you post stats from 2003.

Anyway, the two are not absolutely identical, so you shouldn't be comparing them. Otherwise go back to Fairfax and explain it better than your cutnpaste.

NY's rape went up while Fl's went down. Why is that?

Nat'l crime has been lowering since 1991. Years before the Brady Bill of CAWB.

Irresponsible? You mean like disarming Law Abiding Citizens in favor of criminals? Like allowing a threatened woman to go defenseless?
Zaxon
03-05-2005, 15:15
This thread is about california gun laws, guys... I dont mind some more abstract thoughts, but lets not switch the topic to general gun control...

Okee doke. Have you seen what Barrett put out? :)

They won't sell their wares to any government in California due to the .50 caliber ban. This means that no police/SWAT teams can buy their equipment.

http://nramemberscouncils.com/caspecial/barrett/index.shtml
Whispering Legs
03-05-2005, 15:19
Okee doke. Have you seen what Barrett put out? :)

They won't sell their wares to any government in California due to the .50 caliber ban. This means that no police/SWAT teams can buy their equipment.

http://nramemberscouncils.com/caspecial/barrett/index.shtml

I hear that other specialty sniper rifle manufacturers are following suit. California law enforcement is rapidly going to be disarmed by the actions of their own government.
Kecibukia
03-05-2005, 15:20
Okee doke. Have you seen what Barrett put out? :)

They won't sell their wares to any government in California due to the .50 caliber ban. This means that no police/SWAT teams can buy their equipment.

http://nramemberscouncils.com/caspecial/barrett/index.shtml

Some companies are also refusing to repair police equipment, especially the .50 cals. the police already own. What's this, the police have them? I thought they were only good for terrorists.
Kecibukia
03-05-2005, 15:23
I hear that other specialty sniper rifle manufacturers are following suit. California law enforcement is rapidly going to be disarmed by the actions of their own government.

Taxes are also going to skyrocket. CA is trying to have ammunition serialized which will make ammunition costs there skyrocket or make it nonexistant as companies abandon the CA market.
Zaxon
03-05-2005, 15:35
I hear that other specialty sniper rifle manufacturers are following suit. California law enforcement is rapidly going to be disarmed by the actions of their own government.

I love shit like this! :D Give 'em just enough rope....
Zaxon
03-05-2005, 15:36
Some companies are also refusing to repair police equipment, especially the .50 cals. the police already own. What's this, the police have them? I thought they were only good for terrorists.

The hypocrisy shines through--though those in power in Kali won't see it.
Zaxon
03-05-2005, 15:37
Taxes are also going to skyrocket. CA is trying to have ammunition serialized which will make ammunition costs there skyrocket or make it nonexistant as companies abandon the CA market.

Yeah, they're really turning into disarmament-of-the-populace experts. :(

I just hope they can't convince the rest of the US to follow suit.
Whispering Legs
03-05-2005, 15:49
Taxes are also going to skyrocket. CA is trying to have ammunition serialized which will make ammunition costs there skyrocket or make it nonexistant as companies abandon the CA market.

How are they going to prevent people from reloading ammunition? What part of the ammunition would you serialize?
CanuckHeaven
03-05-2005, 19:22
None of that actually says that the gun laws have been changed or that crime has not followed nat'l trends. What gun laws have been enacted in NY recently that have affected crime?
However, gun laws were changed in 1995.

Has it decreased since 1995? Notice the part, "since last July". then you post stats from 2003.
The most recent stats I could find from the FBI were 2003. Do you have a link for 2004 stats? What you are ignoring is that NY rates have dramatically decreased in comparison with Virginia.

Anyway, the two are not absolutely identical, so you shouldn't be comparing them. Otherwise go back to Fairfax and explain it better than your cutnpaste.
The county to county theory doesn't wash.

NY's rape went up while Fl's went down. Why is that?
Yes it went up slightly, as did Virginia's and Texas's. What you fail to understand is that New York's overall VCR has reduced more than Virginia's, more than Florida's, more than Texas's over the past 13 years.

Why is Florida's VCR 63% HIGHER than New York's rate?

Why is it that in 1990, New York's VCR was 64% higher than Texas's, but in 2003, New York's VCR is 18% LOWER than Texas's?

Nat'l crime has been lowering since 1991. Years before the Brady Bill of CAWB.
And perhaps without those bills, the crime rate might have increased? Anyway you slice it, it appears that New York's lower crime rate is helping to lower the National crime rate.

Irresponsible? You mean like disarming Law Abiding Citizens in favor of criminals? Like allowing a threatened woman to go defenseless?
I am talking gun control, not disarming the populace as a whole. And as far as women defending themselves, I suggested the issuance of Tazer guns.

When you start doing some worthwhile research than you will have a better understanding?

Why is New York City the safest city in the US with a population over 1,000,000? Don't you think that the model is there and all you need to do is follow it? If you want to give Guiliani credit, that is fine, but also look at the other components such as gun control. Take the whole package and apply it across the board.
Whispering Legs
03-05-2005, 19:28
And as far as women defending themselves, I suggested the issuance of Tazer guns.

They don't work as well as a gun.

If you miss, you don't get a second shot. You have to disassemble the gun to reload for the next shot.

If the target moves at all, the darts fly so slowly, a miss is likely. In addition, the civilian models of the Taser are much weaker in current (and much less effective - you can ride the lightning if you want to and get right up), and have a shorter range (16 feet). I've ridden a variety of stun guns, including the civilian and law enforcement versions of the Taser.

The civilian model is next to worthless in a combat situation, compared to a gun. If the threat is lethal, the police are not even going to draw their version of the Taser - they're going to draw guns.

They also have NO deterrent effect on felons, unless the felon is cornered at short range.

Guns HAVE a deterrent effect. The women I work with prove that. The fact that police carry guns for that purpose proves that.
Kecibukia
04-05-2005, 03:01
1.However, gun laws were changed in 1995.


