NationStates Jolt Archive

David Kopel, Paul Gallant and Joanne Eisen have published recently a new working paper, entitled "Is Resisting Genocide a Human Right?"

http://www.davidkopel.org/2A/Foreign/genocide.pdf

"Resisting Genocide" is a 47-page scholarly article that argues that international law requires a mechanism for protecting people from genocide, but governmental entities have repeatedly failed to prevent or stop mass murders and genocides. Every human being has a right to fight against aggressors intending genocide, and the way to do that is to remain armed. Under international law and international norms, the authors show, the individual right to keep and bear arms must be preserved as the necessary means of preventing genocide.

I will be reading this this evening and should be able to post on it therafter, but, by all means, ya'll anti-gun types go ahead and start discrediting it without reading it. There are standards of debate on NS that must be upheld after all... :p :D

I agree completely.

My issue is with the common American need to have an arsenal of weaponry which goes above and beyond the simple needs of hunting and sportsmanship.

Or were we under the threat of genocide?

I'm not anti-gun, I'm anti the guns-for-defense argument. Were I living in a country where this was necessary, perhaps I would 'arm myself'. The fact that I own guns, in my mind, does not necessarily mean I am armed. Those guns are tools, for hunting, no different than my chainsaw, my table saw, my nail gun...tools for a single purpose. They come out during hunting season, or to drive off bears or coyotes, and that's it. I refuse to become paranoid, or buy the line that we must 'arm' ourselves in order to protect our freedoms, and carry a gun with me at all times. I don't live in Darfur. I'm not going to carry a gun around.

I agree completely.

My issue is with the common American need to have an arsenal of weaponry which goes above and beyond the simple needs of hunting and sportsmanship.

Or were we under the threat of genocide?
Nobdy is under the threat of genocide until it happens...

But since the "simple needs" of hunting and sportsmanship are entirely subjective... (.50 long range benchrest perhaps?) as is the term "arsenal", the question then becomes "who gets to make those arbitrary rules?" However, your point is taken. There are not a few loonies in the "pro gun" ranks - as with any group.

I'm not anti-gun, I'm anti the guns-for-defense argument. Were I living in a country where this was necessary, perhaps I would 'arm myself'. The fact that I own guns, in my mind, does not necessarily mean I am armed. Those guns are tools, for hunting, no different than my chainsaw, my table saw, my nail gun...tools for a single purpose. They come out during hunting season, or to drive off bears or coyotes, and that's it. I refuse to become paranoid, or buy the line that we must 'arm' ourselves in order to protect our freedoms, and carry a gun with me at all times. I don't live in Darfur. I'm not going to carry a gun around.

Hmmmm, you gave me a great idea - we should ban all guns but nail guns and have them be compulsory for defense.

I'm not anti-gun, I'm anti the guns-for-defense argument. Were I living in a country where this was necessary, perhaps I would 'arm myself'. The fact that I own guns, in my mind, does not necessarily mean I am armed. Those guns are tools, for hunting, no different than my chainsaw, my table saw, my nail gun...tools for a single purpose. They come out during hunting season, or to drive off bears or coyotes, and that's it. I refuse to become paranoid, or buy the line that we must 'arm' ourselves in order to protect our freedoms, and carry a gun with me at all times. I don't live in Darfur. I'm not going to carry a gun around.
The "the individual right to keep and bear arms" as cited above does not (necessairly) mean "carry a gun around at all times", just that the Right to keep (and use) that Tool for any legitimate reason - including preventing/discouraging/fighting genocides - is and should be a basic Human Right (as is the Right not to keep/carry a weapon if one so chooses).

I would be happy with having the following firearm restrictions only:

- a firearm license, obtainable after a short firearm safety course
- the requirement that firearms locked and stored separate from ammunition

I wouldn't even mind if all guns were registered, as long as that didn't come along with the move to ban certain ones. Since that seems to be the gist of registration, I'm not in favour of it. And if someone is a real gun collecter (which is not necessarily the same as a gun nut), there should be no restriction on how many guns they have. However, they should expect visits from the cops from time to time...

