The Gun Control/Guns Site to End Them All! [Archive]

IImperIIum of man

27-04-2005, 22:33

ah Allanea you ruined all my fun man, but thats a whole hell of alot of reading....let me sum up for our, sadly ignorant of thier own history, british compatriots. what a noted scholor and university had to say on the matter

Now professor Malcolm, and Harvard University Press, are back with a book entitled Guns and Violence: The English Experience, which addresses another English connection to American gun rights.

It is a standard observation in American and English debates over gun control that England has strict gun controls and low crime rates, while America has (comparatively) liberal gun laws and higher crime rates. It is usually assumed that there is a cause and effect relationship, with the low crime stemming from the strict gun controls in England, and vice versa in the United States.

This turns out not to be the case. As Malcolm observes, violent crime rates in England, very high in the 14th century, fell more or less steadily for five hundred years, even as ownership of firearms became more common. By the late 19th century, England had gun laws that were far more liberal than are found anywhere in the United States today, yet almost no gun crime, and little violent crime of other sorts. (An 1870 act, which was seldom enforced, required the payment of a small tax for the privilege of carrying, not simply owning, a gun.)

Despite a well-armed populace, Malcolm reports, "statistics record an astonishingly low rate of gun-related violence in the late nineteenth century." How low?

In the course of three years, according to hospital reports, there were only 59 fatalities from handguns in a population of nearly 30 million people. Of these, 19 were accidents, 35 were suicides, and only 3 were homicides 3 an average of one a year.

Despite these rates, which Malcolm is right to call astonishingly low, the British government decided at the turn of the 20th century to begin a program of gun control that would ensure "that nobody except a soldier, sailor, or policeman, should have a pistol at all." The claimed justification was the "enormous" number of handgun injuries.

This effort was initially frustrated by popular resistance, but the first regulatory law in this campaign was passed in 1903, requiring a license for the purchase of a pistol. Such licenses were freely available, though, and citizens remained well enough armed that when (unarmed) London bobbies were chasing a group of armed robbers in 1909, they had no trouble borrowing pistols from passersby, while other armed citizens joined in the chase. Rates of gun violence remained low.

After World War I, the English government got serious. Though fear of crime was (again) claimed as a justification for much more intrusive gun controls despite no increases of any significance, the real motivation -- as historical records make very clear -- was the fear of armed labor unionists, and perhaps even Bolshevik revolution. Though Parliament in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries had seen an armed citizenry as a valuable check on tyranny, by the 20th century the government was determined to disarm the citizenry so as to eliminate any threats to its power.

Because the 1903 act requiring firearm licensing had not resulted in strict limits on gun ownership, the populace was not much threatened by the 1920 Firearms Act. The act met with much less resistance than the early popular resistance to the 1903 law. But the 1920 Firearms Act began the trend toward the near-complete disarmament of the formerly well-armed English citizenry. This disarmament continued by gradual sub silentio changes in administrative policy. For example, in 1938 the government made the unannounced decision that pistol licenses would no longer be issued to individuals who wanted a gun to defend their homes. Additional legislation followed. As Malcolm puts it:

Parliament passed a comprehensive firearms statute that eliminated the right of individuals to be armed. It was the culmination of fifty years of effort by British governments of every political stripe. The announced rationale by the ruling coalition government was, as usual, an increase in armed crime, yet statistics in London show no such increase. . . . Private Cabinet papers make clear that the government was afraid not of crime but of disorder and even revolution, the same fears that had fuelled government control measures in the past.

By 1953, the English were effectively disarmed - and compounding the insult, courts began prosecuting people for previously legal (and even encouraged) acts of violence in defense of persons and property. In the future, only the police were to use violence, and even they tended to be quite lenient toward violent criminals.

and for firearm sites online ful;l of facts and especially important for americans who like thier constitutional rights i prefer-
http://www.guncite.com/

Syniks

27-04-2005, 22:41

ah Allanea you ruined all my fun man, but thats a whole hell of alot of reading....let me sum up for our, sadly ignorant of thier own history, british compatriots. what a noted scholor and university had to say on the matter <snip> and for firearm sites online ful;l of facts and especially important for americans who like thier constitutional rights i prefer-
http://www.guncite.com/

Forget it folks. They won't argue with us. They would rather rant at the inflamatory (if valid) rethoric of "Guncontrol=Tyranny" than answer the hard questions.

Nimzonia

27-04-2005, 23:41

Nimzonia: I will simply link you to
This wonderful study (http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/SlipperySlope.htm)

What is that supposed to prove? Nothing in there actually suggests that the population was 'almost universally armed' before the 1920s. It merely indicates that gun controls were less strict, which I am not denying. No gun control does not indicate an armed population, however. The essay doesn't give any evidence to support the notion that a majority of the population ever owned firearms.

Allanea

28-04-2005, 00:21

What about Joyce Lee Malcolm's book I referenced in the past, "To Keep and Bear Arms: History of an Anglo-American Right" ?

Allanea

28-04-2005, 02:04

b
U
M
P

Nimzonia

28-04-2005, 02:14

What about Joyce Lee Malcolm's book I referenced in the past, "To Keep and Bear Arms: History of an Anglo-American Right" ?

Well, I don't own it, and I have no particular desire to go out of my way to get a copy and read it, because frankly it sounds like a phenomenally dull read, so you're going to have to summarise the points it makes if you want me to consider them.

Allanea

28-04-2005, 02:58

Well, I don't own it, and I have no particular desire to go out of my way to get a copy and read it, because frankly it sounds like a phenomenally dull read, so you're going to have to summarise the points it makes if you want me to consider them.

Suffice it to say Britain had a history of bearin arms right through the 19th century.

Nimzonia

28-04-2005, 03:05

Suffice it to say Britain had a history of bearin arms right through the 19th century.

Well, I'm afraid that's incorrect, and no evidence has yet been presented that suggests otherwise. If you can provide figures pertaining to british private firearm ownership in the 19th century, or the numbers of firearms turned in when this great disarmament occurred, then be my guest. The fact that firearms were freely available does not mean that most people had them.

NERVUN

28-04-2005, 03:35

Well, if we're tossing up stats...

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

Of course it should be pointed out that this is not a gun deaths count. And yes, America's muder rate is going down while Japan's is climbing. But Japan also had a grand total of 54 deaths caused by firearms last year, America's was in the thousands.

But I also understand the 2nd admendment, but I think I have a soultion: Outlaw bullets. The 2nd says arms, doesn't say anything about bullets. You can have your guns, but stop making and selling bullets and hey, they just become large paperweights. And it also answers the NRA mantra of Guns don't kill people, they're right, guns don't, the BULLETS do!

In all seriousness though, while I agree that people should not stripped of their weapons, I also feel that more training has to happen. I propose a licening system, like a driver's licence in order to purchance and use firearms. Like the driving system, you would first get a permit to practice using firearms under the guidance of an already licenced person over 21. You would have to show proof of so many hours of practice before being allowed to test for and gain a full licence (I don't think this needs to be renewed however, lifetime licences work). To purchace arms and amo, you would need to show your licence.

The reason I call for this is that I have no qualms about having people being armed, if they know what the hell they are doing. However, most folks who get a gun for protection seem to either feel their are John Wayne or Clint Eastwood. They panic and shoot loved ones by acident. The fact that we have childrens deaths by acidentle dischange of loaded weapons shows that some gun onwers (not all, I know many good ones which is why I dislike a full on ban) are not taking gun safety seriously.

But, if we make training an safety classes manditory, then proof has been shown that you know what the hell you're doing with a gun. Then I don't see why we cannot lose all other restraints. Conceled carry and other now prohibited actions.

Trigger locks would be nice too, but I would put that under gun safety classes.

Make the licences not cost prohibitive (I'm not sure about other states, but Nevada's licences cost about $30, which I think is a reasonable amount) and go with it.

If you want to have guns, fine, but show me that you are responcible enough not to acidently shoot me, your kids, or yourself first. We licence drivers before we let them on the road, and cars were not delberately designed to kill people, guns were and are.

Kecibukia

28-04-2005, 03:48

But I also understand the 2nd admendment, but I think I have a soultion: Outlaw bullets. The 2nd says arms, doesn't say anything about bullets. You can have your guns, but stop making and selling bullets and hey, they just become large paperweights. And it also answers the NRA mantra of Guns don't kill people, they're right, guns don't, the BULLETS do!

In all seriousness though, while I agree that people should not stripped of their weapons, I also feel that more training has to happen. I propose a licening system, like a driver's licence in order to purchance and use firearms. Like the driving system, you would first get a permit to practice using firearms under the guidance of an already licenced person over 21. You would have to show proof of so many hours of practice before being allowed to test for and gain a full licence (I don't think this needs to be renewed however, lifetime licences work). To purchace arms and amo, you would need to show your licence.

The reason I call for this is that I have no qualms about having people being armed, if they know what the hell they are doing. However, most folks who get a gun for protection seem to either feel their are John Wayne or Clint Eastwood. They panic and shoot loved ones by acident. The fact that we have childrens deaths by acidentle dischange of loaded weapons shows that some gun onwers (not all, I know many good ones which is why I dislike a full on ban) are not taking gun safety seriously.

But, if we make training an safety classes manditory, then proof has been shown that you know what the hell you're doing with a gun. Then I don't see why we cannot lose all other restraints. Conceled carry and other now prohibited actions.

Trigger locks would be nice too, but I would put that under gun safety classes.

Make the licences not cost prohibitive (I'm not sure about other states, but Nevada's licences cost about $30, which I think is a reasonable amount) and go with it.

If you want to have guns, fine, but show me that you are responcible enough not to acidently shoot me, your kids, or yourself first. We licence drivers before we let them on the road, and cars were not delberately designed to kill people, guns were and are.

Unfortunately, it's "common sense" steps like these that have and do lead to complete (if not in name) gun bans. Make classes mandatory, then suddenly the classes are all full, only gov't run classes are allowed and these aren't offered anymore.

It's the same kind of things that happened in DC and Chicago. "common sense" registering of handguns. Then the registering stopped. Long guns in DC are allowed by "police approval" but that approval never seems to happen. Throw in "safe storage" laws requiring safes costing thousands of dollars and requirements that the gun be deactivated and ammo stored separetely, and you effectively disarm the public w/o banning a single gun.

Groups like HCI, VPC, and the MMM change the names of firearms to make them more demonized. "Assault Weapons" used to be called Sporters. They're now trying to rename most rifles as "Intermediate Sniper Rifles" since the .50 cal ban went into place in CA and is now being tried elsewhere.

As for the ammo idea, look at CA again. They're trying to have ammuntion serialized. Criminals won't care as they'll just bring it in from other states. LAC's though won't be able to realistically get any and ammuntion companies will either leave or drop CA as an outlet. Once again, a ban in everything but name.

This is the same state that police are not allowed to arrest criminals based soley on their immigration status. Translation: if a cop sees a known criminal who's an illegal immigrant, he/she cannot arrest him/her based on that alone.

Makes lots of sense, doesn't it?

NERVUN

28-04-2005, 04:27

Unfortunately, it's "common sense" steps like these that have and do lead to complete (if not in name) gun bans. Make classes mandatory, then suddenly the classes are all full, only gov't run classes are allowed and these aren't offered anymore.

It's the same kind of things that happened in DC and Chicago. "common sense" registering of handguns. Then the registering stopped. Long guns in DC are allowed by "police approval" but that approval never seems to happen. Throw in "safe storage" laws requiring safes costing thousands of dollars and requirements that the gun be deactivated and ammo stored separetely, and you effectively disarm the public w/o banning a single gun.

Groups like HCI, VPC, and the MMM change the names of firearms to make them more demonized. "Assault Weapons" used to be called Sporters. They're now trying to rename most rifles as "Intermediate Sniper Rifles" since the .50 cal ban went into place in CA and is now being tried elsewhere.

As for the ammo idea, look at CA again. They're trying to have ammuntion serialized. Criminals won't care as they'll just bring it in from other states. LAC's though won't be able to realistically get any and ammuntion companies will either leave or drop CA as an outlet. Once again, a ban in everything but name.

This is the same state that police are not allowed to arrest criminals based soley on their immigration status. Translation: if a cop sees a known criminal who's an illegal immigrant, he/she cannot arrest him/her based on that alone.

Makes lots of sense, doesn't it?
If classes are funded and included with drivers ed in high school for the non-tchnical aspects... Also, for the required hours I said thay they must be spent with a licenced adult over 21 (same as a driver's permit) this would allow training by a parent/older sibling so on. Though I would like to have some time with licenced instuctors at some point, but not the point where it becomes prohibitive.

I'm not sure where and why you wandered into illiegal immigration, and the bullet banning was satire.

Kecibukia

28-04-2005, 04:54

If classes are funded and included with drivers ed in high school for the non-tchnical aspects... Also, for the required hours I said thay they must be spent with a licenced adult over 21 (same as a driver's permit) this would allow training by a parent/older sibling so on. Though I would like to have some time with licenced instuctors at some point, but not the point where it becomes prohibitive.

I'm not sure where and why you wandered into illiegal immigration, and the bullet banning was satire.

There's the catch that would be used by gun banners(like Chicago Mayor Daley) , IF it's funded. Simple to just cut funding. What do you think the schools will cut first, Drivers ed. or the "evil" gun class? Here's a clue, even in a pro-gun state, AZ has authorized firearms instruction in schools but they aren't able to fund it.

Illegal immigration to show one reason for heavy crime and the inconsistancy of CA laws, disarm the LAC's but don't arrest the criminals.

I understand the satire but it's being tried by the gun banners as well.

Kecibukia

28-04-2005, 04:58

Forget it folks. They won't argue with us. They would rather rant at the inflamatory (if valid) rethoric of "Guncontrol=Tyranny" than answer the hard questions.

I would like them (the Hoplophobes) to explain the need for the 1986 FOPA if gun control is so cunductive to Law Abiding Citizens.

NERVUN

28-04-2005, 05:05

IImperIIum of man

28-04-2005, 05:09

NERVUN
a couple points in addition to what Kecibukia said

.i am a student of japanese culture, have been for over a decade. there is no comparison there. japan is a group oriented society and the personal, public and family shame brought on by "stepping outside the lines" of what society deams acceptable limits thier crime problems. american society is based on far different priciples

.getting a gun saftey licence is backdoor registration and if we learn anything from history it only leads to confiscation

.the largest gun saftey class provider for children and adults is the NRA. although i am not a member, they are a 140+ year old organization that promotes responsible gun ownership and are wrongly maligned by certain segments of society.