2.The most recent stats I could find from the FBI were 2003. Do you have a link for 2004 stats? What you are ignoring is that NY rates have dramatically decreased in comparison with Virginia.


3.The county to county theory doesn't wash.


4.Yes it went up slightly, as did Virginia's and Texas's. What you fail to understand is that New York's overall VCR has reduced more than Virginia's, more than Florida's, more than Texas's over the past 13 years.

Why is
Florida's VCR 63% HIGHER than New York's rate?

Why is it that in 1990, New York's VCR was 64% higher than Texas's, but in 2003, New York's VCR is 18% LOWER than Texas's?


5.And perhaps without those bills, the crime rate might have increased? Anyway you slice it, it appears that New York's lower crime rate is helping to lower the National crime rate.


6. I am talking gun control, not disarming the populace as a whole. And as far as women defending themselves, I suggested the issuance of Tazer guns.

7.When you start doing some worthwhile research than you will have a better understanding?

8.Why is New York City the safest city in the US with a population over 1,000,000? Don't you think that the model is there and all you need to do is follow it? If you want to give Guiliani credit, that is fine, but also look at the other components such as gun control. Take the whole package and apply it across the board.

1. I repeat. What gun laws were enacted that caused crime to decrease. Crime started dropping in '91. What were the laws?

2. I repeated from WL, ask him.

3.That's convienent, Yet you'll compare city to city or city to province or country to country and then complain when called on it. (UK/Switzerland, VT/DC)

4. And I'm asking why it went up. Answer the question. and answer why FL is dropping even after allowing more people to defend themselves. I've also answered FL. Illegal Immigrants, Gangs, & drugs. Oh, but wait, they're not demographically identical, you can't compare those.

5. Crime "might" have gone up after four years of drops due to bills that have been regarded by most as useless? I'ld like you to prove that one.

6. In the US, "gun control" means disarming the public. As for Tazers, that's already been covered how inaccurate they are. Did you know that police around the country are abandoning the use of them?

7. "worthwhile" research? That's funny coming from you.

8.I do give Guliani credit. You still haven't answered why New York, with laws in place since the '60's and no significant changes, followed the Nat'l crime trends.
Kecibukia
04-05-2005, 03:11
How are they going to prevent people from reloading ammunition? What part of the ammunition would you serialize?

From what I've read, they want some kind of individual identification mark on the bullet itself. All ammo sold would be put into a data base (john smith bought bullets #'s 1-200 ) and these could be traced back if found at a crime scene.

Haven't heard anything about reloading but I assume it will be made illegal unless you can add the proscribed markers and register them.

The reloading industry will abandon CA as well.

I almost said that it baffles me that people could be so stupid as to think criminals won't be able to get ammo, but then I remembered that these laws have NOTHING to do w/ controlling crime but instead are to disarm the citizens.
Kecibukia
04-05-2005, 03:44
New York City is the safest big city in the country, according to a report from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The FBI?s 2002 "Crime in the United States" indicates that while crime increased nationwide, New York City?s crime rate actually decreased 5% to the lowest level since the 1960s. In addition, the city?s murder rate dropped 9.6% in 2002 to reach the lowest level since 1963.

The FBI?s ranking of New York City as the safest large city in the United States means that, of all American cities with populations of 1 million or more, New York City has the lowest rate of total crime committed.


Where did you cutnpaste this from CH? It's not entirely accurate, not surprising though.

It states "crime" went up nationwide. Look at the reports. It dropped overall w/ increases only in Rape, Burglary, and a small murder. Guess what? New York had an increase in both Rape & Burglary as well. Seems to be mostly following the trends there as well.
Rummania
04-05-2005, 03:46
How many guys had to get gunned down in Oakland and LA to get that legislation passed?

I'm sorry that you're sad, but I'm even sorrier for all those guys' families. Too bad you can't pursue your hobby, though.
Kecibukia
04-05-2005, 05:09
How many guys had to get gunned down in Oakland and LA to get that legislation passed?

I'm sorry that you're sad, but I'm even sorrier for all those guys' families. Too bad you can't pursue your hobby, though.

Good to know you're keeping up w/ the topic. It's legislation pending, not passed. Once again, it has nothing to do w/ crime prevention, just ownership prevention. Just like the much touted "Ballistic Fingerprinting" (which has gone down in flames as a failure) was just a backdoor registration scheme. The only thing this will do if passed is hurt CA's economy even more and disarm people who actually follow the law.

Did anyone get "gunned down" w/ .50 cal rifles to get them to pass legislation against them?
Do you feel sorry for all the victims of criminals who couldn't defend themselves? Howabout the women killed by their husbands?
Ever think that CA might actually try and do something about the criminals before disarming LAC's? Like controlling illegal immigration, drugs or gangs?

I don't live in CA. Except for Chicago and a few outlying suburbs, no politician would be stupid enough to try legislation like that.

Did you know that in IL, one of the most vocal anti-gunners here was recently arrested for having an illegal gun (serial numbers filed off) and drugs?
CanuckHeaven
04-05-2005, 05:20
Where did you cutnpaste this from CH? It's not entirely accurate, not surprising though.
I did post a link....I guess you missed it?

It states "crime" went up nationwide. Look at the reports. It dropped overall w/ increases only in Rape, Burglary, and a small murder.

US Nationwide crime did increase in 2001 and 2002:

Table 1, United States, 1983-2002 (http://www.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/ucr/cius_02/xl/02tbl01.xls)

Guess what? New York had an increase in both Rape & Burglary as well. Seems to be mostly following the trends there as well.
New York State or New York City? The article (http://www.nycvisit.com/content/index.cfm?pagePkey=1091) was about New York City.

Also from the article, which I find interesting:

According to FBI crime figures released December 15, 2003 for the first 6 months of 2003, New York City remains the safest big City in the United States. Year to date, crime is at its lowest level since 1968. Total crime in the City has declined almost 5.5% from last year.