If I ever stop hunting, I'll get rid of most of my rifles and keep a 22 just for scaring off critters.

The "the individual right to keep and bear arms" as cited above does not (necessairly) mean "carry a gun around at all times", just that the Right to keep (and use) that Tool for any legitimate reason - including preventing/discouraging/fighting genocides - is and should be a basic Human Right (as is the Right not to keep/carry a weapon if one so chooses).
Yes, but the suggestion from many gun-right's people is that choosing NOT to be armed is akin to being at fault for any sort of violence one may encounter. That is what bothers me the most about the pro-gun argument. You even did this yourself when you talked about that Chicago woman who was raped...suggesting it wouldn't have happened had there been no gun restrictions, because then 'automatically' that would have made her armed?

I don't want anyone, pro-gun or anti-gun telling me whether I should bear arms or not.

I would be happy with having the following firearm restrictions only:

- a firearm license, obtainable after a short firearm safety course
- the requirement that firearms locked and stored separate from ammunition

I wouldn't even mind if all guns were registered, as long as that didn't come along with the move to ban certain ones. Since that seems to be the gist of registration, I'm not in favour of it. And if someone is a real gun collecter (which is not necessarily the same as a gun nut), there should be no restriction on how many guns they have. However, they should expect visits from the cops from time to time...

If I ever stop hunting, I'll get rid of most of my rifles and keep a 22 just for scaring off critters.See, we aren't too far off, though I would suggest a double barrel shotgun rather than the .22. More interesting (non lethal/ricoccheting) ammunition is available.

As for your two "restrictions":

- a firearm license, obtainable after a short firearm safety course
If and only if it is as cheap/expensive/easy to obtain as a Drivers license. In many cases in the US the "mandatory course" has been priced out of the market for all but the Elite.

- the requirement that firearms locked and stored separate from ammunition
A common sense idea that is unenforcable without allowing law enforcement unrestricted access (24/7) to your home to "check" your "Safe Storage". IIRC They have that requirement in Japan in the few places they allow guns. The police can entnter your home at any time and count every round to ensure they are all stored "properly".

But at least you understant the Politics of Registration now. :D

Yes, but the suggestion from many gun-right's people is that choosing NOT to be armed is akin to being at fault for any sort of violence one may encounter. That is what bothers me the most about the pro-gun argument. I agree, and I generally don't... but... You even did this yourself when you talked about that Chicago woman who was raped...suggesting it wouldn't have happened had there been no gun restrictions, because then 'automatically' that would have made her armed?
Mea Culpa. I was trolling(ish). I don't believe I ever said (or suggested) bad things wouldn't happen when you are armed, just pointed out that being armed puts you in the position of being able to do somthing about it when something bad does happen. (Experience speaking here.)
I don't want anyone, pro-gun or anti-gun telling me whether I should bear arms or not.Perish the thought. Now go buy a Glock. ;)

As for your two "restrictions":

- a firearm license, obtainable after a short firearm safety course
If and only if it is as cheap/expensive/easy to obtain as a Drivers license. In many cases in the US the "mandatory course" has been priced out of the market for all but the Elite.
Agreed. In Canada, you can take the course or challenge the exam. I can't remember the exact price, but it was actually less expensive than getting your driver's license. I hope it stays that way.

- the requirement that firearms locked and stored separate from ammunition
A common sense idea that is unenforcable without allowing law enforcement unrestricted access (24/7) to your home to "check" your "Safe Storage". IIRC They have that requirement in Japan in the few places they allow guns. The police can entnter your home at any time and count every round to ensure they are all stored "properly".

Like many laws, it isn't necessarily enforceable, or even noticed until some sort of problem occurs. As in, there will be additional charges in an accidental gun death. Frankly, that's good enough for me. When it's made clear that this is how guns and ammo are to be stored, and something happens because it wasn't done this way, the person should be held culpable. Kind of like... a cop pulls you over for speeding, notices you don't have your seatbelt on, you have a joint in the ashtray, and your kid isn't in a proper car seat. Not things that would necessarily get you stopped on their own, but all things that will get you additional, painfully expensive charges.