.trigger locks DO NOT WORK in fact they may cause a loaded gun to misfire, additionally you remove the whole purpose of having a firearm for self defense if you have to go unlock it. and if the children your so worried about can find the gun(assuming they were not trained how to use and respect it from a young age like me) they can sure as hell find the key. the problem isn't locks it is the modern mentality of putting the gun up and telling the kids it is "taboo" only making them want it more, instead of teaching them proper handling and safety like we did for the past 100+ years in this country.

now a point of contention

most folks who get a gun for protection seem to either feel their are John Wayne or Clint Eastwood. They panic and shoot loved ones by acident. The fact that we have childrens deaths by acidentle dischange of loaded weapons shows that some gun onwers (not all, I know many good ones which is why I dislike a full on ban) are not taking gun safety seriously.

how many gun owners do you know?
since i know alot including myself, NONE of them are so inept they panic or full of bravado they act like dirty harry. i have owned firearms since i was 8 years old and have never fired a shot in anger(i am 33 BTW). in fact we the law abiding gun owners get quite pissed off when we see or hear about somebody being stupid with a firearm, because we know somewhere out there a liberal politition is just going to try and use it to take away more of our rights.

now onto the issue of children and "Accidental discharging a weapon"
this is actually extremely rare and as such it gets plastered all over the news because it is so rare(they gotta get rating to ya know). in fact is one of the rarest ways of all accidents that children injure themselves, yet because of all the coverage people think it is some epidemic.

check the charts from the national safety council
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html

But, if we make training an safety classes manditory, then proof has been shown that you know what the hell you're doing with a gun
the problem with that argument is that gun ownership in america is a constitutionally gauranteed right. one the government is not allowed to infringe upon.
as a matter of comparison-
would you care to have to prove that you need to the right to practice religion in your own way?
how about prove that your competant enough to exercise your freedom of speech?
and who is it that decides i know what the hell i am doing? who's standards do i use? yours? that sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship.

consider this thought on the matter as well:
Finally, means to an end: we don't want stupid people to have guns, so don't let ANYONE have guns.
This is a perfect example of punishing people for what they MIGHT do. We have no perfect way to determine whether or not a person is stupid, hot-tempered, or otherwise a poor candidate for gun ownership. Even if they are a paragon of society when they acquire the gun, they could become different later.
But denying guns to all on this basis is as ridiculous as denying everyone a car because they might drive drunk, or not allowing anyone on planes because they might hijack them. We cannot predict (accurately, at least) criminal behavior...hence, we have no way to use preventative measures on criminals without also using them on law-abiding people. And punishing (or using preventative measures on, pick your euphasism) the innocent as well as the guilty is not justice.

Kecibukia

28-04-2005, 05:12

Make it federal then. My point being that bearing arms is fine and good, but it is time to start showing and taking responcibility for them and the safety of others. Especially children.

I'm still not sure why you are bringing up illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants hardly cause the most crime (unless you count being here illegally). Besides, going after them is idiotic. It does nothing as they'll still keep coming. And God forbid that we actually go after the buisnesses that are employing these folks.

Did you know the last time the (then) INS conducted a major raid and deported hundreds of illegals back to wherever it was they came from, the group that howled the loudest wasn't any advocacy groups but tomatoe growers in California, and orange grove owners in Florida. Because it was in the middle of harvest season and suddenly all these cheap workers these guys were use to employ disapeard. It was amazing how fast the INS was pulled back by the Bush Administration.

But that is neither here nor there.

I agree, firearm education and responsibility should be taught in schools starting at a much younger age than high school.

As for crime:

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_latimes-sanctuary.htm

Police commanders may not want to discuss the illegal-alien crisis, but its magnitude for law enforcement is startling: 95% of all outstanding warrants for homicide in Los Angeles (which total more than 1,200) are for illegal aliens, according to officers. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (which total 17,000) are for illegal aliens. The leadership of the Columbia Li'l Cycos gang, which has used murder and racketeering to control the drug market around MacArthur Park, was about 60% illegal aliens in 2002, says a former assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted them in 2002.

Mauiwowee

28-04-2005, 05:33

OK, my comments, for whatever they are worth:

1. Britain - I lived there from 1968 until 1973 and have been back several times since then and have friends there I keep in touch with - most people I knew when I lived there did not have guns, whatever their right to have them may have been or may not have been, they just didn't have them (in fact, I can only recall 3 families that did -all 3 had shotguns and were farmers that used them for "pest"control - none of them had handguns). I can't comment on the rise of violent crime since the "gun ban" went into effect, though I doubt is has contributed in significant part to the rise in such crime, I think the rise is more likely to be contributed by population pressures and the shift in economies from manufacturing and agricultural to urban and informational that "leave out" all but the most highly skilled and trained.

2. Australia - I only know 3 people from there and they complained bitterly about how the gun ban there had affected them and caused the crime rate to rise. How valid their complaints were, I can't say.

3. United States - a gun ban here would result in a major crime rate increase because of their current prevelance. A strictly enforced ban would, in the long run, result in a decrease of crime and accidental death, but it would take a significant amount of time of strict enforcement before the effect was felt. However, the 2nd Amendment, IMHO, prevents an all out ban on guns by private citizens and protects the right of citizens the own such weapons as are reasonably suited for self-defense.

4. Conclusion - If most people have baseball bats to use a weapons against you, then all you need is a bat to defend yourself. If, however, criminals can access guns, you should have a protected right to have them yourself since the right of self-defense is "natural" and should not be taken away by the gov.

Hope this makes sense.

EDIT: I do find it intriguing that not a single, strict U.S. gun control advocate has commented yet on this thread. I appreciate the link, it has useful info., but I found the poll to be fairly biased and and not at all balanced.

Blogervania

28-04-2005, 05:55

OK, my comments, for whatever they are worth:
(snip)
4. Conclusion - If most people have baseball bats to use a weapons against you, then all you need is a bat to defend yourself.
(snip)
Hope this makes sense.

EDIT: I do find it intriguing that not a single, strict U.S. gun control advocate has commented yet on this thread. I appreciate the link, it has useful info., but I found the poll to be fairly biased and and not at all balanced.

Im curious why you feel that the playing field between attackers and defenders should be leveled? What if it's 3 people with baseball bats? Would you still suggest that the defender use a baseball bat to defend himself/herself with?

Even in a 1 v 1 situation I would want the upper hand... if the intimidation factor works, and the would be attacker flees instead of fights, great. If not, I want to be as sure as I possibly can that I win that contest.

One of my fav stories:
Man stuck in traffic coming home from a target shooting leage has a wouldbe car-jacker open the passenger door. Driver pulls out his pistol he had and points it at his attacker, asks "what do you want?". The response is "to be somewhere else"

Kecibukia

28-04-2005, 06:23

Mauiwowee

28-04-2005, 06:24

Im curious why you feel that the playing field between attackers and defenders should be leveled? What if it's 3 people with baseball bats? Would you still suggest that the defender use a baseball bat to defend himself/herself with?

Even in a 1 v 1 situation I would want the upper hand... if the intimidation factor works, and the would be attacker flees instead of fights, great. If not, I want to be as sure as I possibly can that I win that contest.

One of my fav stories:
Man stuck in traffic coming home from a target shooting leage has a wouldbe car-jacker open the passenger door. Driver pulls out his pistol he had and points it at his attacker, asks "what do you want?". The response is "to be somewhere else"

I guess I didn't make sense, I DO NOT advocate gun control or a "levelized playing" field as you put it. If some guy is coming at me with a bat, I'll happily pull my Glock .40 cal S&W out and blow him away. I was only pointing out that if few people have guns the "need" for guns for self-defense goes down. The less likely it is your assailant might be armed, the less likely it is you need to be armed to adequately defend yourself against that assailant. However, if you want to be armed, whether it is "needed" or not, I fully support your right to be so armed and support the second's amendment's promise that the government will not interfere with that right. Further, a desire to ensure you are better armed than any would be assailant is perfectly reasonable, sensible and logical. I feel the same way. I would want to be better armed as well so my self-defense would be effective.

NERVUN

28-04-2005, 07:22

This is going to be a long one, just to warn you.

.i am a student of japanese culture, have been for over a decade. there is no comparison there. japan is a group oriented society and the personal, public and family shame brought on by "stepping outside the lines" of what society deams acceptable limits thier crime problems. american society is based on far different priciples
This is true, however as I was seeing crime rates in Europe brought up as how gun control could not work in reducing crimes (and that too is an apples to oranges comparison) I thought I would bring up Japan’s, as it neatly punctures BOTH sides of the argument.

.getting a gun saftey licence is backdoor registration and if we learn anything from history it only leads to confiscation
Which history notes this? Registration leads to confiscation? Besides, I never said guns should be registered, only that their users be licensed and show that license when purchasing a firearm. A database check to make sure the license is legit, but not recorded perhaps, but even that seems to be a bit much in regards to privacy.

.the largest gun saftey class provider for children and adults is the NRA. although i am not a member, they are a 140+ year old organization that promotes responsible gun ownership and are wrongly maligned by certain segments of society.
Yes, it is so easy to misinterpret “My cold, dead hands” and suggesting that arming teachers to prevent more school shootings as being something other than a mantra for responsible, safe gun ownership.

.trigger locks DO NOT WORK in fact they may cause a loaded gun to misfire, additionally you remove the whole purpose of having a firearm for self defense if you have to go unlock it. and if the children your so worried about can find the gun(assuming they were not trained how to use and respect it from a young age like me) they can sure as hell find the key. the problem isn't locks it is the modern mentality of putting the gun up and telling the kids it is "taboo" only making them want it more, instead of teaching them proper handling and safety like we did for the past 100+ years in this country.
Um, trigger locks state specifically that you are supposed to unload the gun first. That would be like putting the club on your car, but leaving the keys in the ignition. And if that key is on your key ring, in your pocket, I’d like to know HOW children would find it, or gain access to it. My point being however, that I would rather give up trigger locks (or biometrics, though we are still far to long for workable ones to be included in a gun, well, one that isn’t the size of a Star Wars blaster), for gun owner safety courses that teach parents and children how to treat a weapon.

how many gun owners do you know?
since i know alot including myself, NONE of them are so inept they panic or full of bravado they act like dirty harry. i have owned firearms since i was 8 years old and have never fired a shot in anger(i am 33 BTW). in fact we the law abiding gun owners get quite pissed off when we see or hear about somebody being stupid with a firearm, because we know somewhere out there a liberal politition is just going to try and use it to take away more of our rights.
Well, since I’m from and grew up in rural Nevada, quite a few gun owners (including members of my own family). Most of them are indeed safe, responsible owners. However, I also get to see such things as loaded rifles, on gun racks, in a truck. Have seen, and heard, of people drinking and shooting, at the same time (which seems to be an unofficial past time in parts of Nevada). Discharging firearms within an urban environment (for some reason, people go up into public lands to do target practice, which is fine. But they shoot towards the city and the houses that are only a few hundred yards away, which is not.). Causing a wildfire do to shooting at rocks, in the middle of dry sagebrush, in the summer, after a 6 year drought. Oh, and bunny blasting with a loaded handgun from the back of a dirt bike, without stopping of course, and your friends are somewhere around you, you just don't quite know where.

Tell me, do these actions sound like responsible gun ownership and safety to you?

For the panicking part, that is due to reading articles about how wife, when hearing a noise, grabs the gun her husband keeps, fires, shooting him because he got up to get a drink of milk, or some such. Also, guns tend to make people THINK they are invincible at times; even when they should flee (5 against 1 for example). This, I feel, is due more towards having an overblown notion to what a gun, and the person holding it, can do. Those owners who regularly shoot, who know the proper use of a gun, maintenance and care, damn well know its limits and when to NOT use a gun.

now onto the issue of children and "Accidental discharging a weapon"
this is actually extremely rare and as such it gets plastered all over the news because it is so rare(they gotta get rating to ya know). in fact is one of the rarest ways of all accidents that children injure themselves, yet because of all the coverage people think it is some epidemic.

check the charts from the national safety council
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html
Here are some websites for you as well. They note that death by firearms is the second leading cause of death for children. 10 per day is the rate as of 2002. There’s also an article describing how gun deaths are actually under reported (Please note, the last two sites are organizations, not either government or academic (peer reviewed) sources, so please treat accordingly).
http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/yourchild/guns.htm
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0950/is_4_111/ai_100171608
http://www-medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/yvfacts.htm
http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2000pres/20000724.html
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5209a1.htm
http://www.vpcla.org/factFirearms.htm
http://www.tf.org/tf/violence/firearms/facts/storgun3.shtml

the problem with that argument is that gun ownership in america is a constitutionally gauranteed right. one the government is not allowed to infringe upon.
as a matter of comparison-
would you care to have to prove that you need to the right to practice religion in your own way?
how about prove that your competant enough to exercise your freedom of speech?
and who is it that decides i know what the hell i am doing? who's standards do i use? yours? that sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship.
Except that I cannot kill someone by the way I worship, and my freedom of speech cannot discharge and accidentally kill someone because I left a journal of my writings around.

Also, I never said I would be the one to decide the rules, I am not a gun owner; I have no business deciding such things (and for some reason on this forum, that is a popular argument, to declare dictatorship). If the NRA has such good classes, and I know they do, I believe they should be heavily involved with deciding what constitutes a good gun safety class, and what guidelines should be met. I would also invite professional opinions, namely the police and military; folks who use their weapons everyday, so to speak, in for their opinion on weapons safety. I do not fear police and military handling firearms as I know they have trained for their use. I do not fear the hunter as I know they have to undergo hunter safety classes before getting a hunting license and tags. I fear the person who buys a gun for protection, shoots it maybe once a year, has taken no classes and does not know how it works, and leaves it unlocked and loaded when my child goes over to play. THAT individual should not own a gun; they are not the responsible owner.

consider this thought on the matter as well
Finally, means to an end: we don't want stupid people to have guns, so don't let ANYONE have guns.
This is a perfect example of punishing people for what they MIGHT do. We have no perfect way to determine whether or not a person is stupid, hot-tempered, or otherwise a poor candidate for gun ownership. Even if they are a paragon of society when they acquire the gun, they could become different later.
But denying guns to all on this basis is as ridiculous as denying everyone a car because they might drive drunk, or not allowing anyone on planes because they might hijack them. We cannot predict (accurately, at least) criminal behavior...hence, we have no way to use preventative measures on criminals without also using them on law-abiding people. And punishing (or using preventative measures on, pick your euphasism) the innocent as well as the guilty is not justice.
I would point out, I am not asking for banning guns, only licensing and training. Protect yourself against the bad guys, yes, because they will get a gun no matter what. But show me you are responsible and know what the hell you’re doing. You seem to think I want to take away your firearms, I do not. Gun ownership is guaranteed and for those people who are good and safe owners, I have no problem if you have an armory next to me (though I might wonder why). All I ask for is training so that while in your armory, there is less of a chance that you’ll be cleaning one of your weapons without checking to make sure it is not loaded, it discharging, and the bullet coming into my backyard.

Besides, with your quote here, we do indeed sell cars to all, without noting their criminal intent, but we also require all who would drive to show proof of knowledge that you know how to drive for a driver’s license. That is what I am proposing, showing proof of knowledge before using a firearm.

Isanyonehome

28-04-2005, 08:36

Let me answer that one for the gun banners : by maybe being armed, YOU FORCE the criminal to carry a gun to commit crime.

Its more likely that the criminal will instead

1) commit crimes that involve no interaction with victims(e.g.robbery instead of mugging)

2) Try and find situations where he knows the victim is disarmed(schools, stadiums ect)

3) Consider other ways to make a living beyond commiting crimes.

Whispering Legs

28-04-2005, 14:19

Let me answer that one for the gun banners : by maybe being armed, YOU FORCE the criminal to carry a gun to commit crime.

Have any of these peopla actually stepped back and listened to themselves?

It doesn't work that way where I live.

We've had a radical increase in the number of guns carried concealed and in the open in Fairfax County.

Our violent crime has gone down since the inception of concealed carry.

It's half of the violent crime rate that our neighboring county (otherwise demographically identical) is experiencing - where they can't carry a gun, and most handguns are severely restricted.

We aren't forcing the criminal to carry a gun. Legally, he can't buy one in the first place. What goes through their minds (and I've interviewed them) is the idea that if anyone at all is in a store, there are probably several people with guns present.

You might have a chance at robbing a place if only one person was armed, and you shot it out with the armed civilian. But if there are more, you're dead. That's what's going through their minds. So they leave our jurisdiction and commit violent crimes elsewhere.