Of the 210 cities reporting with populations greater than 100,000, New York City was ranked 194th, between Ann Arbor, Michigan and Orange, California. Of the nine cities with populations of more than one million reporting to the FBI, New York City had the lowest crime rate during the first 6 months of 2003.

Over the course of the past year, the crime rate continued to decrease from what were already record lows at the end of 2002. The FBI reports that New York City’s violent crime rate is down 3.3% in 2003 compared to a nationwide reduction of 3.1%, and the City’s property crime rate is down 8.7% compared to a nationwide reduction of only .08%.

I guess New York City is doing something right!! :)
Deviltrainee
04-05-2005, 05:24
No one needs more than 10 rounds jusst like no one needs a hard drive that holds more than 100 megabytes.
Both are much more convienient.

Best most obvious reason for large capacity magazines is target shooting.
One can easily run through several hundred rounds of ammo in a couple of hours at the target range. If all you have is a 10 round magazine than you have to reload every 10 rounds. If you are shooting 500 rounds then that means that you have to reload the magazine 50 times.

You hould, of couse, buy 50 10-round magazines, but that would be expensive and it would be difficult to carry so many. Epecially if you could just get 10 50-round magazines.

Aside from recreation there is also competetive shooting, a sport that a US government agency dedicated to promoting. The rules for some competetions call for magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.


Self-defense is another reason.
If 3 people break into your home and you are forced to shoot each of them 5 times, how many times do you get killed while reloading?
i agree with everything except the fact that you say you might have to shoot someone 5 times, one shot would be enough to bring down a person if you hit in the torso, head, or sometimes leg, if your aim is half decent you can do that in one shot but it may take 2 or 3 if they are running or you have bad aim so i can see that but not 5 shots in one person unless you decide toshoot out both knees both balls and then shoot them in the stomach so they will bleed to death
Whispering Legs
04-05-2005, 07:02
i agree with everything except the fact that you say you might have to shoot someone 5 times, one shot would be enough to bring down a person if you hit in the torso, head, or sometimes leg, if your aim is half decent you can do that in one shot but it may take 2 or 3 if they are running or you have bad aim so i can see that but not 5 shots in one person unless you decide toshoot out both knees both balls and then shoot them in the stomach so they will bleed to death

There are many cases where people shot with pistol rounds have been shot many times - one case involved a man shot 33 times with a 357 magnum (by several police in the early 1980s).

He walked to the ambulance, got in, rode to the hospital, and survived.

Even most light rifle rounds fall into the "not very lethal" category. Take the 5.56mm for instance - it is a dismal round in combat in terms of stopping power - you have to hit people six or more times in the chest to get them to lay down.

Only a really high powered hunting rifle is going to put someone down with a solid hit to the torso - and sometimes not even then. Death may come slowly, but instant incapacitation only comes from a shot that blows out most of your brains, or severs your spine above the shoulder blades. People have survived for minutes without their lower torso.
Kibolonia
04-05-2005, 08:35
You know, when I make outragious claims I like to have at least a solid idea that I'm in the ballpark of right.

The case you refer to, it wasn't .357's, but softnose 9x19mm bullets which tipped the scales at a svelt 100 gr. Fired from early high capacity automatics. 9's are light, easy to handle, cheap to own and use. They've got all the intimidation of a more powerful gun, but with friendly economics. One of the reasons they've been so popular with police.

On the lethality of rifles. Where they fail to drop a person it's because the muzzle velocity was too high, and the bullet didn't strike bone. If a rifle round hits a bone, or vital tissue, that's pretty much it. Period. Evolution in its infinite wisdom has seen fit not to bless us with much of an excess of either. (Or more correctly firearms have evolved to neutralize, swiftly, that excess which exists.) Where the 5.56 ammunition falls short is in it's lethality at long ranges, particularly in the face of windage, and armor, or barriers. In fact the military version's lethality is described as "awesome" at ranges under 200m. (Which makes quite a lot of sense given the American experience in Korea.)

The main tradeoff involved with 7.62 to 5.56 ammunition is a trade in a different kinds of lethality. While militaries faced with logistics, armor, barriers, and engaging opponants at several hundred meters might have some reason left to debate, in the slightly less bare knuckled world that is everyday America a single shot with a rifle will effectively end an altercation. At least until we're all wearing interceptor body armor.

What kind of expert goes around making wild claims, which even a dabbler such as myself knows are patently untrue?
Battery Charger
04-05-2005, 09:48
Okee doke. Have you seen what Barrett put out? :)

They won't sell their wares to any government in California due to the .50 caliber ban. This means that no police/SWAT teams can buy their equipment.

http://nramemberscouncils.com/caspecial/barrett/index.shtml
That's awesome.
Battery Charger
04-05-2005, 09:50
Some companies are also refusing to repair police equipment, especially the .50 cals. the police already own. What's this, the police have them? I thought they were only good for terrorists.I'm curious. What sort of departments have .50 caliber guns and why? Does the LAPD have .50 machine guns on their Humvees?
Battery Charger
04-05-2005, 09:52
How are they going to prevent people from reloading ammunition? What part of the ammunition would you serialize?
I heard they want to put serial numbers on the actual bullets, but that was probably wrong.
Zentia
04-05-2005, 10:22
I've never understood why you pro gun people are the way you are? Why do you NEED guns? You don't! All that crap about "Oh, I need it in case of a home invasion" are just absolute bullshit.

Australia has banned pretty much all guns, and do we have mass school shootings, etc? No! Why? Because no one really has access to guns. No man needs 4 guns. No man needs 1 gun.
Zaxon
04-05-2005, 11:41
i agree with everything except the fact that you say you might have to shoot someone 5 times, one shot would be enough to bring down a person if you hit in the torso, head, or sometimes leg, if your aim is half decent you can do that in one shot but it may take 2 or 3 if they are running or you have bad aim so i can see that but not 5 shots in one person unless you decide toshoot out both knees both balls and then shoot them in the stomach so they will bleed to death

I'll state it again--humans can take more than one shot. There is a reason there is no guaranteed "one-shot-stop". One shot does NOT always knock someone down--even in the center of mass.

Yes, they may still bleed to death, but it doesn't mean they still won't try to kill you in the process. Where the hell does this misconception that one bullet will always kill someone come from??? It's just not true. Unless you hit the brain stem, spine, or heart, it's not a guaranteed stop.
Zaxon
04-05-2005, 11:44
I'm curious. What sort of departments have .50 caliber guns and why? Does the LAPD have .50 machine guns on their Humvees?

They're going to the .50 for sniper duty in places.
Zaxon
04-05-2005, 11:46
I heard they want to put serial numbers on the actual bullets, but that was probably wrong.

I think I heard that too--where, though? On the bottom? Too much can get warped after the bullet hits--it just doesn't make sense. Then again, gun control itself makes no sense to me...
Zaxon
04-05-2005, 11:51
I've never understood why you pro gun people are the way you are? Why do you NEED guns? You don't! All that crap about "Oh, I need it in case of a home invasion" are just absolute bullshit.

Australia has banned pretty much all guns, and do we have mass school shootings, etc? No! Why? Because no one really has access to guns. No man needs 4 guns. No man needs 1 gun.

Your opinion. And that's fine. We're not trying to force you to use guns. There are those in the US that are trying to force us to get rid of ours, though.

I don't believe in initiating force--however, I'm all for throwing it back when it's pressed upon me. I haven't killed anyone. I haven't assaulted anyone. I haven't had a physical fight with anyone in my adult years. I'm not a threat. People, however, seem to be VERY afraid of an inanimate object.

The point is to be prepared--for a mugger, an assailant, yes, even the government. We all hope we never have to use them for any of those purposes, though. So many think that just because we have the mechanism for self defense, it means we actually want to be thrust into a life-and-death situation. This is simply not the case.
Rad1101
04-05-2005, 11:53
Just out of curiosity, why the hell do you NEED more than 10 rounds? Hunting doesn't take THAT much amo and anyone you can't scare off with one shot is going to kill you no matter how many bullets you have. So what do you need them for?


You are aware that it is a bad idea to fire warning shots? The reason being is whe you fire a weapon, you are responsible for where the round goes. If it goes into a threat, fine. If your warning shot goes into an innocent, not so fine.

But assuming I didn't waste all my ammo on that warning shot, I suppose I could defend myself with the other 9 rounds before the threat kills me.

Kill me no matter what? Only if I am a reactionary liberal mandating strict controls on the ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens.
Zaxon
04-05-2005, 11:59
You are aware that it is a bad idea to fire warning shots?
The reason being is whe you fire a weapon, you are responsible for where the round goes. If it goes into a threat, fine. If your warning shot goes into an innocent, not so fine.


It's actually illegal most places--you're endangering the populace. Bullets fly a LONG way.
Cadillac-Gage
04-05-2005, 12:13
I hear that other specialty sniper rifle manufacturers are following suit. California law enforcement is rapidly going to be disarmed by the actions of their own government.

It would, I think, be even more amusing if the entire industry decided to start Embargoes against places like California, Chicago, and New York. Imagine: "Okay, guys, we'll try it your way-we won't sell to distributors that do business in your counties or state, period. You can be 'gun-free', we won't stop you, we'll help you... of course, there's the risk of a criminal getting a gun from a cop, so we're not going to sell ammo, components, or firearms to your Officials, either..."

Then, let 'em rot for about two years.

The right to refuse to do business with someone is fundamental. I think it would be even better if the firearms industry went down a list of AG's filing lawsuits, and refused, as a group, to do business with those cities, counties, and states. It'd be like the dairy-farmers in the last century dumping milk in protest.
Zaxon
04-05-2005, 13:37
It would, I think, be even more amusing if the entire industry decided to start Embargoes against places like California, Chicago, and New York. Imagine: "Okay, guys, we'll try it your way-we won't sell to distributors that do business in your counties or state, period. You can be 'gun-free', we won't stop you, we'll help you... of course, there's the risk of a criminal getting a gun from a cop, so we're not going to sell ammo, components, or firearms to your Officials, either..."

Then, let 'em rot for about two years.

The right to refuse to do business with someone is fundamental. I think it would be even better if the firearms industry went down a list of AG's filing lawsuits, and refused, as a group, to do business with those cities, counties, and states. It'd be like the dairy-farmers in the last century dumping milk in protest.

I'm all for this plan.
Mt-Tau
04-05-2005, 13:44
I will second that.
Kecibukia
04-05-2005, 14:36
I did post a link....I guess you missed it?



US Nationwide crime did increase in 2001 and 2002:

Table 1, United States, 1983-2002 (http://www.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/ucr/cius_02/xl/02tbl01.xls)


New York State or New York City? The article (http://www.nycvisit.com/content/index.cfm?pagePkey=1091) was about New York City.

Also from the article, which I find interesting:

According to FBI crime figures released December 15, 2003 for the first 6 months of 2003, New York City remains the safest big City in the United States. Year to date, crime is at its lowest level since 1968. Total crime in the City has declined almost 5.5% from last year.

Of the 210 cities reporting with populations greater than 100,000, New York City was ranked 194th, between Ann Arbor, Michigan and Orange, California. Of the nine cities with populations of more than one million reporting to the FBI, New York City had the lowest crime rate during the first 6 months of 2003.

Over the course of the past year, the crime rate continued to decrease from what were already record lows at the end of 2002. The FBI reports that New York City?s violent crime rate is down 3.3% in 2003 compared to a nationwide reduction of 3.1%, and the City?s property crime rate is down 8.7% compared to a nationwide reduction of only .08%.