Jester III

28-04-2005, 14:43

For those of you who don't like Guns... Take This Quiz (http://www.a-human-right.com/views2.html)

It's as important as the rest of the debate.
It is so very slanted that the result makes you either pro-gun or a complete idiot. Gee, i wonder whose side the quiz-maker is on. :rolleyes: If you consider that important you are already so very much set in you point of view that you cant look through the blatant partisanship of that. A judge would not allow that kind of questioning of a witness, because it is effectively putting words in the mouth of the questioned person.

Men-an-Tol

28-04-2005, 14:49

It is so very slanted that the result makes you either pro-gun or a complete idiot. Gee, i wonder whose side the quiz-maker is on. :rolleyes: If you consider that important you are already so very much set in you point of view that you cant look through the blatant partisanship of that. A judge would not allow that kind of questioning of a witness, because it is effectively putting words in the mouth of the questioned person.
True the quiz is heavily biased. But why not offer some alternative answers to show how it can be less biased?

Allanea

28-04-2005, 14:50

Syniks

28-04-2005, 14:57

This is going to be a long one, just to warn you.
<snip>
Which history notes this? Registration leads to confiscation?
New York City (Sullivan Act) for one, England and Austrailia for 2 more...
Besides, I never said guns should be registered, only that their users be licensed and show that license when purchasing a firearm. A database check to make sure the license is legit, but not recorded perhaps, but even that seems to be a bit much in regards to privacy.
I wrote this article quite some time ago... (during the Clinton Administration, shortly after this theme was voiced by Bill himself.)

License & Registration Please?

Perhaps it's time to call their bluff.
In his state of disunion show President Clinton, that famous duck hunter, once again voiced the anti-gun mantra of "why don't we treat guns like cars..." and this time I think we in the pro gun community should take heed. I mean this only half factiously. Really.

The President (Bill Clinton) has said, "Should people ought to have to register guns like they register their cars? Do I think that? Of Course I do...", and this time proposed a national “drivers license” (picture ID and all) for gun owners.
Hello! We have been given an absolutely splendid opportunity to stand up to the anti-freedom crowd and CALL THEIR BLUFF. We should take them up on their leader's offer (especially since it will only get shot down – by their side no less) and show the world once and for all how meaningless (and un-thought-out) their anti-gun talking points are.

Let's look at their "Guns = Cars" proposal not as another rights infringement, but (potentially) as a liberalization of the already oppressive gun control system and turn it back in their face. How so? Examine what Driver's licensing & vehicle registration truly entails.

Drivers Licenses.
1: Drivers Licenses are Shall Issue permits with universal reciprocity, requiring only a basic knowledge of safe handling and use regulations.
2: Licenses are NOT required for purchase of a vehicle.
3: Licenses are NOT required for off (public) road use, i.e. agricultural use (farms/farm roads), racetracks, private land, USFS/BIA/BLM dirt trails etc.
4: Drivers education / auto safety classes are MANDATORY in many public school districts.

Vehicle Registration:
1: Registration of a motor vehicle is NOT required unless said vehicle is to be USED on public roads. Custom/show cars, racecars, farm equipment, antiques are exempt unless they are to be commonly USED on public roadways. If I am towing a '32 roadster (or ’99 dragster) through town, I cannot be cited for its' lack of registration.
2: Registration of vehicles exceeding "fleet" quantities is not required. I may maintain as many unregistered vehicles on my private property as I desire (provided they do not constitute an "eyesore" or some such other visibly property-devaluing neighborhood gripe.)
3: Registration and extra taxation of High Performance vehicles is NOT required, unless they are to be used on public roads. A 13,000 hp Pratt & Whitney Jet Car (which has no "practical" or "sporting" use) may be owned and kept, unregistered, alongside a VW powered off-road-only dune buggy, and used in non-public spaces with impunity.

Law enforcement of DMV rules:
As we know, there are literally thousands of people out there driving without a license. The only time they get punished is if they are caught violating some other driving law (i.e. causing harm to or endangering another’s person or property). Vehicle registration is somewhat easier to spot, as registration is denoted by a sticker of some sort, visible while the vehicle is in use. (Someone sees you use it without a tag, you get a ticket.)
This is all well understood and simple enough, so, let's apply this exact legal paradigm to guns, on a national level, as the panderer in chief (and others) say they want.

“Gun” Licenses: Gun owners would "get":
1: A genuinely nationally reciprocal, truly "shall-issue" concealed carry license. Now, while everyone hates DoL and the Licensing dept., you can't say they just arbitrarily deny licenses (as some "authorizing agencies" for CCW permits have done.) Only a basic knowledge of safe handling and use regulations would be required.
2: Licenses would NOT be required for purchase of a gun.
3: Licenses would NOT be required for non-urban public land use, i.e. agricultural use (hunting/varmint control), ranges, private land, USFS/BIA/BLM hunting areas etc.
4: True gun safety could be taught in schools, not just anti-gun rhetoric.

“Registration” DMV style… Gun owners would “get”:
1: A Licensing & registration system that is useful (to the government) only after the fact, i.e. after the shooting stops (ignoring for the moment the fact of door-to-door tracking and confiscation – see California and NYC).
Registration of a firearm would NOT be required unless said firearm is to be USED in a public place. Custom/show guns, race-guns, long-arms or side arms, antiques, etc would be exempt unless they are to be commonly USED in public.
2: A DMV style registration system would deny “arsenal” registration rhetoric just as it currently does not apply to off-road “fleets”.
3: Removal of the National Firearms Act (1934) provisions against Class III (high performance/ specialized) weapons. If guns were to be treated as cars, the substantial similarity rules would apply. Just as "High Performance" or specialty vehicles are not restricted, except in their place of use (not on public roads), neither then could the law be justified in restricting the possession of "high performance" (Class III) firearms.

Law Enforcement:
Like Cars, so Guns. It can be truthfully stated that a gun in my possession, regardless of type, in a public place, is NOT being USED, only carried (much like towing a dragster), and therefore it need not be registered nor I licensed. However, should I use that firearm in said public place without License and Registration, I may be subject to penalty upon the assured following inquest … (to be judged by twelve) … perhaps.

Herein we see another potential benefit to "DMV style" gun laws... the principle of reasonable justification and good-Samaritan laws. I may speed, drive an unregistered car, drive without a license, etc in the commission of a life saving act. Judges and juries routinely throw out charges (if charges are even filed) of "rule violation" in such cases. Similar dismissals have obtained (and will continue to obtain) for many “rule violations” of current gun laws. Criminals would obviously receive no such benefit.

Admittedly, this “DMV-ing” argument plays into the Rights vs. Privileges debate, however, it has similarly been argued (with some precedent setting success) that motor vehicle ownership has grown from a privilege to a Right within today's society. (If motor vehicle ownership is now a Right (guaranteed nowhere) then how much more so is gun ownership?)

A dose of Reality:
You and I know that my “best-case” writing of a “motor-vehicle” style of registration & licensing scheme would never be allowed, for precisely the benefits I’ve mentioned. That’s probably a good thing. A Right regulated is a Right denied. (There are NO (non-federal) firearm possession/carry restrictions for the law abiding in Vermont. Theirs is a true right to bear arms.) But it sure would be fun to throw it in the face of the anti-gun establishment and watch them be forced to dump one of their longest standing talking points.

Oh well. Fight the good fight & keep your powder dry.

(Syniks)… student, philosopher, political analyst …and armed.

BTW, that article ran in my local paper.

Yes, it is so easy to misinterpret “My cold, dead hands” and suggesting that arming teachers to prevent more school shootings as being something other than a mantra for responsible, safe gun ownership.
I'm not a big fan of the NRA's current heirarchy & operating proceedure either.

<snip> Also, guns tend to make people THINK they are invincible at times; even when they should flee (5 against 1 for example). This, I feel, is due more towards having an overblown notion to what a gun, and the person holding it, can do. Those owners who regularly shoot, who know the proper use of a gun, maintenance and care, damn well know its limits and when to NOT use a gun.
Agreed, except with your 5-1 example flight is usually impossible (that's why there are 5 of them). Let them decide who gets to eat the first bullet. THEIR decision then is usually to flee.

Here are some websites for you as well. They note that death by firearms is the second leading cause of death for children. 10 per day is the rate as of 2002.
Without looking deeply into their methodology, my first inclanation is to say - BS. The only way that number couls obtain is if they include eveyone under the age of 18 - gangbanger thugs included - as a "child".
There’s also an article describing how gun deaths are actually under reported (Please note, the last two sites are organizations, not either government or academic (peer reviewed) sources, so please treat accordingly).<snip>
Well, since the CDC, HHS, and VPC are avowedly anti-gun, and have been known to use the "sub-18 rule" for defining a "child", I will treat them accordingly - as BS.

<snip>Also, I never said I would be the one to decide the rules, I am not a gun owner; I have no business deciding such things <snip>...
Besides, with your quote here, we do indeed sell cars to all, without noting their criminal intent, but we also require all who would drive to show proof of knowledge that you know how to drive for a driver’s license.
See my article. :p

Kecibukia

28-04-2005, 14:58

It doesn't work that way where I live.

We've had a radical increase in the number of guns carried concealed and in the open in Fairfax County.

Our violent crime has gone down since the inception of concealed carry.

It's half of the violent crime rate that our neighboring county (otherwise demographically identical) is experiencing - where they can't carry a gun, and most handguns are severely restricted.

We aren't forcing the criminal to carry a gun. Legally, he can't buy one in the first place. What goes through their minds (and I've interviewed them) is the idea that if anyone at all is in a store, there are probably several people with guns present.

You might have a chance at robbing a place if only one person was armed, and you shot it out with the armed civilian. But if there are more, you're dead. That's what's going through their minds. So they leave our jurisdiction and commit violent crimes elsewhere.

Yes I know, but I've had so many gun banners use that line on me it's rediculous

Jester III

28-04-2005, 15:03

True the quiz is heavily biased. But why not offer some alternative answers to show how it can be less biased?
It is not my frigging job to do the work of others who would neither pay me nor even accept my suggestions, because it would not fit their agenda. I am in no way involved with that site and thus see no reason to invest my time into this project.

It's a joke quiz.
Its not funny, and my beef is Syniks calling it important in regards to the debate.

Syniks

28-04-2005, 15:08

It is not my frigging job to do the work of others who would neither pay me nor even accept my suggestions, because it would not fit their agenda. I am in no way involved with that site and thus see no reason to invest my time into this project.
Its not funny, and my beef is Syniks calling it important in regards to the debate.
It is important to the debate in that it calls attention to certain dichotomies in hopolophobe thinking. It is not intended to do anything else.

Kellarly

28-04-2005, 15:11

I would have to agree here... The Crown has never believed the commonors were worthy of self defense, or hunting... that was/is only for the Elite. Why else would those gun-totin Usians have to send personal firearms by the boatload to the HomeGuard during WWII? (Only to have them taken up again in the following bans...) Feh.

Just a FYI really, this link (http://www.claytoncramer.com/firear~1.htm) has some good info on why the 1920 Firearms Act was introduced and what the public thought of firearms around the time they were banned.

To summerise, the right to bear arms was seen as a duty by many, and was defended as such by politicians from both sides, but restrictions on the types of guns you could buy were seen as common sense by many.

In essence the Bill was passed due to the fear of armed inssurection of the Bolshevik kind by unemployed ex-service men, who demanded the return of their jobs.

Ankhmet

28-04-2005, 15:11

I was inclined to look favourably on this site, until I came across the above. Yet again, we see the fallacy that the 1997 gun ban has in any way influenced crime rates in the UK. How many times do people have to be told?

Hardly anyone in the UK had a gun before the ban, so the population has not been 'disarmed', and the ban is in no way connected to increases in crime rates.

Gun control would be a bad thing in the USA, because Americans seem to be more prone to being unpleasant to each other and therefore have more need to wield firearms for self defence, but in the UK, it is a relatively good thing, preventing repeats of massacres like Dunblane, comitted by a nutter with legally owned weapons. The only people who have guns in the UK are drug dealers, and they only shoot each other, so nobody cares. Most British people wouldn't buy guns even if there was no gun control.

Yes, Americans do tend to be unpleasant. Not all of them, obviously, but a good few. Gun nuts, for one.

See u Jimmy

28-04-2005, 15:29

Allanea

28-04-2005, 15:30

*notes that the above post has been debunked here six ways from Sunday.

*notes he neither owns any guns nor lives in America[

*notes stereotypes are bad, mmkay?

Kecibukia

28-04-2005, 15:33

Yes, Americans do tend to be unpleasant. Not all of them, obviously, but a good few. Gun nuts, for one.

There's a reasoned response.

See u Jimmy

28-04-2005, 15:37

*notes that the above post has been debunked here six ways from Sunday.

*notes he neither owns any guns nor lives in America[

*notes stereotypes are bad, mmkay?

OK I have read the posts and articles and not found any such comments.
who says I don't own guns?

The stereotypes used are based on the figures on given by the pro gun posters.

Sorry if you don't like the way I read your figures.

Syniks

28-04-2005, 15:39

The argument for guns in the US is that Americans dont actually shoot each other with them, they are used for threatening.
The reason the UK got rid of weapons when no longer needed them, was because we use tools that we have to hand.
Perhaps, but if you do, and you injure the criminal, YOU get nicked, and have to pay the creep reparations. England is WAAAY beyond just being F-d up on guns... the whole criminal injustice system has gone French.

Syniks

28-04-2005, 15:40

*notes that the above post has been debunked here six ways from Sunday.
*notes he neither owns any guns nor lives in America[
*notes stereotypes are bad, mmkay?
Whrr? You lost me with that one.

Kellarly

28-04-2005, 15:43

Perhaps, but if you do, and you injure the criminal, YOU get nicked, and have to pay the creep reparations. England is WAAAY beyond just being F-d up on guns... the whole criminal injustice system has gone French.

Not true, I can't remember how many cases there have been but its only about 10 or so, where some one who's property has been invaded and has taken on the burglar, have been charged.

Theres the Tony Martin case which you have probably heard of, then there was always the guy who knew his 'intruder' was coming, let him in, beat him unconcious, put him in a pit and set fire to him.

If you defend yourself you DON'T have to pay reparations to the criminal, its only say if they try and nick your wallet and you beat them to a pulp will that happen.

Note, i'm not saying the system is perfect by any means, just some myths like that get way over blown.

Syniks

28-04-2005, 15:55

Not true, I can't remember how many cases there have been but its only about 10 or so, where some one who's property has been invaded and has taken on the burglar, have been charged. <snip>
Note, i'm not saying the system is perfect by any means, just some myths like that get way over blown.
Serdica dissagrees with you. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8765265&postcount=166) I haven't been back to England for a long time, so I'll leave that debate up to current residents.

See u Jimmy

28-04-2005, 16:00

Serdica dissagrees with you. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8765265&postcount=166) I haven't been back to England for a long time, so I'll leave that debate up to current residents.

I friend of mine dislocated a guys arm while working security at a race track, the Police said dont worry, and popped it back in.

Kellarly

28-04-2005, 16:00

Serdica dissagrees with you. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8765265&postcount=166) I haven't been back to England for a long time, so I'll leave that debate up to current residents.

So he may, but if you lamp a person trying to mug you with a knife, the police won't go for you as you were not using force beyond which was being used on you. Its that simple. If you really hurt him, and I mean, really badly hurt the robber then maybe, but as long as you do not go over the top, i.e. once you got away don't go back and beat him to a pulp, you will be fine. Serdica was over exaggerating.