I guess New York City is doing something right!! :)

and If you look at the /rate the nat'l level dropped. It still does not dispute the fact that w/ gun laws in place since the sixties, NY followed the Nat'l trends. One year does not a pattern make. If you want to play that game, FL began dropping in '87 after it's gun laws were enacted while NY was still rising.

They are doing something right, Getting rid of the gang bangers and enforcing the laws on the books. I've said it before. Now that the new mayor has stopped doing that, they're coming back.

Once again. What Gun laws were enacted in NY that caused these changes?
CanuckHeaven
04-05-2005, 19:45
and If you look at the /rate the nat'l level dropped. It still does not dispute the fact that w/ gun laws in place since the sixties, NY followed the Nat'l trends. One year does not a pattern make. If you want to play that game, FL began dropping in '87 after it's gun laws were enacted while NY was still rising.

They are doing something right, Getting rid of the gang bangers and enforcing the laws on the books. I've said it before. Now that the new mayor has stopped doing that, they're coming back.

Once again. What Gun laws were enacted in NY that caused these changes?
If you look at the National rates from 1960 to 2003, you will notice that New York State did not follow the trends, they helped established them. Since 1990, New York has not only outstripped "gun friendly" States such as Virginia, Florida, and Texas, but now has a lower VCR than the National average.

Gun control + enforcing the legislation = lower crime rates. :eek:
Tsing Tsing
04-05-2005, 19:50
Im not a hunter. There isnt a big need for me to hunt game. I like guns. Is that such a bad thing? I would like an AK-series weapon. I would like a nice weapon, incase of any...foreign problems. I would like to shoot guns, and as I'm soon to be joining the national guard, I would like a weapon to immediatly defend myself, if needed.
I got knifes if those damn foreigners start to jump from the roof of those damn apartment blocks!If you haven't found out they're already in. And I would guess 10 bullets is enough to crush any mans plans to hurt the average Joe.
Cadillac-Gage
04-05-2005, 20:25
If you look at the National rates from 1960 to 2003, you will notice that New York State did not follow the trends, they helped established them. Since 1990, New York has not only outstripped "gun friendly" States such as Virginia, Florida, and Texas, but now has a lower VCR than the National average.

Gun control + enforcing the legislation = lower crime rates. :eek:

No, "Enforcing the Laws+no early release=lower crime rates".

New York City stopped haemorraging criminals back out onto the streets under Giuliani. The infamous quote about crooks being "...back on the streets before we've finished the paperwork." is from an interview with a retired NY cop in the '80s, who wrote a book about the city's political corruption.
(no, I can't remember the title of the book, sorry...)
When you stop putting repeat-offenders back on the streets, you lower crime rates, Canuck-it's a pretty obvious thing, really.

You don't need special people-control laws to lower crime rates, you just have to actually put teeth to the laws you have. Did you notice on your statistical link that crime rates started going down after 9/11/01? Something about emotionally-scarring disasters also tends to suppress people's criminal tendencies. It's "The hive is under attack" mentality- Street Gangs in Los Angeles pulled back from their little street wars after the Rodney King Riots destroyed large chunks of LA as well. (Funny thing, that-a friend of mine who was in the gun-business at the time down there said he did more "I'm sorry" in a week than he had in the previous two years. "I'm Sorry" is when you tell a prospective customer he/she will have to wait to pick up a gun until the legally-mandated period has run...)
If your downward trending statistics last another five years under the current situation, you might have more than a bobble in the figures.
Kecibukia
05-05-2005, 03:12
If you look at the National rates from 1960 to 2003, you will notice that New York State did not follow the trends, they helped established them. Since 1990, New York has not only outstripped "gun friendly" States such as Virginia, Florida, and Texas, but now has a lower VCR than the National average.

Gun control + enforcing the legislation = lower crime rates. :eek:

They helped establish them? Where did you get this nonsense from? W/ only a few exceptions, NY State matches the nat'l increases/decreases, year for year. Now I'm sure you'll cherry pick the few exceptions and tout them as "proof" that NY has always had lower crime.

Nice how you've changed your tune. I thought only gun control was responsible for NY?

Since you still refuse to answer this question, I'll ask it again: What gun laws were enacted that preceded NY's drop in crime?

Also, why are the five states w/ the lowest crime rates CC states?
CanuckHeaven
05-05-2005, 03:35
No, "Enforcing the Laws+no early release=lower crime rates".

New York City stopped haemorraging criminals back out onto the streets under Giuliani. The infamous quote about crooks being "...back on the streets before we've finished the paperwork." is from an interview with a retired NY cop in the '80s, who wrote a book about the city's political corruption.
(no, I can't remember the title of the book, sorry...)
When you stop putting repeat-offenders back on the streets, you lower crime rates, Canuck-it's a pretty obvious thing, really.
Having less gun crime to worry about helps?

You don't need special people-control laws to lower crime rates, you just have to actually put teeth to the laws you have. Did you notice on your statistical link that crime rates started going down after 9/11/01? Something about emotionally-scarring disasters also tends to suppress people's criminal tendencies. It's "The hive is under attack" mentality- Street Gangs in Los Angeles pulled back from their little street wars after the Rodney King Riots destroyed large chunks of LA as well. (Funny thing, that-a friend of mine who was in the gun-business at the time down there said he did more "I'm sorry" in a week than he had in the previous two years. "I'm Sorry" is when you tell a prospective customer he/she will have to wait to pick up a gun until the legally-mandated period has run...)
If your downward trending statistics last another five years under the current situation, you might have more than a bobble in the figures.
In actuality, on the National level in 2001, the Violent Crime Rate stayed stagnant after experiencing a decline for the previous 8 years (anywhere from -1% in 1993 to -8% in 1999. Also in 2001 (+ 2%), and 2003 (+2%) the murder rate went up for the first time since 1992. Rape rates went up 4% in 2002.
CanuckHeaven
05-05-2005, 03:45
They helped establish them? Where did you get this nonsense from? W/ only a few exceptions, NY State matches the nat'l increases/decreases, year for year. Now I'm sure you'll cherry pick the few exceptions and tout them as "proof" that NY has always had lower crime.
Do you realize that most of your comments towards me are derogatory in nature? Maybe to you they are "nonsense" but when you compare them side by side you will notice that there is some validity in what I have posted.

Nice how you've changed your tune. I thought only gun control was responsible for NY?
I am not naiive to think that gun control is solely to be responsible for New York's phenomenal reduction in crime, nor am I inclined to give credit to one man as you have done with Guliani. He can make policy but the troops are the ones that have to deliver?

Since you still refuse to answer this question, I'll ask it again: What gun laws were enacted that preceded NY's drop in crime?
It appears that the most significant downturn in crime rates in America and especially New York, is after the enactment of the Brady Bill and the ban on assault weapons.

Also, why are the five states w/ the lowest crime rates CC states?
What States are those? I will research them and get back to you. :)
Kecibukia
05-05-2005, 03:53
Having less gun crime to worry about helps?


In actuality, on the National level in 2001, the Violent Crime Rate stayed stagnant after experiencing a decline for the previous 8 years (anywhere from -1% in 1993 to -8% in 1999. Also in 2001 (+ 2%), and 2003 (+2%) the murder rate went up for the first time since 1992. Rape rates went up 4% in 2002.

Ahh, the numbers game. Canuck will bounce back and forth between actual rates( #/#) and raw numbers whenever it suits his arguements.

In actuality , on the Nat'l level , the rate of violent crime dropped all of those years, including Rape. Between 99 & 03, the murder rate still dropped .3%.

And yet NY city had an increase in rapes during that same time(raw numbers and rate). CH also doesn't feel women should be able to defend themselves. from that

38 states either had or implemented CC laws during that time and the ownership of personal firearms continued to increase. Yet nat'l crime levels kept dropping. According to CH, crime should have been skyrocketing. He always mentions NY as his defense where the drops in crime had nothing to do w/ firearm laws. Next he'll cherry pick a few examples (normally traditionally high crime to begin w/) and put up numbers showing how horrible gun ownership is. Then he'll ignore or refuse to acknowledge areas/comparisons that show him different.

And yet NY city had an increase in rapes during that same time(raw numbers and rate). CH also doesn't feel women should be able to defend themselves. from that.
Kecibukia
05-05-2005, 04:14
Do you realize that most of your comments towards me are derogatory in nature? Maybe to you they are "nonsense" but when you compare them side by side you will notice that there is some validity in what I have posted.


I am not naiive to think that gun control is solely to be responsible for New York's phenomenal reduction in crime, nor am I inclined to give credit to one man as you have done with Guliani. He can make policy but the troops are the ones that have to deliver?


It appears that the most significant downturn in crime rates in America and especially New York, is after the enactment of the Brady Bill and the ban on assault weapons.


What States are those? I will research them and get back to you. :)


1. I did compare them side by side. It's as much nonsense as your comparing a city of 200K to one of 8M and then refusing to acknowledge two counties nearly identical.

2. You have stated that Gun Control was the reason for NY quite a few times. Guliani actually enforced the policies that had been ignored.

3. Where? Why did it start 3 years before the passage of either?

4. What? I thought you did "extensive research"? I seem to recall you making comments about me doing research when you spouted about tazers w/o apparently knowing anything about them.

VT, NH, Maine, SD, ND.

Then look at Maryland, which has highly restrictive gun laws.
CanuckHeaven
05-05-2005, 06:49
Ahh, the numbers game. Canuck will bounce back and forth between actual rates( #/#) and raw numbers whenever it suits his arguements.
However you want to slice it, as long as the figures are accurate is all that matters?

In actuality , on the Nat'l level , the rate of violent crime dropped all of those years, including Rape. Between 99 & 03, the murder rate still dropped .3%.
I stated that "on the National level in 2001, the Violent Crime Rate stayed stagnant". The figures are 506.5 for 2000 and 504.5 for 2001, or .004% (in other words stagnant).

The murder rate went up in 2001 and in 2003. Check it out. Actually, the murder rate between 1999 and 2003 went up 6.3%. Get a new calculator? :eek:

Will respond to others later.
THE LOST PLANET
05-05-2005, 06:56
I see this thread still hanging around and I thought I'd like to add the reason why California's gun laws are the way they are in case nobody's brought it up in the last 16 pages.

I remember the incident well, you see it happened not far from where I live. On January 17, 1989 a man with an AK-47 walked onto the Cleveland elementary school campus and opened fire on the children on the playground, changing his 30 round magazine several times. He hit 35 people, killing 5, most of them very young children.

Yeah, California has harsh gun laws.

Because harsh crimes are commited with guns.
Chellis
05-05-2005, 07:41
I see this thread still hanging around and I thought I'd like to add the reason why California's gun laws are the way they are in case nobody's brought it up in the last 16 pages.

I remember the incident well, you see it happened not far from where I live. On January 17, 1989 a man with an AK-47 walked onto the Cleveland elementary school campus and opened fire on the children on the playground, changing his 30 round magazine several times. He hit 35 people, killing 5, most of them very young children.

Yeah, California has harsh gun laws.

Because harsh crimes are commited with guns.

First off, please dont lie. The Ak-47 is not only illegal in america(except for the very few who are allowed to have them as automatics, legally), but its old. I dont mean old as in an old gun, but the design is old. If anything, it probably would have been an AKM-47, or a foreign version such as a Type-56, not a true blue AK-47. It was probably one of the popular american semi-automatics, however.

You act as if he had a Beretta 92 with the special ten round mags, he never could have committed a crime.

This is an emotional response to an isolated incident. If this is your proof as to why these laws came in, its self-defeating. Knee-jerk reactions to tragedies never bring good results.

Its 2005. Lets say someone wanted to pull the same stunt? Let me show you how he would do it.