Syniks

28-04-2005, 16:18

So he may, but if you lamp a person trying to mug you with a knife, the police won't go for you as you were not using force beyond which was being used on you. Its that simple. If you really hurt him, and I mean, really badly hurt the robber then maybe, but as long as you do not go over the top, i.e. once you got away don't go back and beat him to a pulp, you will be fine. Serdica was over exaggerating.
So you see, this is precicely how self defense with firearms works (is supposed to work).
Most of the time when a firearm is used in a defensive situation (cops, civillians, whomever) there is no actual violence at all. Simply the threat. I DON'T have to "lamp" the robber, because I get to point a shotgun at him. HE gets to decide whether it's loaded or not. (I think I'll lie down/run away now... please don't shoot me.)
If I have to get into a physical altercation with someone (because I can't display the big red "HALT" sign that is a firearm) people are going to get seriously hurt. Might be the bad guy, might be me, probably be both of us. But with a Gun, you can be assured that the only person "hurt", in the majority of cases, will be either no-one or the bad guy.

THAT is why guns are a useful tool. I'd rather not have to bash someone's head in.

Jester III

28-04-2005, 16:29

It is important to the debate in that it calls attention to certain dichotomies in hopolophobe thinking. It is not intended to do anything else.
Applying a hyperbole to a quiz does seem to make these dichotomies more grave than they are, thus the afore mentioned partisanship.
And not all of those in favour of gun-control are afraid of weapons, i for one have a lot of them, from skian dubh through falchion to longbow. Besides, gun-control isnt the same as outright banishment.

Syniks

28-04-2005, 16:37

Applying a hyperbole to a quiz does seem to make these dichotomies more grave than they are, thus the afore mentioned partisanship.
And not all of those in favour of gun-control are afraid of weapons, i for one have a lot of them, from skian dubh through falchion to longbow. Besides, gun-control isnt the same as outright banishment.
That depends entirely on the person/group advocating "control". The majority of "gun-control" groups in the US & UN are advocating outright banishment of civillian firearms ownership, and are using disingenuous arguments to do so. (Witness the ".50 cal Sniper Rifle" legislation... its implementation would ban my sporterized Hawken flint-lock muzzleloader. Note too the wording of "Intermediate Caliber Sniper Rifle" proposals which would, in effect, ban every center-fire hunting rifle made.) Historically, "gun control" has always led to gun prohibition.

Syniks

28-04-2005, 16:43

Applying a hyperbole to a quiz does seem to make these dichotomies more grave than they are, thus the afore mentioned partisanship.
And not all of those in favour of gun-control are afraid of weapons, i for one have a lot of them, from skian dubh through falchion to longbow. Besides, gun-control isnt the same as outright banishment.
BTW, Oleg is passionate about guns because he is a Soviet ExPat.
From the FAQ: (http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/faq.html)

*Are you *that* paranoid?
Yes. I grew up in USSR and have seen what happens when citizens are reduced to the status of subjects. Moreover, proficiency with weapons is as practical a skill as giving CPR or using a fire extinguisher: in an emergency, these skills can save lives.

*You must be a violent freak.
I and other pro-self defense people abhor violence. We do not, however, expect to be left alone merely by appealing to the best nature of others. While most people live and let live, the exceptions to that practice have to be deterred from preying on lawful humans. That applies to equally the freelance criminals and government thugs. We only have the freedom of expression and other Constitutionally-enumerated rights as long as we stay vigilant. ...
I think he has a right to partisanship.

Allanea

28-04-2005, 16:46

And he writes poetry too.

Wake up in the morning, get showered and dressed
Before venturing out, some essentials I grab

A folding knife, a PDA, a pen, some chewing gum
My camera, a wallet, keys, and a holster with a gun

You ask why bother with the gun, in our day and age
When hardly any dangers lurk and life is pretty safe

This life is safe in part because we stand prepared to fight
And thugs, who wish to rape or rob, mind the heavy price

But let me grant that you are right, this land is not at war
We carry guns but don't expect to fight some hostile horde

We'd carry still as badge of rank, of status as freemen
For being able to go armed sets us apart from slaves

Syniks

28-04-2005, 16:57

Bolol

28-04-2005, 17:35

Oleg Volk's Fabulous A-Human-Right.com! (http://www.a-human-right.com/introduction.html)

Click! Click! Click! Click!

</chanting>

...Okay, I'm ALL for the 2nd Ammendment, but something tells me that the site author(s) is somewhat...shall we say, "paranoid"?

Jester III

28-04-2005, 17:37

That depends entirely on the person/group advocating "control". The majority of "gun-control" groups in the US & UN are advocating outright banishment of civillian firearms ownership, and are using disingenuous arguments to do so. (Witness the ".50 cal Sniper Rifle" legislation... its implementation would ban my sporterized Hawken flint-lock muzzleloader. Note too the wording of "Intermediate Caliber Sniper Rifle" proposals which would, in effect, ban every center-fire hunting rifle made.) Historically, "gun control" has always led to gun prohibition.
They have, of course, to take care about the wording, i give you that. But correct me if i am wrong, no one needs an 20-rounds semiautomatic anti-equipment rifle weighing 12 kgs for either self-defense or hunting. Unless you are hunting busses.

Non-Theocrats

28-04-2005, 17:42

If we banned guns in America...The King of England could just waltz into our homes and start pushing us around...do you really want that?????

Jordaxia

28-04-2005, 17:46

I don't know much about gun-control... so I'll put in what I have to say and you can go right ahead and counter it.

I'm not sure entirely where I stand on gun control. Whilst I can see why some people might want to have a gun, I don't. I suppose that people should be allowed to have a gun if they want to. Under 2 conditions. Firstly, people don't need heavy assault weapons for self defense. They can't be concealed practically, and they're somewhat more expensive than a pistol which does the same job. I suppose if people are that eager to use fully automatic weapons, then that is their perrogative. But they should also keep them locked well away to stop anyone that shouldn't have access to them. Secondly, I also don't want anyone forcing a gun onto me. I've heard a few people who I think are totally nuts not advocating just a pro-gun stance... but a mandatory gun stance. Thanks, but no thanks. I'll admit these people are in the utter minority, but I thought I'd state that anyway... I don't know where that puts me. I'm not pro-gun. I hate the things. I just don't think that things should be banned, because criminals can inevitably get their hands on them if they want them, so it solves nothing.

Allanea

28-04-2005, 18:04

Jordaxia

28-04-2005, 18:10

I would note that an assault weapon is not a fully-automatic weapon, but a civilian version of the same. While not exactly a concealable arm, they make perfect home defense weapons to compete with the shotgun in that niche.

I disagree with that. Why is the ability to put 30 rounds into someones skull at high speed any different from putting 1 round into their head? In home defense, I doubt the range would be great enough for any major inaccuracy to take place. And if I make a statement which I believe is true, a soldier is trained to fire in bursts. A civilians initial instinct is to fire until bullets stop coming out, and it takes a lot of effort to develop this in a stressful situation. I'd rather not risk a full clip of ammunition being sprayed, especially in a ground floor room with windows, etc.

Frangland

28-04-2005, 18:27

what a great site

Spizzo

28-04-2005, 18:30

They have, of course, to take care about the wording, i give you that. But correct me if i am wrong, no one needs an 20-rounds semiautomatic anti-equipment rifle weighing 12 kgs for either self-defense or hunting. Unless you are hunting busses.
Yes, just like no one "needs" a 4-ton pickup truck for the farm or driving around town. No one "needs" $400,000 a year. No one "needs" a 3Ghz computer. But given the economy and state of the world we live in; someone, somewhere is willing to pay good money for these things we "don't need."

Frangland

28-04-2005, 18:32

They have, of course, to take care about the wording, i give you that. But correct me if i am wrong, no one needs an 20-rounds semiautomatic anti-equipment rifle weighing 12 kgs for either self-defense or hunting. Unless you are hunting busses.

or if you're walking down some urban street and are attacked by a gang

or if you live in the woods and are attacked by the Posse Commatatus (sp?)

hehe

Greater Yubari

28-04-2005, 18:46

Interesting...

First of, this http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_godbless2.jpg is pretty scary, simply because that indicates the the USA are THE capital of criminal activity of the world. It's really scary, amazingly you don't need such things in Europe. Surely we do have crime, but I don't need an APC to go shopping. If this is really true, then I'd rather fly to Sao Paulo (basically the murder capital of the world) or Capetown (record crime rate) than the US.

Secondly his argumentation has one historical error.

On the part about Martial Arts he states

The Japanese Samurai were quick to adopt the use of firearms after they were introduced by the Portuguese in feudal Japan. Though the Samurai never abandoned the use of the sword, they saw the value that the firearm presented. More importantly for self-defense, the firearm, unlike the sword or my martial arts training, may be used to subdue an aggressor without the need to harm him or her in any way. This fact is well documented by Dr. Lott in his research that emphasizes the numerous cases of the defensive use of a firearm without a shot being fired.

The use of firearms by the samurai has nothing to do with self defense. The firearm was introduced because of one single reason. The weapon itself was inferior to the Japanese longbow, the yumi, it was less reliable and worthless in rain. But the big advantage of it was, that, training a samurai in the use of the yumi took several years. With a musket one could even train ashigaru within a few weeks.

Firearms became a weapon on Japanese battlefields simply because it was easier to train large groups of soldiers in a short time.

Also, the Iga shinobi didn't use ninja-to, those weapons were not around during the times of their golden age in the Sengoku Jidai (there's not one single ninja-to in the Iga Ryu museum). Instead they used normal katana. The ninja-to we know today is an invention of the early 19th century (just like the black ninja suit). Also he seems to forget that the ninja from Iga served Tokugawa Ieyasu and had no need to really protect themselves from possible abuses by samurai (defense against a samurai would have meant their certain death anyway, with ninpo taijutsu or without it, there's nothing they could have done against a military campaign by their local lord to subdue them). Before Ieyasu Iga shinobi existed, but at that time they're not a real force in history. They had their golden times with the Sengoku period, and once Tokugawa was shogun they became unimportant again, they joined the new feudal secret police or became bodyguards. I still say the last shinobi died with Devil Hanzo.

And well, I still doubt that just having a gun will stop someone from attacking me. You have to draw it, point it at the attacker, take the safety off, etc. That takes time and you need to have the nerves for doing it. Also, I think if you draw your gun you must be ready to use it. I and the gf of my best friend always carry a tanto, and I know, if I draw it I have to be ready to use it. Which means I have to be ready to kill someone if necessary.

The funny thing though is... all this crying by those wannabe pacifists about this new law is a bit strange for me. If I recall the laws in Austria correctly, then the use of force with a handgun (or any other weapon) as a mean of self defence has never been an issue. It's even in the criminal code that you're authorized to take whatever means necessary to defend yourself, no "you have to try to flee first" there. Around here, if someone attacks you with a weapon and you blast him, tough shit for him.

Americans, you're a bit late with that ;)

Isanyonehome

28-04-2005, 19:22

I disagree with that. Why is the ability to put 30 rounds into someones skull at high speed any different from putting 1 round into their head? In home defense, I doubt the range would be great enough for any major inaccuracy to take place. And if I make a statement which I believe is true, a soldier is trained to fire in bursts. A civilians initial instinct is to fire until bullets stop coming out, and it takes a lot of effort to develop this in a stressful situation. I'd rather not risk a full clip of ammunition being sprayed, especially in a ground floor room with windows, etc.

Can you not read properly? Which part of "not fully automatic" do you not understand?

No burst fire. No select fire. No controlled bursts. No fire until bullets stop coming out. No spraying.

1 trigger pull, 1 bullet. No exceptions.

I am so sick of ignorant anti gunners saying this about semi autos. Perhaps if they took the time to learn a few things about guns they wouldnt be so scared of them.

Jordaxia

28-04-2005, 19:30

Can you not read properly? Which part of "not fully automatic" do you not understand?

No burst fire. No select fire. No controlled bursts. No fire until bullets stop coming out. No spraying.

1 trigger pull, 1 bullet. No exceptions.

I am so sick of ignorant anti gunners saying this about semi autos. Perhaps if they took the time to learn a few things about guns they wouldnt be so scared of them.

Pistols are not fully automatic, but I've seen pieces of video footage of civilians quickly emptying their clips in panic. Also, I'm not anti gun. I just don't want one. I accidently glanced over that as I read the rest of the post, but it hardly makes any difference. Please don't jump to conclusions, especially when you're pulling me up for errors within my post.

Syniks

28-04-2005, 20:04

Pistols are not fully automatic, but I've seen pieces of video footage of civilians quickly emptying their clips in panic. Also, I'm not anti gun. I just don't want one. I accidently glanced over that as I read the rest of the post, but it hardly makes any difference. Please don't jump to conclusions, especially when you're pulling me up for errors within my post.
Cops use "spray & pray" every bit as much, if not more than civillians. Taken also with the miserable fact that you are far more likely to survive the inevetable post-self-defense legal entanglements if you "in a panic" empty the gun into the perp than if you use "cold, asassian-like shooting skills" (i.e. a nice trained double-tap) it's supprising it doesn't happen MORE.

If you (or anyone) doesn't want a gun, that's fine with me. I wouldn't want you to have one either. But I have carried a handgun both professionally and as a "civillian" 24/7 (with maybe 30days exception, total) for the past 15 years. My guns have not been used to harm anyone, but HAVE been used to prevent harm to myself and others - in each case with no injuries to myself or the criminal. I can guarantee that in at least one of the 3 cases, had there been no gun involved at least one of us would have been hospitalized - or dead. (Tire iron vs. Gun = Gun wins. Tire Iron vs. my head = death).

IImperIIum of man

28-04-2005, 21:32

such a fun topic, now to begin:

NERVUN
I never said guns should be registered, only that their users be licensed
and what is licencing exactly but a registry of all persons legally allowed to drive a car or in your argument purchase a firearm. notice it is a REGISTRY it is the same thing, even if you call it a licence.

suggesting that arming teachers to prevent more school shootings as being something other than a mantra for responsible, safe gun ownership.
then conider this, in a recent school shooting 2 students held the shooter, while waiting for police to arrive. the local media only said they restrained(one went to far as to stretch the truth and say they tackled) the shooter. the truth of the matter is that these 2 student went to thier cars and retrieved thier own handguns and held the shooter at gunpoint. it isn't any less irresponsible than having trained (as the teachers would be required to be as well) armed security

Um, trigger locks state specifically that you are supposed to unload the gun first
which negates the purpose for having said firearm especially for self defence.

For the panicking part, that is due to reading articles about how wife, when hearing a noise, grabs the gun her husband keeps, fires, shooting him because he got up to get a drink of milk, or some such.
funny i don't see that happening, granted accidents do occur but not on any epidemic level.

Here are some websites for you as well. They note that death by firearms is the second leading cause of death for children.
actually thats not what the CDC site says at all it says and i quote

"HOMICIDE is the second leading cause of death among young people ages 10 to 24 overall."

NOT death by firearms, which fits well within the government statistics used in my link.

Except that I cannot kill someone by the way I worship, and my freedom of speech cannot discharge and accidentally kill someone because I left a journal of my writings around.
ROFLOL
are you kidding me
ever heard of the spanish inquisition? lenin? the phrase "the pen is mightier than the sword"?
religious practices and something as simple as speach can cause ireconsirable harm. why do you think propaganda works so well?

Syniks

So you see, this is precicely how self defense with firearms works (is supposed to work).
Most of the time when a firearm is used in a defensive situation (cops, civillians, whomever) there is no actual violence at all. Simply the threat. I DON'T have to "lamp" the robber, because I get to point a shotgun at him. HE gets to decide whether it's loaded or not. (I think I'll lie down/run away now... please don't shoot me.)
If I have to get into a physical altercation with someone (because I can't display the big red "HALT" sign that is a firearm) people are going to get seriously hurt. Might be the bad guy, might be me, probably be both of us. But with a Gun, you can be assured that the only person "hurt", in the majority of cases, will be either no-one or the bad guy.
actually it fits the facts VERY well (and also why it is almost never in the media).
According to Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University, there are 645,000 defensive uses of handguns per year in the U.S. Thirty-eight percent of convicted felons reported having been SCARED OFF, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim. In robberies involving personal contact with the offender, 25 percent of victims who remained completely passive were injured anyway. Of those robbery victims wielding guns, only 17 percent were injured. Of those using weapons other than guns and knives, 22 percent were injured.
always rememebr than criminals are opportunists, if it is to dangerous or to difficult they will go to where it s not.

Jester III

They have, of course, to take care about the wording, i give you that. But correct me if i am wrong, no one needs an 20-rounds semiautomatic anti-equipment rifle weighing 12 kgs for either self-defense or hunting. Unless you are hunting busses.
pointless argument:
does one need cars that go over 70 MPH
does one need high performance cars life porches and lambroghini's?
does one need a 50" tv?
etc..
could i go out and by a cheep $200 (or less) hand gun? most certainly, but i would rather have the quality of one produced by heckler and kotch, not to mention i like the way it looks.
if i have the resources(which i currently do not) to purchase an $8,000 barret light .50 sniper rifle thats fires bullets that cost $2.00 each. how is that any different than somebody who decides to go out and buy any other high end item simply because they want it, like it, or trust it's quality. it is the nature of a consumer society with freedom of choice.
owning a gun does not require one to have a need.

Isanyonehome

And if I make a statement which I believe is true, a soldier is trained to fire in bursts. A civilians initial instinct is to fire until bullets stop coming out, and it takes a lot of effort to develop this in a stressful situation. I'd rather not risk a full clip of ammunition being sprayed, especially in a ground floor room with windows, etc.
the M-16A2 used by the current US military as the standard combat rifle has a single shot mode (like the civilian AR 15 version) and a 3 round burst mode. in burst mode you must fire all 3 rounds in order for it to reset, it is actually faster to empty the magazine in single shot mode.
it should also be noted that by definition machineguns are BELT fed such as the M60E light machinegun and the 50 cal. heavy machinegun.
also a soldier is trained to HIT HIS TARGET both in sigle shot and burst mode. the mode is irrelevant, the goal is.
and i would rather risk the option of having more ammunition just in case i need it. a gun without ammo is a papaer weight.

NERVUN

29-04-2005, 01:13

*One very LOOOOOOOONG snip*
Um... ano... your article... THAT'S WHAT I'M SUGGESTING!
Show me you're a safe owner and I don't care what you cary or where you cary it.

As for you calls of bull shit, well, the CDC and HHS deal with raw numbers and their methods are transparent. In research, they are considered reliable, no matter what you may personally feel. The VPF is an org and I labled it as such because I don't trust their numbers either.

Jester III

29-04-2005, 09:43

pointless argument:
does one need cars that go over 70 MPH
does one need high performance cars life porches and lambroghini's?
does one need a 50" tv?
etc..
could i go out and by a cheep $200 (or less) hand gun? most certainly, but i would rather have the quality of one produced by heckler and kotch, not to mention i like the way it looks.
if i have the resources(which i currently do not) to purchase an $8,000 barret light .50 sniper rifle thats fires bullets that cost $2.00 each. how is that any different than somebody who decides to go out and buy any other high end item simply because they want it, like it, or trust it's quality. it is the nature of a consumer society with freedom of choice.
owning a gun does not require one to have a need.

Oh, i do need 50 ounces of cocaine, a fully functional Abrahams MBT and a stack of beast porn magazines. Just because i enjoy all those things. Hey, what is your right to take those away from me? Its not like i do any harm with that, i just want quality entertainment and home security at its best.
See, there always is a line drawn and i while i can fully understand the self-defense and hunting train of argument, but people who own a unregistred gun that has military applications only make me nervous in the extreme. And i would not feel safer in the knowledge that i can carry a gun as well.
A lot of high-end consumer goods arent made to destroy life, health or property, thats why i dont give a fuck if someone spends lots of cash for an overprized car or tv or else.

Syniks

29-04-2005, 14:38

Um... ano... your article... THAT'S WHAT I'M SUGGESTING!
Show me you're a safe owner and I don't care what you cary or where you cary it.
I know that is what you are suggesting. I was simply demonstrating WHY it would never be allowed - because it would make guns EASIER to own... precicely the opposite result wanted by the proponents of registration

As for you calls of bull shit, well, the CDC and HHS deal with raw numbers and their methods are transparent. In research, they are considered reliable, no matter what you may personally feel. The VPF is an org and I labled it as such because I don't trust their numbers either.
As long as the CDC and HHS define a "child" as "any person under the age of 18", then go to use that definition to support their premise that "X 'children' die from gun-related injuries" then I still claim BS. It is an abuse of statistics and the word "child" to include the actions of criminal street gangs. More CHILDREN (the "aw, ain't they precious" kind) die from drowning each year than "gun incidents". Criminal Teens skew the numbers - and they know it.

Syniks

29-04-2005, 14:47

Oh, i do need 50 ounces of cocaine, a fully functional Abrahams MBT and a stack of beast porn magazines. Just because i enjoy all those things. Hey, what is your right to take those away from me? Its not like i do any harm with that, i just want quality entertainment and home security at its best.
See, there always is a line drawn and i while i can fully understand the self-defense and hunting train of argument, but people who own a unregistred gun that has military applications only make me nervous in the extreme. And i would not feel safer in the knowledge that i can carry a gun as well.
A lot of high-end consumer goods arent made to destroy life, health or property, thats why i dont give a fuck if someone spends lots of cash for an overprized car or tv or else.
In the US, if you own a true "military" gun, i.e. one with select-fire (auto or burst) capabilities, it MUST be registered. It is called a Class III firearm and has been illegal to own without a special license since the 1930s.

A "military lookalike" is mechanically no different than any other non-military simi-automatic firearm, and can do no more damage. Wh should it be banned or registered?

Oh, there is also a competitive sport of long-range steel shillouette shooting that virtually demands the use of a rifle using the .50BMG cartridge. Most of those rifles are in the 25lb range and have bolt actions. A few are "semi automatics" but, at that weight and well over $2000 each could hardly be called useful (or available) to a criminal. The people who buy those are the same kind of people who buy $100,000 cars. They are not likely to use them frivolously.

Whispering Legs

29-04-2005, 14:52

In the US, if you own a true "military" gun, i.e. one with select-fire (auto or burst) capabilities, it MUST be registered. It is called a Class III firearm and has been illegal to own without a special license since the 1930s.

A "military lookalike" is mechanically no different than any other non-military simi-automatic firearm, and can do no more damage. Wh should it be banned or registered?

Oh, there is also a competitive sport of long-range steel shillouette shooting that virtually demands the use of a rifle using the .50BMG cartridge. Most of those rifles are in the 25lb range and have bolt actions. A few are "semi automatics" but, at that weight and well over $2000 each could hardly be called useful (or available) to a criminal. The people who buy those are the same kind of people who buy $100,000 cars. They are not likely to use them frivolously.

Class III firearms are under the National Firearms Act (NFA). Since 1934, when the NFA started, NO registered machinegun and NO registered silencer has ever been used in the commission of a crime.

That's NONE, for those of you who find English difficult to understand. ZERO.

Any reference you see to a "machinegun" or a "silencer" being used in a crime in the US involves either an illegally modified weapon, a homebuilt weapon (anyone can build a Sten), or a smuggled weapon. Oh, and hundreds of machineguns have been stolen from police and FBI over the years and used in crimes - but not a single NFA Class III weapon.

Jester III

29-04-2005, 16:03

Class III firearms are under the National Firearms Act (NFA). Since 1934, when the NFA started, NO registered machinegun and NO registered silencer has ever been used in the commission of a crime.
That can mean, among other things, that criminals dont like to use registered weapons. Which is why i think registering any and all guns is detrimental to their use in criminal pursuits. The good, law-abiding citizens should have no problem with that, right?

Whispering Legs

29-04-2005, 16:14

That can mean, among other things, that criminals dont like to use registered weapons. Which is why i think registering any and all guns is detrimental to their use in criminal pursuits. The good, law-abiding citizens should have no problem with that, right?

Point of fact: Machineguns are still used in crimes - just none of the registered ones.

Registering guns amongst law abiding citizens doesn't change anything. It just means that the people who are willing to become collectors of machineguns are far more responsible than the FBI - no collector has lost one, but the FBI routinely loses them to criminals.

The majority of violent crime in the US (76 percent) is committed without a weapon of any kind (Department of Justice stats). Of the remaining 24 percent, that includes knives, clubs, etc., -- and firearms. Of the firearms used in these crimes, 84 percent were not legally purchased (i.e., they would never have been registered).

How is registering guns going to reduce violent crime? Eh? Or are you simply drawing up lists so that in the near future, you can force people to hand them in?

Jester III

29-04-2005, 16:23

In the US, if you own a true "military" gun, i.e. one with select-fire (auto or burst) capabilities, it MUST be registered. It is called a Class III firearm and has been illegal to own without a special license since the 1930s.
Ok, that is a question of definition. I call an anti-equipment rifle that can be used to snipe over a distance of nearly 2 kilometers a device with military applications, the same i would call a LAW, regardless of fire-rate. Thus i concede that by letter of law you are right, but maybe not by spirit.

Syniks

29-04-2005, 16:34

Point of fact: Machineguns are still used in crimes - just none of the registered ones.
Which, BTW also means that NO registered Class III weapon has been stolen & subsequently used in a crime either.

All criminally-used "machineguns" have come from:
(A) Theft from Government (FBI/Police/Military) or
(B) Illegal, offshore gunrunning or
(C) Made at Home

The Law abiding don't commit crimes. By definition.

Syniks

29-04-2005, 16:38

Ok, that is a question of definition. I call an anti-equipment rifle that can be used to snipe over a distance of nearly 2 kilometers a device with military applications, the same i would call a LAW, regardless of fire-rate. Thus i concede that by letter of law you are right, but maybe not by spirit.
That "spirit" of which you speak is how the international anti-small-arms types are attempting to classify all hunting rifles as "Intermediate Caliber Sniper Weapons", because, horror of horrors, really good hunting rifles are accurate over long ranges and have been used, with very little modification, by governments as "sniper" rifles... thus they are military weapons with no civilian use and should be banned... Right?

Jester III

29-04-2005, 16:39

Point of fact: Machineguns are still used in crimes - just none of the registered ones.

Registering guns amongst law abiding citizens doesn't change anything. It just means that the people who are willing to become collectors of machineguns are far more responsible than the FBI - no collector has lost one, but the FBI routinely loses them to criminals.

The majority of violent crime in the US (76 percent) is committed without a weapon of any kind (Department of Justice stats). Of the remaining 24 percent, that includes knives, clubs, etc., -- and firearms. Of the firearms used in these crimes, 84 percent were not legally purchased (i.e., they would never have been registered).

How is registering guns going to reduce violent crime? Eh? Or are you simply drawing up lists so that in the near future, you can force people to hand them in?
Yes, i want the Gestapo to take away your guns, right. Call your shrink if you believe that. :rolleyes:

How do the guns come into the market? I dont see how the criminals just steal them directly from the manufacturers or them all being smuggled in from overseas. No, people sell their guns, without regards to the criminal history of the buyer.
A) How should they know if the buyer is still allowed to own a gun? There are no licenses that could be taken away from ex-convicts that show the buyer is legitimate.
B) Why should he care? Whatever the buyer does with the gun does in no way fall back on him.
C) The seller does gun-trafficking for a living, because it pays good money and it is made so easy for him.

Now consider licenses for gun-ownership that can be revoked in certain cases, like a conviction, and mandatory registration for each gun. It wont cut off the market for criminals completely, but add a few hurdles and raise prices so that not every wannabe mugger can get some heat for 50$ within a hour or two.

Syniks

29-04-2005, 16:48

Yes, i want the Gestapo to take away your guns, right. Call your shrink if you believe that. :rolleyes:

How do the guns come into the market? I dont see how the criminals just steal them directly from the manufacturers or them all being smuggled in from overseas.
Ummm, no. Back during the Clinton administration a chineese (COSCO) ship was found to be smuggling automatic SKS rifles into LA... They sure as hell weren't going to be sold at Joe's Gun and Handgrenade Emporium.

No, people sell their guns, without regards to the criminal history of the buyer.
A) How should they know if the buyer is still allowed to own a gun? There are no licenses that could be taken away from ex-convicts that show the buyer is legitimate.
B) Why should he care? Whatever the buyer does with the gun does in no way fall back on him.
C) The seller does gun-trafficking for a living, because it pays good money and it is made so easy for him.

A&C are distinct problems. (A) could be solved by Registering CRIMINALS, but the pro-criminal croud will have none of that.

As for (B) That is a truisim that applies to ANY purchase. I don't care what the guy does with the car he bought from me. How is it my fault if he drives through a schoolyard?

Now consider licenses for gun-ownership that can be revoked in certain cases, like a conviction, and mandatory registration for each gun. It wont cut off the market for criminals completely, but add a few hurdles and raise prices so that not every wannabe mugger can get some heat for 50$ within a hour or two.
Ummm... it is already a FEDERAL FELONY for a convicted criminal to HOLD a firearm, much less buy one.

How can I make that any more illegal?

Jester III

29-04-2005, 16:49

That "spirit" of which you speak is how the international anti-small-arms types are attempting to classify all hunting rifles as "Intermediate Caliber Sniper Weapons", because, horror of horrors, really good hunting rifles are accurate over long ranges and have been used, with very little modification, by governments as "sniper" rifles... thus they are military weapons with no civilian use and should be banned... Right?
Dont be obnoxious. There is a difference between a rifle being able to bring down a deer or bear over the distance of a few hundred meters with a good shot and a gun using a bullet with such force that it punches a hole through the game that ruins the pelt, kills the second one behind it and gets stuck deeply in a tree hundred meters from that. I simply fail to see the civil applications of .50 machinegun rounds, that may as well be used to take out lightly armoured vehicles. I said it before and say it again, the wording of such laws should be chosen carefull and not broad-sweeping.

Jester III

29-04-2005, 17:06

Back during the Clinton administration a chineese (COSCO) ship was found to be smuggling automatic SKS rifles into LA.

I dont see how the criminals just steal them directly from the manufacturers or them all being smuggled in from overseas.

(A) could be solved by Registering CRIMINALS, but the pro-criminal croud will have none of that.

Why give every citizen access to the records of every criminal in the whole US instead of issuing a hard-to-falsify document and simply take that away from criminals? Or would you like them to be branded on their fore-head? What do you as a law-abiding citizen fear from such a document?

As for (B) That is a truisim that applies to ANY purchase. I don't care what the guy does with the car he bought from me. How is it my fault if he drives through a schoolyard?

Bla, bla, bla. Dont try that crap on me, you know the difference between a gun and a car, right? Of course i could kill with a car, or a monitor or a chair etc., but guns are certainly more convenient for, say, robbing people. Having the police possibly knock on your door because your gun was used in a crime will have you thinking twice about whom to sell a gun registered on you.

How can I make that any more illegal?
It isnt about making it illegal, but about installing control mechanisms to help finding a/o obstructing criminals.