1. Drive to Nevada
2. Go to a gun show
3. Buy a Romanian SAR-1 with three 40 round magazines, and a few 30 rounders to boot.
4. Throw them in his trunk.
5. Drive across state lines, nobody will even stop his car.
6. Drive to the school, and shoot it up. Or, drive home and keep the guns in his house, as long as nobody see's him bring them in.
7. Sleep, get used to the gun. Go drive to the school, and shoot it up. This is if he didnt do this in step 6.

GJ. You just robbed law abiding citizens of their guns, while doing nothing to the criminals.
CanuckHeaven
05-05-2005, 07:42
I see this thread still hanging around and I thought I'd like to add the reason why California's gun laws are the way they are in case nobody's brought it up in the last 16 pages.

I remember the incident well, you see it happened not far from where I live. On January 17, 1989 a man with an AK-47 walked onto the Cleveland elementary school campus and opened fire on the children on the playground, changing his 30 round magazine several times. He hit 35 people, killing 5, most of them very young children.

Yeah, California has harsh gun laws.

Because harsh crimes are commited with guns.
AMEN brother!!
CanuckHeaven
05-05-2005, 08:43
In actuality , on the Nat'l level , the rate of violent crime dropped all of those years, including Rape. Between 99 & 03, the murder rate still dropped .3%.
I already zinged you on the murder rates, now for the rape rates. On the National level (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_03/xl/03tbl01.xls), rape increased 6.5% between 1999 and 2002, before falling 1.9% in 2003.

And yet NY city had an increase in rapes during that same time(raw numbers and rate).
New York City or New York State?

BTW, here is an interesting stat for you:

Even though New York State has the 3rd highest population New York’s 18.6 reported Forced Rapes per 100,000 people, ranked the state 48th highest. Meanwhile, a woman is twice as likely to get raped in Florida, even though Florida residents have had the right to carry concealed weapons since 1987.

Why is it that Florida's Aggravated Assault Rate is the 2nd worst in the country?

Why is it that Florida has the MOST Violent Crime Rate in the US?

CH also doesn't feel women should be able to defend themselves.
Please do NOT try to put words in my mouth or try and twist my reasons for gun control. I have never stated that, and I doubt I ever will. I just think that there are far better ways for women to defend themselves without using a gun. Nevermind all the other problems that could arise from gun ownership.

38 states either had or implemented CC laws during that time and the ownership of personal firearms continued to increase. Yet nat'l crime levels kept dropping.
Strong economy under Clinton, Brady Bill, and ban of sale of assault weapons.

According to CH, crime should have been skyrocketing.
Never did I say that. You really should speak for yourself, and quit putting down untruths.

He always mentions NY as his defense where the drops in crime had nothing to do w/ firearm laws.
Can you prove that statement? I really don't think so.

Next he'll cherry pick a few examples (normally traditionally high crime to begin w/) and put up numbers showing how horrible gun ownership is. Then he'll ignore or refuse to acknowledge areas/comparisons that show him different.
It is easy to show how horrible gun ownership is....just read the papers, and look at the number of murders, look at the numbers of mass murders using firearms, and realize that 67% of murders are by firearms.

Everbody in the US wants to walk around carrying a gun so that they can feel safe? It is like going back to the wild west days? There has to be a better way. There is a better way.
Kecibukia
05-05-2005, 14:37
However you want to slice it, as long as the figures are accurate is all that matters?


I stated that "on the National level in 2001, the Violent Crime Rate stayed stagnant". The figures are 506.5 for 2000 and 504.5 for 2001, or .004% (in other words stagnant).

The murder rate went up in 2001 and in 2003. Check it out. Actually, the murder rate between 1999 and 2003 went up 6.3%. Get a new calculator? :eek:

Will respond to others later.

Try again. The RATE went down between '99 & '03. The level increased, and so did the population. Try actually reading the UCR's. The numbers are accurate.

I admit the murder level went up between '02 & '03. You know what, it increased in NY city as well. Why is that?
Kecibukia
05-05-2005, 15:10
1.
I already zinged you on the murder rates, now for the rape rates. On the National level (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_03/xl/03tbl01.xls), rape increased 6.5% between 1999 and 2002, before falling 1.9% in 2003.


2.New York City or New York State?

BTW, here is an interesting stat for you:

Even though New York State has the 3rd highest population New York?s 18.6 reported Forced Rapes per 100,000 people, ranked the state 48th highest. Meanwhile, a woman is twice as likely to get raped in Florida, even thoughFlorida residents have had the right to carry concealed weapons since 1987.

Why is it that Florida's Aggravated Assault Rate is the 2nd worst in the country?

Why is it that Florida has the MOST Violent Crime Rate in the US?


3.Please do NOT try to put words in my mouth or try and twist my reasons for gun control. I have never stated that, and I doubt I ever will. I just think that there are far better ways for women to defend themselves without using a gun. Nevermind all the other problems that could arise from gun ownership.


4.Strong economy under Clinton, Brady Bill, and ban of sale of assault weapons.


5.Never did I say that. You really should speak for yourself, and quit putting down untruths.


6.Can you prove that statement? I really don't think so.


7. It is easy to show how horrible gun ownership is....just read the papers, and look at the number of murders, look at the numbers of mass murders using firearms, and realize that 67% of murders are by firearms.

8.Everbody in the US wants to walk around carrying a gun so that they can feel safe? It is like going back to the wild west days? There has to be a better way. There is a better way.

1. You zinged me on nothing. But whatever makes you feel better. I stated the rape RATE went down between '99 & '03. by 2%. The level increased but so did the population.



2. Here we are, back to Fl & NY. You're getting predictable. Why are the top five states CC?


3. What better ways? By carrying the near useless tazer that even police are abandoning? calling the police? Letting the guy rape her like the anti-gunners have advised?

4. Then why did it start happening before that? You've stated " More guns = more crime" . Now you're changing your tune.

5. You're words. More guns equal more crime. There are more guns in the US and more people carrying.,yet crime has been dropping.