Syniks

29-04-2005, 17:23

Dont be obnoxious. There is a difference between a rifle being able to bring down a deer or bear over the distance of a few hundred meters with a good shot and a gun using a bullet with such force that it punches a hole through the game that ruins the pelt, kills the second one behind it and gets stuck deeply in a tree hundred meters from that. I simply fail to see the civil applications of .50 machinegun rounds, that may as well be used to take out lightly armoured vehicles. I said it before and say it again, the wording of such laws should be chosen carefull and not broad-sweeping.
No, I am not being obnoxious. The people choosing the wording of these attemptd laws are very serious in their wording. The .50 cal restrictions thar are being proposed would make MUZZLELOADERS illegal. The "Intermediate Caliber Sniper Rifle" legislation is a FACT - and has been proposed by the likes or Rebecca Peters - architect of the confiscatory gun ban in Australia. She came to the US at the behest of George Soros to promote his vision of a worldwide ban on private ownership of all small arms.

In an Oct. 23, 2002, appearance on "CNN International Interview," Peters once and for all times set the parameters for a "a sniper rifle ban."

In response to questions about the Washington, D.C. "sniper," Peters, who now heads the most powerful United Nation's-connected global gun ban group, said:

"… in order to prevent things like this, we need to have fewer guns, but the guns that are in societies need to be under better control.

"And that means that civilians should not have sniper rifles, or rifles that they can kill someone at 100 meters distance, for example." (Emphasis added.)

Got that? To the gun-banners, a sniper rifle is one that can kill at 100 meters. When Peters and her global allies talk about "gun control," they really mean that our guns, yours and mine, will be under their control-all the way from our gun cabinets to the smelter.

In response/conjunction, anti gun Legislators are pressing legislation that would label all self-loading rifles and shotguns as "assault weapons" by declaring them to be unsuitable for "sporting purposes."

Their definition? "… A semi-automatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the attorney general."

That's right. The Lautenberg-Kerry bill, S. 1431, would give the attorney general (remember Janet Reno?) the power to determine which shotguns and rifles are suitable for sporting purposes.

But there's a catch.

If Lautenberg-Kerry becomes law, it declares a "presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes …" (Emphasis added.)

Let's see. A firearm procured by the military or law enforcement … . If we are talking just semi-auto shotguns, try that Browning A-5. The Army used a trench gun version. And they used the A-5 clone, the Remington 11.

Think of any semi-auto shotgun and I guarantee you will find military or law enforcement procurement.

How about high-grade Franchis and Berettas? They are covered under the ban as well. And if the exact model has not been "procured," Lautenberg and Kerry cover that base as well, saying that "a frame or receiver that is identical to, or based substantially on the frame or receiver" of a banned gun is the same as the banned gun. With all of this, literally every semi-auto shotgun would come under Lautenberg's proposed expansion of the 1994 "assault weapons" ban.

As for saying "nobody needs a 'sniper rifle,'" you may have thought you were talking about one of those exotic $7,000 .50-calibers. But those who would ban those guns are planning to go far beyond that. They are already talking about big game rifles like-that tack-driving Model 700.

The Violence Policy Center, the political sorcerers that conjured up the phony issue of "sniper rifles" in the first place, has a step-at-a-time strategy.

For now, they are pressing hard for bans on .50-caliber firearms. In some states, like New York, legislation resulting from the VPC and media hype has even included shotguns. Think about that. If they ban all guns .50 caliber and above, that takes in 20-gauge through 10-gauge shotguns, all of which exceed a half-inch in diameter. If such insanity ever became law, a fine 12-gauge Parker VHE would be a "sniper rifle." But the media doesn't care. And Frank Lautenberg and John Kerry don't care about the truth.

In a bizarre "study" titled "One Shot, One Kill," which is the basis of much of what the "gun control" media and gun-ban legislators are pressing for, the VPC declares:

"For at least the last two decades, the firearms industry has introduced progressively more lethal weapons for sale in the United States. Today, another deadly innovation, perhaps more lethal than any of its predecessors, is gaining prominence in the civilian marketplace: the military sniper rifle." (Emphasis added.)

Military sniper rifle? Take a look at a hunting rifle. It looks exactly like, and functions exactly like, the Army's M-24, or the Marine Corps' M-40. Those are Remington 700 bolt actions just like yours-with precisely the same custom features you had gunsmithed into your hunting rifle.

For now, the Violence Policy Center and its allies in the media and in government are focused on successfully taking a first step toward a confiscatory national ban-prohibiting the big .50 calibers, which they call "heavies" or "heavy sniper rifles." If you judge from what they did in California-where the legislature passed a ban in August-it matters not a whit what kind of action a rifle has. Most of the guns that they would ban are bolt actions, representing the same simple 1880's technology that all bolt guns are based on.

But here's what they are telling the non-gun-owning public:

"Sniper rifles are radically different from standard hunting rifles." The truth is, most are exactly the same-the big 50's are just bigger.

Chief among the features the VPC says the public should most fear is "accuracy." Here's what they say; "The sniper's goal is to hit his human target with a precision summed up in the phrase, 'One shot, one kill.'"

That's exactly what any good big game hunter hopes for. "One shot, one kill." Killing people is not part of our vocabulary, but humanely downing a game animal is. And that is what accuracy is about.

Lest you think these people will stop at banning the .50-caliber centerfires, buried in the Violence Policy Center screed is something that every owner of an accurate rifle of any caliber should know and fear.

The VPC is telegraphing its next step. The VPC "strategy" outlined in "One Shot, One Kill'" opens with this:

"Bring heavy and intermediate sniper rifles under the control of the National Firearms Act." (Emphasis added.)

There it is: INTERMEDIATE SNIPER RIFLES.

In the VPC dream world, that would mean that in order to keep a Model 700-"intermediate sniper rifle"-you would have to get photographed and fingerprinted, go through a complete FBI background check, wait six months for the results, carry your paperwork everywhere you went with the gun, and get permission every time you wanted to cross a state line with your hunting rifle. The alternative is to fail to "register" yourself and your gun, and face draconian federal felony charges.

But the gun-ban crowd doesn't plan to stop with deer rifles, or as they call it, "intermediate sniper rifles."

Try this for a look into the media hype of the future. It's from an online article, "WEAPONS OF THE WORLD: Silent Sniper Rifle," published at StrategyPage.com on Sept. 29, 2003:

"The lowly .22-caliber long rifle round is becoming a favorite among snipers."

The story goes on to claim, "… the Russians noted that Chechen snipers were effectively using .22 LR (long rifle, them little bullets kids use to hunt squirrels and rabbits with) weapons." (Parenthetical in the original.)

The article continues, "… Using a cheap scope, Chechen snipers were very deadly at ranges of less than a hundred meters."

So the VPC claims that the big .50 BMG ought to be the favorite of terrorists and assassins, while others are claiming that "them little bullets kids use to hunt squirrels and rabbits with" are the favorite of killers.

So, no, I don't think I am being obnoxious, just aware of the trends.

Syniks

29-04-2005, 17:37

Why give every citizen access to the records of every criminal in the whole US instead of issuing a hard-to-falsify document and simply take that away from criminals? Or would you like them to be branded on their fore-head? What do you as a law-abiding citizen fear from such a document?
Why should I, as a law abiding person have restrictions placed on ME? I did not commit a crime, I do not intend to commit a crime. CRIMINALS should be registered, not the law abiding. - To this respect, I am not opposed to the instant-check. I also happen to think anyone in the US should have access to the "who's who" of criminals database. I simply believe that NO ONE should have access to the "validity" of the average law-abiding citizen. Citizens have privacy. Slaves have records/numbers.

Why shouldn't I "try that crap" when it is the truth. A thing is not a criminal - a person is. A person can use any thing for any purpose. Should we register people for purchasing knives (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0504290208apr29,1,7163852.story?coll=chi-news-hed)? It must by Ginsu's fault.
[quote]It isnt about making it illegal, but about installing control mechanisms to help finding a/o obstructing criminals.
Whenever we try to make life hard for criminals, the criminal advocacy groups cry. It seems that it is easier to make life harder for honest citizens than for anti-social criminals.

Jester III

29-04-2005, 21:13

Why should I, as a law abiding person have restrictions placed on ME?
Why is it that people accept a drivers license but not a gun license?

Why shouldn't I "try that crap" when it is the truth. A thing is not a criminal - a person is. A person can use any thing for any purpose.
It was you, who told me that holding a firearm is a federal felony for a convict. And you still tell me that a gun is just another thing? Thus holding a can of beans is a federal felony, too? Or a fishing rod? Pack of cigs, maybe?
Thus the access to firearms is restricted, not to other everyday goods. And i am talking about control mechanisms that make the access to firearms harder for criminals.

Whenever we try to make life hard for criminals, the criminal advocacy groups cry. It seems that it is easier to make life harder for honest citizens than for anti-social criminals.
I proposed something in that direction, but you dismiss it without giving me a good reason. Instead you sidetrack into tirading against unnamed groups. Does that mean you dont want to make life considerably harder for criminals for the small price of you having an additional document in your wallet and a bit of paperwork when you buy a gun?

In respond to the long post, once again, i have no problem with shotguns and hunting rifles. But i think that weapons like a Barrett M107 do indeed qualify as military weapons and have no civil uses.

Syniks

29-04-2005, 21:52

Why is it that people accept a drivers license but not a gun license?
I posted a rather long response (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8768922&postcount=46) to this earlier. Maybe you just ignored it?

It was you, who told me that holding a firearm is a federal felony for a convict. And you still tell me that a gun is just another thing? That rule is suppposed to be a condition of their release from custody. Sort of like "No Child Molesters allowed within 100ft of a child"
Thus holding a can of beans is a federal felony, too?
Should be if he was convicted of criminal farting in lifts.Or a fishing rod?If he was convicted of using a fishing rod to snatch skirts...Pack of cigs, maybe? If convicted of torture by ciggarette? Certainly. Thus the access to firearms is restricted, not to other everyday goods. And i am talking about control mechanisms that make the access to firearms harder for criminals.
Yes, it is restricted to CRIMINALS because they are CRIMINALS. I am not a criminal, I should not be restricted. But, A CRIMINAL will get whatever weapon he wants REGARDLESS of the restrictions placed on the honest. All he needs to do is MAKE ONE.

I proposed something in that direction, but you dismiss it without giving me a good reason. Instead you sidetrack into tirading against unnamed groups. Does that mean you dont want to make life considerably harder for criminals for the small price of you having an additional document in your wallet and a bit of paperwork when you buy a gun?
I named the groups. The VPC, George Soros, Rebecca Peters, et. al.

In respond to the long post, once again, i have no problem with shotguns and hunting rifles. But i think that weapons like a Barrett M107 do indeed qualify as military weapons and have no civil uses.
I accept that YOU may have no problems with hunting rifles, but the global gun-ban crowd does... and they want them all banned. The easiest way to do that is to first determine which law-abiding (i.e. not as likely to resist) persons have firearms, then restrict them into submission.

Jester III

29-04-2005, 23:23

I posted a rather long response (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8768922&postcount=46) to this earlier. Maybe you just ignored it?

I read it. But imho, lots of technicalities aside, it boils down to "I am afraid they will take my guns", which isnt reasonable and rather paranoid about your own government. I simply cant share that mindset, it is completely alien to me and thus i dont find it a relevant argument. What advantage has owning a gun you use for selfdefense, sports or hunting that is unregistred over one that is?

Yes, it is restricted to CRIMINALS because they are CRIMINALS. I am not a criminal, I should not be restricted. But, A CRIMINAL will get whatever weapon he wants REGARDLESS of the restrictions placed on the honest. All he needs to do is MAKE ONE.
Whatever he wants? Make one? I didnt know the US prisons were offering advanced gunsmithing courses to inmates.

I named the groups. The VPC, George Soros, Rebecca Peters, et. al.
Oh, my fault. I didnt get that people being for gun control and "criminal advocacy groups" are the same thing.

Syniks

29-04-2005, 23:29

I read it. But imho, lots of technicalities aside, it boils down to "I am afraid they will take my guns", which isnt reasonable and rather paranoid about your own government. I simply cant share that mindset, it is completely alien to me and thus i dont find it a relevant argument. What advantage has owning a gun you use for selfdefense, sports or hunting that is unregistred over one that is?None, other than that "they" won't come and bother you about/take away them... as they did in New York City... and California... and Australia... etc. Since it has already happened in the US, it is likely to happen again. It is not just some paranoid fantasy. (Note that they didn't disarm the criminals tho...)

Whatever he wants? Make one? I didnt know the US prisons were offering advanced gunsmithing courses to inmates.
Who needs advanced gunsmithing courses? A 9mm submachine gun (18 round, smooth-bore, "sten" type) can be made with hand tools in a matter of hours from readilly available materials. See my blog. (http://spaces.msn.com/members/Syniks/ ) Pandors's box was opened long ago, and no amount of wishing will make basic mechanics go away.

{Quote:Originally Posted by Syniks I named the groups. The VPC, George Soros, Rebecca Peters, et. al. }

Oh, my fault. I didnt get that people being for gun control and "criminal advocacy groups" are the same thing.
I never said they were criminal advocacy groups... nor are they for "gun control". They have each stated either explicitly or implicitly that they support total civillian disarmament. What do you think that "knotted-handgun" POS in front of the UN building means? :rolleyes:

(Do Germans just like registering people? Jeez.)

Jester III

02-05-2005, 12:24

None, other than that "they" won't come and bother you about/take away them... as they did in New York City... and California... and Australia... etc. Since it has already happened in the US, it is likely to happen again. It is not just some paranoid fantasy. (Note that they didn't disarm the criminals tho...)
So i get that if guns were outlawed in your state you would continue to own them regardless of it being illegal (and thus no longer being law-abiding but criminal yourself), because no one offically knows you own them?

Who needs advanced gunsmithing courses? A 9mm submachine gun (18 round, smooth-bore, "sten" type) can be made with hand tools in a matter of hours from readilly available materials. See my blog. (http://spaces.msn.com/members/Syniks/ ) Pandors's box was opened long ago, and no amount of wishing will make basic mechanics go away.
It was you that stated whatever weapon. Do you draw back that absolute? Yes, i know that i am really annoying when i argue with semantics. ;)

I never said they were criminal advocacy groups... nor are they for "gun control". They have each stated either explicitly or implicitly that they support total civillian disarmament. What do you think that "knotted-handgun" POS in front of the UN building means? :rolleyes:
Thus the "criminal advocacy groups" are still unnamed and my former comment about sidetracking still stands if those groups are not identical, right?

(Do Germans just like registering people? Jeez.)
No, but i like the results that follow from that. Germans are less likely to be involved in violent crime as such and the relative possibility of being shot during such is even lower. The average mugger just hasnt a gun, thus i can run from him and not be shot in the back. I do see some benefit in that. An arms race between "good" and "evil" will not help imho. A concealed-carried gun is doing me no good if every two-bit punk holds me up at gun-point firsthand.

Whispering Legs

02-05-2005, 14:01

An arms race between "good" and "evil" will not help imho. A concealed-carried gun is doing me no good if every two-bit punk holds me up at gun-point firsthand.

It hasn't worked out to be an arms race here in Virginia. 76 percent of violent crimes are commmitted with no weapon of any kind. Of the remaining 24 percent, about half are committed with a firearm.

The legal availability of guns doesn't seem to apply to felons. In interviews, for felons who do use a firearm, 84 percent of them do not obtain them through legal purchase.

So, most "two-bit punks" have no weapon at all. That doesn't mean they're not dangerous. And most people can't run away fast enough.

Syniks

02-05-2005, 15:49

So i get that if guns were outlawed in your state you would continue to own them regardless of it being illegal (and thus no longer being law-abiding but criminal yourself), because no one offically knows you own them?
How about if I rephrase that (though the case does not personally apply, liberals like it):
"If 'sodomy' were outlawed in my state, would I continue homosexual relations regardless of it being illegal (and thus no longer being law-abiding but criminal myself), because no one offically knows I am gay?" The same premise applies. My owning firearms (consentual sex) hurts no one. My using firearms hurts no one. My building firearms hurts no one. Why should I be restricted or monitored for doing/owning/being somthing that harms NO ONE. Read "Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do (http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/) - The absurdity of consentual crimes in a free society" by McWilliams (Link is to complete text).

BTW, I just spent Sunday working on loads for my ".50(+) cal Military Rifle" (http://cabelas.com/cabelas/en/templates/pod/horizontal-pod.jhtml?id=0006436&navAction=push&navCount=1&indexId=cat20815&parentId=cat20815&parentType=index&rid=&_DARGS=%2Fcabelas%2Fen%2Fcommon%2Fcatalog%2Fpod-link.jhtml_A&_DAV=MainCatcat20712) - Nice to know exactly how evil my hobby/competitive sport is.

It was you that stated whatever weapon. Do you draw back that absolute? Yes, i know that i am really annoying when i argue with semantics. ;)
All right... "whatever type (or class) of man-portable, blunt, bladed, projectile, chem-bio, explosive or electronic device that can be built without access to fissionables or high-tech laboratories." :rolleyes:
He might not be able to build a Glock, Styr AUG or a Nuke, but a simple, but effective, SMG, EMP, FAE, IED or Botulisim/Ricin/contact toxin device is not out of the question for the intent hobbiest/criminal/entrepreneur. Happy?

Thus the "criminal advocacy groups" are still unnamed and my former comment about sidetracking still stands if those groups are not identical, right?
I tiraded against gun prohibitionists. My singular (maybe twice) comment about criminal advocacy groups was simply to point out that in the US there tend to be more vocal outcries over potential infringements on the rights and privileges of conviced criminals than of the average citizen; i.e. Convicted Sexual Predator identification laws (’Megans Law’-type statutes) are protested because they "stigmatize sex offenders by notifying neighbors of their presence." See generally Dan Markel, Are Shaming Punishments Beautifully Retributive? Retrihutivism and the Implications for the Alternative Sanctions Debate, 54 VAND. L. REv. 2157 (2001).

Originally Posted by Syniks
(Do Germans just like registering people? Jeez.) No, but i like the results that follow from that.
To quote you earlier, and express exactly the same sentiment: "I simply cant share that mindset, it is completely alien to me and thus i dont find it a relevant argument." Not a very satisfying answer, is it? But you live in Europe, which has a long history of indoctrinating the "subject mindset". I have a "free citizen mindset" and the two are incompatible.

Germans are less likely to be involved in violent crime as such and the relative possibility of being shot during such is even lower. Germans, maybe. But what about your "Turkish problem"?

The average mugger just hasnt a gun, thus i can run from him and not be shot in the back. Nice segue back to Oleg... Maybe YOU can run, but some can't. (http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_wheelchair.jpg)
http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_wheelchair.jpg

I do see some benefit in that. An arms race between "good" and "evil" will not help imho.Better to leave the "good" unarmed and defenseless eh?

A concealed-carried gun is doing me no good if every two-bit punk holds me up at gun-point firsthand. Two-bit-punks tend to be uniformly un/under-trained and cowardly. If they stand half a chance of dying/notable resistance they run away. "Mexican Standoffs" between trained citizens and "two-bit-punks" tend to favor the trained citizen.

Oh BTW, the "technicalities" of my article are exactly the point are relatively straight forward, and adress your registration scheme/concerns. Ignoring them as "too technical" is disingenuous.

Mini Miehm

02-05-2005, 16:56

They have, of course, to take care about the wording, i give you that. But correct me if i am wrong, no one needs an 20-rounds semiautomatic anti-equipment rifle weighing 12 kgs for either self-defense or hunting. Unless you are hunting busses.

A .308 and a 30-06 won't stop a bear, a .454 marlin might stop him, but it's questionable, a .50 BMG will put a hole the size of my fist all the way through him, the Barret .50 calibre M82-A1(the model available to us civilians) is a really good big game rifle, hell, it's smaller calibre than some elephant guns for chrissakes.

Mini Miehm

02-05-2005, 17:04

I disagree with that. Why is the ability to put 30 rounds into someones skull at high speed any different from putting 1 round into their head? In home defense, I doubt the range would be great enough for any major inaccuracy to take place. And if I make a statement which I believe is true, a soldier is trained to fire in bursts. A civilians initial instinct is to fire until bullets stop coming out, and it takes a lot of effort to develop this in a stressful situation. I'd rather not risk a full clip of ammunition being sprayed, especially in a ground floor room with windows, etc.

They're not fully automatic, you can't just pull the trigger and hold it until bullets stop coming out, one trigger pull, one shot. On a side note to that, the AW ban was supposed to deal with supposedly "military style guns"(guns that look military but aren't) which are supposedly high powered, but my model 1903 Springfield, a gun that actually was used by the military, was unaffected by the ban, nor were any more recent models that resemble it, but my 1903 fires 30-06 rounds, versus the 556mm or .223 rounds fired by a "assault weapon", my gun is bigger and badder, but apparently, not as dangerous, what with its bigger bullet and higher power and all.

Syniks

02-05-2005, 17:29

A .308 and a 30-06 won't stop a bear, a .454 marlin might stop him, but it's questionable, a .50 BMG will put a hole the size of my fist all the way through him, the Barret .50 calibre M82-A1(the model available to us civilians) is a really good big game rifle, hell, it's smaller calibre than some elephant guns for chrissakes.
Well, having lived in Alaska, I for one, would not use a Barrett or any other .50bmg on a bear. Too bloody heavy to haul into the Bush. There are plenty of good belted magnums for that. IMO, the .50BMGs are sporting rifles in the sense that an Anschutz (http://www.championshooters.com/Anschutz-r.htm) or my 1946 Remnington 513T is a sporting rifle - for extreme competition :sniper: .
While I am by no means Olympic Grade, I can still wreak havoc on a 1/4 in. bull at 50 feet (iron "peep sites"). With a Barrett, you are trying to do that at 1/2+ Mi... in a cross-wind.

Jester III

02-05-2005, 17:40

How about if I rephrase that (though the case does not personally apply, liberals like it): [snip] Read "Ain't Nobody's Business if You Do (http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/) - The absurdity of consentual crimes in a free society" by McWilliams (Link is to complete text).
Read it, like it. I can sure relate, as i enjoy a joint every now and then.
Nonetheless, however unjustified or personally harming ones freedom a law might be, it still stands as an absolute. Legally there is no room for: I dont like that law, it is illogical and worthless, you either abide by it or are a criminal. I know that i am one, but i am not the one coming off a high horse.

BTW, I just spent Sunday working on loads for my ".50(+) cal Military Rifle" (http://cabelas.com/cabelas/en/templates/pod/horizontal-pod.jhtml?id=0006436&navAction=push&navCount=1&indexId=cat20815&parentId=cat20815&parentType=index&rid=&_DARGS=%2Fcabelas%2Fen%2Fcommon%2Fcatalog%2Fpod-link.jhtml_A&_DAV=MainCatcat20712) - Nice to know exactly how evil my hobby/competitive sport is.
Know what? Read into my words whatever you want, i dont care anymore. If after all those posts you still dont get what i talk about or try to twist my intetions around 180°, just leave it be. I give up, you win the day, i just dont know what to say anymore if you still try to impute to me that i dont make a difference between muzzle-loading working replicas and a high-powered sniper rifle that has no use in hunting. How often can i say it? Whatever your actual problem with pending gun restrictions are, i did not draft them, vote on them or even endorse them.

To quote you earlier, and express exactly the same sentiment: "I simply cant share that mindset, it is completely alien to me and thus i dont find it a relevant argument." Not a very satisfying answer, is it? But you live in Europe, which has a long history of indoctrinating the "subject mindset". I have a "free citizen mindset" and the two are incompatible.
It is satisfying in a way that i can now understand your viewpoint not being completely based on rational reasons alone. About the indoctrinating part, stick your arrogance where the sun dont shine, will you? If you want a dirty bashing-the-opposite-parties-country parody of a discussion look for some uneducated kid in one of those "My... is better than yours" threads. If you really believe that i want the time back i spend discussing with you.

Germans, maybe. But what about your "Turkish problem"?
By germans i mean inhabitants of Germany. Enough people i know, work with or call friends arent germanic but turkish, slavic, african. I never heard of a racial profiled crime statistic, only those split up between transients, illegals and normal citizens. Most turks belong to the last category. The numbers i refered to were those about the whole inhabitants, thus not split. Even counting in the prevalence of violent crime among illegals the numbers still show a comparetely low occurence of violent crime. Besides, what is that "turkish problem" you are talking about? Maybe it concerns me, i havent heard about it yet. There are a number of issues with turkish immigrants, school issues about headscarves among turkish teachers in german schools being a religious symbol or not, the turkish entry for EU membership, trade relations about german military hardware being used in military campaigns agains kurdish civilians and maybe some other problems. But not a "turkish problem" with the emphasis of being singled-out.

"Mexican Standoffs" between trained citizens and "two-bit-punks" tend to favor the trained citizen.
Excuse, me, but how do you know the intentions of other people? Do you mind read or carry your gun in your hand all the time? I talk about someone opening the gambit by threatening you with a gun and you are the point of a mexican standoff. What happened in between? Are you drawing lightning fast, risking him to shoot? Are you sure he wont shoot any way, in which case you can take all the time you want?

Mini Miehm

02-05-2005, 17:43

Well, having lived in Alaska, I for one, would not use a Barrett or any other .50bmg on a bear. Too bloody heavy to haul into the Bush. There are plenty of good belted magnums for that. IMO, the .50BMGs are sporting rifles in the sense that an Anschutz (http://www.championshooters.com/Anschutz-r.htm) or my 1946 Remnington 513T is a sporting rifle - for extreme competition :sniper: .
While I am by no means Olympic Grade, I can still wreak havoc on a 1/4 in. bull at 50 feet (iron "peep sites"). With a Barrett, you are trying to do that at 1/2+ Mi... in a cross-wind.

Yeah, but I wouldn't use it in the brush, since the barrets a heavy motherfucker and more of a plains gun than anything else, I'd probably be more likel;y to use it in the badlands up in nevada, or maybe Kodiak island, but thats a national park I think, so I guess I wouldn't. My point was that sometimes you really do need a bigger gun, since, like I said even the .454 magnum Marlin bullet might not drop him in one hit, and those are some fast fuckers when they want to move, so I wanna kill it as fast as possible. Actually, I'd probably take a DE fifty as a backup gun since I'm more likely to run into a bear inside effective long-gun range, with my primary gun being either the .454 or my 1903, maybe my brothers .308 Win, with wildcat rounds that we just call the Winmag, which is not the same as a .308 winchester magnum.

Mini Miehm

02-05-2005, 17:57

Excuse, me, but how do you know the intentions of other people? Do you mind read or carry your gun in your hand all the time? I talk about someone opening the gambit by threatening you with a gun and you are the point of a mexican standoff. What happened in between? Are you drawing lightning fast, risking him to shoot? Are you sure he wont shoot any way, in which case you can take all the time you want?

I can have my DE .357 drawn and safety off in under two seconds, my .40 S&W XD can be ready in under one(not much under one, approx. .95 seconds) with my old Hi-point .380 compensated it was just over one and a half seconds, a fast draw is pretty fast(none of these numbers are drawing from concealment, since I live in VA, where open carry is the rule). A person who is threatening you with a gun isn't likely to require much supposition on your part as to his intentions, from there it's just a case of "tried by twelve or carried by six" as to what you do.

Jaythewise

02-05-2005, 18:56

Is your life so threatened that you need to carry around a glock all the time maybe you should move?

Syniks

02-05-2005, 19:01

Read it, like it. I can sure relate, as i enjoy a joint every now and then. Nonetheless, however unjustified or personally harming ones freedom a law might be, it still stands as an absolute. Legally there is no room for: I dont like that law, it is illogical and worthless, you either abide by it or are a criminal. I know that i am one, but i am not the one coming off a high horse. I don't know from High Horses. The Principal of Liberty is not somthing that is really negotiable. I agree with you on the Joint, though I do not partake. All I ever wanted to do in this debate is discuss the irrationality of the principles of gun control. Why should there be any laws against any thing? Laws deleniate punishment for behavior. Possession of a thing is not behavior, it is simply possession. Laws are not absolute, as they are often overturned, set aside or otherwise ignored - by both the Government and the Population. I can Speed in my car with sufficient reason (like saving a life). I may be called to court, but the fine may be thrown out. But if I am not allowed to posess my Mustang because it is "too powerful" (too fast) and am restricted to owning a Trabant or Citeron, I don't get the option of saving the life. I have to wait on the Government and hope for the best.

Know what? Read into my words whatever you want, i dont care anymore. If after all those posts you still dont get what i talk about or try to twist my intetions around 180°, just leave it be. I give up, you win the day, i just dont know what to say anymore if you still try to impute to me that i dont make a difference between muzzle-loading working replicas and a high-powered sniper rifle that has no use in hunting. How often can i say it? Whatever your actual problem with pending gun restrictions are, i did not draft them, vote on them or even endorse them.

Perhaps not, but the Principle that you are espousing, that of deciding what is or is not "too powerful" for me to possess is precicely the point. Your intention is still to decide for me. I did not decide that your Joint is illegal either, but I certainly wouldn't take it upon myself to try to decide for you what you can or cannot put into your body.

It is satisfying in a way that i can now understand your viewpoint not being completely based on rational reasons alone. About the indoctrinating part, stick your arrogance where the sun dont shine, will you? If you want a dirty bashing-the-opposite-parties-country parody of a discussion look for some uneducated kid in one of those "My... is better than yours" threads. If you really believe that i want the time back i spend discussing with you.
I'm not bashing the historical paradigm of European rule, just pointing it out. Does not Europe have a longer history of Monarchical/Authoritarian & or Socialist rule than of democratic Rule? Everyone is a product of their culture. While it has been slipping toward collectivisim of late, the history of the US is one of general, if not specific distrust of Government Authority. This is the "free citizen mindset" - e.g. looking to the individual citizen for the answer to specific, or societal problems.

When I lived in Babenhausen, I found it odd how often/much the average German citizen relied on the Government. That is the "subject" mindset - e.g. "subject to the dictates of government" as the first recourse to sociatal issues..

By germans i mean inhabitants of Germany. Enough people i know, work with or call friends arent germanic but turkish, slavic, african. I never heard of a racial profiled crime statistic, only those split up between transients, illegals and normal citizens. Most turks belong to the last category. The numbers i refered to were those about the whole inhabitants, thus not split. Even counting in the prevalence of violent crime among illegals the numbers still show a comparetely low occurence of violent crime. Besides, what is that "turkish problem" you are talking about? Maybe it concerns me, i havent heard about it yet. There are a number of issues with turkish immigrants, school issues about headscarves among turkish teachers in german schools being a religious symbol or not, the turkish entry for EU membership, trade relations about german military hardware being used in military campaigns agains kurdish civilians and maybe some other problems. But not a "turkish problem" with the emphasis of being singled-out.

My bad. It has been 15 years since I lived there. The only news I hear about crime in Germany has a distinctive anti-immigrant/Turk twist to it.