6. Once again, NY followed the Nat'l trends even w/ it's laws in place. There were no changes to it's gun laws preceding its drop. The reason the drop was so drastic was Guliani actually started enforcing ALL the laws (like vagrancy) that were already on the books. You've been unable to come up w/ one gun law that was added/changed that preceeded this drop.

7. It's easy to cherry pick numbers that show how "horrible" gun-ownership is. Then you can look at DC, Chicago, LA, MD, etc to show that removing the rights of LAC's doesn't do any better. As for "read the papers"? You mean the papers that need sensational stories and headlines? Alright, I'll start posting reports of people who defended themselves w/ firearms:

Brad Lewis was working in his Nashville, Tenn., store when a suspect broke in through a glass door and demanded money. Rather than comply, Lewis drew a handgun and fired, hitting the would-be robber twice. The wounded man was taken into custody by police and faces burglary and attempted robbery charges. (Nashville Tennessean, Nashville, Tenn., 4/29/05)

8.Oh god, the Wild West arguement. Every anti-gunner has used that one to try and keep LAC's from defending themselves. Guess what, it has happened nowhere. There is a better way than disarming LAC's. Actually enforce the laws that are on the books and curb gangs, illegal immigration, and poverty.
Whispering Legs
05-05-2005, 15:17
Canuck still hasn't explained how guns increased over the last ten years from 200 million to 300 million in the US, and yet violent crime and murder have dropped over that same time period.

Even firearm murders have dropped nationwide over the same period.

While 35 states have passed laws to make it easy to get a concealed weapons permit.

While millions of people took advantage of those laws and now carry.

Canuck, if we increased the ownership of guns by 50 percent, you have asserted that more guns always means more crime and more murder.

Where is the 50 percent increase in firearms murder?

Where is the 50 percent increase in violent crime?

For the US as a whole - an increase in guns.

For the US as a whole - where is the increase in murder and violent crime?
Ooples
05-05-2005, 15:19
I used to live in Los Angeles and I personally dont think they are too harsh. There are too many shootings now days. Especially the freeway shootings in the news.
Whispering Legs
05-05-2005, 15:22
I used to live in Los Angeles and I personally dont think they are too harsh. There are too many shootings now days. Especially the freeway shootings in the news.
There are fewer shootings today than there were ten years ago.

Ten years ago there were only 200 million guns in the US.

Now there are 300 million.

I would be willing to bet that the freeway shootings are not being done by legal gun owners.
Kecibukia
05-05-2005, 15:26
I see this thread still hanging around and I thought I'd like to add the reason why California's gun laws are the way they are in case nobody's brought it up in the last 16 pages.

I remember the incident well, you see it happened not far from where I live. On January 17, 1989 a man with an AK-47 walked onto the Cleveland elementary school campus and opened fire on the children on the playground, changing his 30 round magazine several times. He hit 35 people, killing 5, most of them very young children.

Yeah, California has harsh gun laws.

Because harsh crimes are commited with guns.

No CA gun laws are like they are so as to disarm the public.

What was this persons criminal history? Did he legally own the "AK-47" in the first place? Why didn't a teacher stop him? Because they were disarmed? What crimes have been committed w/ the now banned .50 cals? Why do the police feel they need them? Do you feel only the gov't should be "allowed" to own firearms?
Kecibukia
05-05-2005, 15:29
I used to live in Los Angeles and I personally dont think they are too harsh. There are too many shootings now days. Especially the freeway shootings in the news.

Why is it that 75% of outstanding murder warrants are for Illegal Immigrants? Why does CA have "Sanctuary" Laws preventing the police from arresting known criminals based on their immigration status? How many of these shootings are by LAC's?
Kecibukia
05-05-2005, 15:42
Canuck still hasn't explained how guns increased over the last ten years from 200 million to 300 million in the US, and yet violent crime and murder have dropped over that same time period.

Even firearm murders have dropped nationwide over the same period.

While 35 states have passed laws to make it easy to get a concealed weapons permit.

While millions of people took advantage of those laws and now carry.

Canuck, if we increased the ownership of guns by 50 percent, you have asserted that more guns always means more crime and more murder.

Where is the 50 percent increase in firearms murder?

Where is the 50 percent increase in violent crime?

For the US as a whole - an increase in guns.

For the US as a whole - where is the increase in murder and violent crime?

He is now denying he stated "More Guns = More Crime" and has gone back to NY & FL. Just like I said he would.

"According to CH, crime should have been skyrocketing."

"Never did I say that. You really should speak for yourself, and quit putting down untruths."
Armed Bookworms
05-05-2005, 15:46
is after the enactment of the Brady Bill and the ban on assault weapons.

You've been disproven several times on this point prior to this thread in particular. Why do you keep bringing it up? The crime rates started dropping 2-3 years before those laws were put into effect.
Whispering Legs
05-05-2005, 15:50
You've been disproven several times on this point prior to this thread in particular. Why do you keep bringing it up? The crime rates started dropping 2-3 years before those laws were put into effect.
The Brady Law stimulated an increase in the purchase rate of firearms in general.

The "assault weapons" ban greatly stimulated an otherwise moribund sector of the firearms industry. Several new companies came into being just to provide semi-automatic rifles to fill the incredible demand.

100 million MORE guns owned than before. Many more semi-automatic rifles with large magazines than before.

Still waiting to hear why there wasn't a HUGE increase in crime because of the 100 MILLION MORE GUNS.
Kecibukia
05-05-2005, 15:54
You've been disproven several times on this point prior to this thread in particular. Why do you keep bringing it up? The crime rates started dropping 2-3 years before those laws were put into effect.

He keeps bringing it up even though the BATFE, JAMA, CDC, DOJ, and NAS all disagree w/ him. Hell even the Library of Congress disagrees..:

"A Library of Congress study (1998) concluded, "it is difficult to find a correlation between the existence of strict firearms regulations and a lower incidence of gun-related crimes."