Excuse, me, but how do you know the intentions of other people? Do you mind read or carry your gun in your hand all the time? I talk about someone opening the gambit by threatening you with a gun and you are the point of a mexican standoff. What happened in between? Are you drawing lightning fast, risking him to shoot? Are you sure he wont shoot any way, in which case you can take all the time you want?
Well, having been in the situation and having it resolved the way I describe gives me a small amount of insight into the mind(s) of the small-time-crook. My handgun fits in my back pocket in a holster designed to look like a wallet. When someone wants my wallet, I can "give it to them" in any way I choose - from actually handing over my wallet (empty but for Cards), the cash in my money clip (very little of that) to any number of progressively more unpleasant and violent acts of self defense. The point is, I get to choose. No one has taken that choice away from me.

You have quite insistantly posted that you would decide for me what is "too powerful" or "not sporting enough". Why should you, or anyone, decide for me what it "too" or "not enough" of anything? You may believe that my muzzleloader is OK. There are those who believe that NO firearm is OK. They would try to decide for me too. The divine right of kings (or Popes) to take those decisions for us was never established in the US - regardless of how much one group or another wishes to rise to that challange.

I'm sorry if you think that is arrogance, but I think that it is far more arrogant for someone to tell me they know better how to live my life than I do.

Whispering Legs

02-05-2005, 19:05

Is your life so threatened that you need to carry around a glock all the time maybe you should move?

Tell that to a woman who left her wife-beating husband. To a woman who got a protective order because he was such a lethal threat. To a woman who no matter how many times she moves, the abuser stalks her down.

Why should she be the one to run? What crime did she commit? Why should she suffer the loss of job, home, and life because some asshat wants to beat and kill her?

Why does the man have the right to make her move, in your mind?

She should be free to stay right where she is - to keep her job, her home, and her life - free of his interference and threats and attacks.

Syniks

02-05-2005, 19:08

Is your life so threatened that you need to carry around a glock all the time maybe you should move?
I carry a firearm for the same reason cars have spare tires and boats have life preservers, not because I want or expect to use it, but because I want to have it when I really need it.

Syniks

02-05-2005, 19:24

Yeah, but I wouldn't use it in the brush, since the barrets a heavy motherfucker and more of a plains gun than anything else, I'd probably be more likel;y to use it in the badlands up in nevada, or maybe Kodiak island, but thats a national park I think, so I guess I wouldn't. My point was that sometimes you really do need a bigger gun, since, like I said even the .454 magnum Marlin bullet might not drop him in one hit, and those are some fast fuckers when they want to move, so I wanna kill it as fast as possible. Actually, I'd probably take a DE fifty as a backup gun since I'm more likely to run into a bear inside effective long-gun range, with my primary gun being either the .454 or my 1903, maybe my brothers .308 Win, with wildcat rounds that we just call the Winmag, which is not the same as a .308 winchester magnum.
I like this one (http://www.wildwestguns.com/CoPilot_And_Guide_Rifles/body_copilot_and_guide_rifles.html). :D

Whispering Legs

02-05-2005, 19:25

I like this one (http://www.wildwestguns.com/CoPilot_And_Guide_Rifles/body_copilot_and_guide_rifles.html). :D
I don't have the Co-Pilot, but I do have the standard Marlin Guide Gun (the original ported model) in 45-70.

Very happy rifle.

Syniks

02-05-2005, 19:43

I don't have the Co-Pilot, but I do have the standard Marlin Guide Gun (the original ported model) in 45-70.

Very happy rifle. Best brush-buster made. Worst firearms-related mistake in my life was bench-resting 3 boxes of 45-70 hunting loads through a stock (non-ported) Marlin. I was bruised from my collar-bone to my belt for weeks afterward. :eek: Traded it in for a Casull. :D

Whispering Legs

02-05-2005, 19:45

Best brush-buster made. Worst firearms-related mistake in my life was bench-resting 3 boxes of hunting loads. I was bruised from my collar-bone to my belt for weeks afterward. :eek: Traded it in for a Casull. :D

There are some firearms never meant to be fired from the bench. Among these are:

Semi-automatic pistols
and
large bore hunting rifles

Syniks

02-05-2005, 19:56

There are some firearms never meant to be fired from the bench. Among these are:

Semi-automatic pistols
and
large bore hunting rifles
What can I say? At the time I was totally into Revolvers, Benchrest single-shot pistols (XP-100) and my R-513T. I said it was a mistake... :p

IImperIIum of man

03-05-2005, 04:51

back from the weekend :D
a point:
the previous poster ranted on and on about how civilians shouldn't have access to "military" style firarms in the USA.
from the evidence it is just the OPPOSITE

the founding fathers intended us to have firearms to protect us from
.tyranny in our own government
.tryanny from the invader
.tyranny from the criminal

"firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. they are the american peoples liberty teeth and the keystone under independance. from the hour that the pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurances and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness. the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. they deserve a place of honor with all that is good"-george washington

moving along through history the understanding of the founders intents were still clear in the 1930s
in the USA VS miller supreme court case, the case was directly about proving that sawed off shotguns were a useful MILITARY weapon.
and thus protected by the second ammendmant
which is why initially US ditrict court judge heartsill ragon of fort smith declared that the relevant section of the firearms act was in violation of the second ammendmant and therefore UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

going even farther into our present day
10 USCS [Armed Forces]USC Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, Section 311
clealry states that all males between 17 and 45 who are not part of the national guard or coast guard are the unorganized militia and may present themselve for military service(with thier own weapons) in the defence of thier nation.
remember that the founding fathers based our system on the swiss "peoples army".

Glinde Nessroe

03-05-2005, 06:44

*shoots a black guy*

Self defence.

*shoots a homo*

Self defence!

*shoots a gun owner*

Self Defence.

Blogervania

03-05-2005, 10:42

*shoots a black guy*

Self defence.

*shoots a homo*

Self defence!

*shoots a gun owner*

Self Defence.
Not sure what your point is, other than trolling.

But if a black guy is attacking you, yes it's self defense.
If the "homo" is attacking you, yes it's self defense.
If a gun owner is attacking you, yes it's self defense.

I am curious tho, do you think that the mere posession of a thing is enough to cause the posessor to change? A person who has never before committed a violent act would, with the purchase of a hand gun, go out and start rampaging through the streets? Where did this belief come from? Is it simply a deep seated mistrust of your fellow man?

Syniks

03-05-2005, 14:40

<snip>
I am curious tho, do you think that the mere posession of a thing (http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/somesee2_s.jpg) is enough to cause the posessor to change? A person who has never before committed a violent act would, with the purchase of a hand gun, go out and start rampaging through the streets? Where did this belief come from? Is it simply a deep seated mistrust of your fellow man?

SEGUE back OT! Woo Hoo! Gotta Love Oleg's posters! :D (http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/somesee2_s.jpg) <--- Link

Syniks

03-05-2005, 14:56

*shoots a black guy*
Self defence.
*shoots a homo*
Self defence!
*shoots a gun owner*
Self Defence.

Um... How about the other way around...

*shoots a black guy* Not this one. (http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_racist.jpg) Or this one. (http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/stopKKK_s.jpg) Or This one either. (http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_agreement.jpg)
*shoots a homo* Not These "homos". (http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_pp-ar-glock.jpg) or her. (http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/armed-dykes_s.jpg)
*shoots a gun owner* Only this type. (http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_what.JPG)

A final thought... (http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/s_comeback.jpg)

Syniks

04-05-2005, 16:04

I love how bringing things back OT kills a thread...

Whispering Legs

04-05-2005, 16:05

I do like the website.

Yellow Snow in Winter

04-05-2005, 16:20

I don't like the lame slogans. :(

Syniks

04-05-2005, 16:27

I don't like the lame slogans. :(
Simple Slogans to adress Simple Conceps that Simple Minds find complicated.

Yellow Snow in Winter

04-05-2005, 16:30

Simple Slogans to adress Simple Conceps that Simple Minds find complicated.
They also oversimplyfy(sp?) things. Just because it sounds good desn't make it true.

Syniks

04-05-2005, 16:31

They also oversimplyfy(sp?) things. Just because it sounds good desn't make it true.And neither does it make it false. Your point?

Libertarian Gun Owners

04-05-2005, 18:48

Why are there so many people who want everyone to be disarmed? In a world without guns yes that would be great where you didn't have to worry about a criminal shooting you. But the fact of the matter is, guns already exist...you can't make us "unlearn what we have learned". Anyone who breaks into my home, attempts to harm my wife and kids, or do me bodily harm should have a reason to fear for their life. :mp5: Hehehehehehe

Allanea

26-05-2005, 09:12

They also oversimplyfy(sp?) things.

No.

Those things are just that simple.

NYAAA

26-05-2005, 14:09

Why are there so many people who want everyone to be disarmed? In a world without guns yes that would be great
I disagree. I would be quite miserable if someone took my guns away; any of them. I hunt, plink, shoot skeet, practice fast draws and just enjoy the handling of firearms. To take them away, even in a world without other firearms, would rob me of my way of life.

Ulrichland

26-05-2005, 14:11

I really dig thaht "Hitler imposed gun control"-part, because that is a blatant NRD lie.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm

Perhaps one of the pro-gun lobby's favorite arguments is that if German citizens had had the right to keep and bear arms, Hitler would have never been able to tyrannize the country. And to this effect, pro-gun advocates often quote the following:

"1935 will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." - Adolf Hitler

However, this quote is almost certainly a fraud. There is no reputable record of him ever making it: neither at the Nuremberg rallies, nor in any of his weekly radio addresses. Furthermore, there was no reason for him to even make such a statement; for Germany already had strict gun control as a term of surrender in the Treaty of Versailles. The Allies had wanted to make Germany as impotent as possible, and one of the ways they did that was to disarm its citizenry. Only a handful of local authorities were allowed arms at all, and the few German citizens who did possess weapons were already subject to full gun registration. Seen in this light, the above quote makes no sense whatsoever.

The Firearms Policy Journal (January 1997) writes:

"The Nazi Party did not ride to power confiscating guns. They rode to power on the inability of the Weimar Republic to confiscate their guns. They did not consolidate their power confiscating guns either. There is no historical evidence that Nazis ever went door to door in Germany confiscating guns. The Germans had a fetish about paperwork and documented everything. These searches and confiscations would have been carefully recorded. If the documents are there, let them be presented as evidence."

On April 12, 1928, five years before Hitler seized power, Germany passed the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law substantially tightened restrictions on gun ownership in an effort to curb street violence between Nazis and Communists. The law was ineffectual and poorly enforced. It was not until March 18, 1938 -- five years after Hitler came to power -- that the Nazis passed the German Weapons Law, their first known change in the firearm code. And this law actually relaxed restrictions on citizen firearms.

Disraeliland

26-05-2005, 14:58

With the exception of Jews.

They were banned firearms ownership.

"But correct me if i am wrong, no one needs an 20-rounds semiautomatic anti-equipment rifle weighing 12 kgs for either self-defense or hunting. Unless you are hunting busses."

Who died and made you Dictator of the Universe?

What gives you the right ot decide for other law abiding people?

Wurzelmania

26-05-2005, 15:08

For those of you who don't like Guns... Take This Quiz (http://www.a-human-right.com/views2.html)

It's as important as the rest of the debate.

Possibly the neatest most biased quiz I ever encountered. And trust me, I've seen a few.

Sabbatis

26-05-2005, 17:26

It is an illusion that gun bans protect the public. And pursuing this farce is expensive, too:

"The effort to register all firearms, which was originally claimed to cost only $2 million, has now been estimated by the Auditor General to top $1 billion. The final costs are unknown but, if the costs of enforcement are included, the total could easily reach $3 billion."

From the Fraser Institute;

Gun Laws do Not Reduce Criminal Violence According to New Study
Contact(s):
Gary Mauser, Professor
Simon Fraser University,
Email:

Click here for the complete publication.

Release Date: November 27, 2003

Vancouver, BC - Restrictive firearm legislation has failed to reduce gun violence in Australia, Canada, or Great Britain. The policy of confiscating guns has been an expensive failure, according to a new paper The Failed Experiment: Gun Control and Public Safety in Canada, Australia, England and Wales, released today by The Fraser Institute.

“What makes gun control so compelling for many is the belief that violent crime is driven by the availability of guns, and more importantly, that criminal violence in general may be reduced by limiting access to firearms,” says Gary Mauser, author of the paper and professor of business at Simon Fraser University.

This new study examines crime trends in Commonwealth countries that have recently introduced firearm regulations. Mauser notes that the widely ignored key to evaluating firearm regulations is to examine trends in total violent crime, not just firearm crime.

The United States provides a valuable point of comparison for assessing crime rates as that country has witnessed a dramatic drop in criminal violence over the past decade – for example, the homicide rate in the US has fallen 42 percent since 1991. This is particularly significant when compared with the rest of the world – in 18 of the 25 countries surveyed by the British Home Office, violent crime increased during the 1990s.

The justice system in the U.S. differs in many ways from those in the Commonwealth but perhaps the most striking difference is that qualified citizens in the United States can carry concealed handguns for self-defence. During the past few decades, more than 25 states in the U.S. have passed laws allowing responsible citizens to carry concealed handguns. In 2003, there are 35 states where citizens can get such a permit.

Disarming the public has not reduced criminal violence in any country examined in this study. In all these cases, disarming the public has been ineffective, expensive, and often counter productive. In all cases, the effort meant setting up expensive bureaucracies that produce no noticeable improvement to public safety or have made the situation worse. Mauser points to these trends in the countries he examined:

England and Wales

Both Conservative and Labour governments have introduced restrictive firearms laws over the past 20 years; all handguns were banned in 1997.

Yet in the 1990s alone, the homicide rate jumped 50 percent, going from 10 per million in 1990 to 15 per million in 2000. While not yet as high as the US, in 2002 gun crime in England and Wales increased by 35 percent. This is the fourth consecutive year that gun crime has increased.

Police statistics show that violent crime in general has increased since the late 1980s and since 1996 has been more serious than in the United States.

Australia

The Australian government made sweeping changes to the firearms legislation in 1997. However, the total homicide rate, after having remained basically flat from 1995 to 2001, has now begun climbing again. While violent crime is decreasing in the United States, it is increasing in Australia. Over the past six years, the overall rate of violent crime in Australia has been on the rise – for example, armed robberies have jumped 166 percent nationwide.

The confiscation and destruction of legally owned firearms has cost Australian taxpayers at least $500 million. The cost of the police services bureaucracy, including the costly infrastructure of the gun registration system, has increased by $200 million since 1997.

“And for what?” asks Mauser. “There has been no visible impact on violent crime. It is impossible to justify such a massive amount of the taxpayers’ money for no decrease in crime. For that kind of tax money, the police could have had more patrol cars, shorter shifts, or better equipment.”

Canada

The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic. Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted. The homicide rate is dropping faster in the US than in Canada.

The Canadian experiment with firearm registration is becoming a farce says Mauser. The effort to register all firearms, which was originally claimed to cost only $2 million, has now been estimated by the Auditor General to top $1 billion. The final costs are unknown but, if the costs of enforcement are included, the total could easily reach $3 billion.

“It is an illusion that gun bans protect the public. No law, no matter how restrictive, can protect us from people who decide to commit violent crimes. Maybe we should crack down on criminals rather than hunters and target shooters?” says Mauser.
- 30 -

Established in 1974, The Fraser Institute is an independent public policy
organization with offices in Vancouver, Calgary, and Toronto.

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=570

NationStates Jolt Archive

The Gun Control/Guns Site to End Them All!