Nobdy is under the threat of genocide until it happens...

But surely nobody is ever under threat of genocide, unless maybe that person was the only member of their race?

Anyway, my speed reading powers are at a low ebb so I'm not going to read the paper. I just like to point out that if Rwanda had been awash with guns instead of machetes, the end result could still have been quite similar.

Also, for practical purposes, when someone is trying to kill you does it affect your actions whether it's an attempt at genocide or not?

Perish the thought. Now go buy a Glock. ;)
*smacks you with a frozen arctic Char* :D

*smacks you with a frozen arctic Char* :D
Ok, but was that Char properly stored in a locked container? You may be in for an extra "poor storage" charge there Lady... :D

Actually, the above is really part of the problem with "safe storage requirements". Depending on the person writing/interpreting the "safe storage law", any "weapon" that can be accessed in time to be used for self defense (against person or critter) is "not stored properly".

Thus, according to the anti-gun folks in the US who push for "common sense safe storage laws", your ability to hit me with a frozen char is, in fact, a direct demonstration of intentional violation of safe fish storage laws. :p

<snip>Like many laws, it isn't necessarily enforceable, or even noticed until some sort of problem occurs.<snip> Not things that would necessarily get you stopped on their own, but all things that will get you additional, painfully expensive charges.
As long as the Law specifically stated that LE is NOT allowed to do "checks", then the law is really too dangerous to be allowed. (It would be far too easy for the Govt to ablse... much like Registration.)

Other than that, I rather agree.

Hmmmm, you gave me a great idea - we should ban all guns but nail guns and have them be compulsory for defense.
The Nail Gun works great in Quake... :eek:

Actually, as soon as there is a multi-shot "air Taser" available, I'll park my carry handgun. I simply want the most effective Tool available when the job requires a Tool.

I'll stick with my Sturm-Ruger .45 cal semi and my concealed carry permit thank you. :)

I agree completely.

My issue is with the common American need to have an arsenal of weaponry which goes above and beyond the simple needs of hunting and sportsmanship.

Or were we under the threat of genocide?

And who are you to determine what I need for hunting and sportsmanship? I have one 9MM semi-automatic pistol that is a WW II souvenir given to me by my aunt, one 38 revolver that was my fathers police service revolver, one 22 semi-automatic rifle, and one 20 gauge single shot shotgun. Several years ago, I gave my oldest son my other 22 semi-automatic rifle, and three years ago, my youngest son was given my 12-gauge pump. (Both sons are in their 30s)

So, in your judgment do I have now or have I ever had to many guns?

What I find interesting is that people never seem to (at least in my experiences) debate the merit of wanting to own guns based on the premise of defense from one's own government. I'd like to see a good debate on that.

What I find interesting is that people never seem to (at least in my experiences) debate the merit of wanting to own guns based on the premise of defense from one's own government. I'd like to see a good debate on that.Well, that's about 99% of what the referenced pdf document is about.

I should be able to tiff then OCR the whole thing in the next 14 hours or so, so I'll be able to post quotations as requested (for use in either side of the argument - just TG me with the page and paragraph... but don't expect me to take quotes out of context.)

Most of the time though, people refuse to take the "my government might turn bad" argument seriously. That's simply because they don't take history & psycology seriously either, but it's tough to argue against a Belief without being dismissed as paranoid - another good debate killer.

I was debating this with a friend the other night and he essentially called me a backward paranoid lunatic, though not in so many words. He may but right, but somehow I doubt it; there are many social and political trends these days that I find frightening.

And who are you to determine what I need for hunting and sportsmanship? I have one 9MM semi-automatic pistol that is a WW II souvenir given to me by my aunt, one 38 revolver that was my fathers police service revolver, one 22 semi-automatic rifle, and one 20 gauge single shot shotgun. Several years ago, I gave my oldest son my other 22 semi-automatic rifle, and three years ago, my youngest son was given my 12-gauge pump. (Both sons are in their 30s)

So, in your judgment do I have now or have I ever had to many guns?

In my opinion one gun is too many.

Most of the time though, people refuse to take the "my government might turn bad" argument seriously. That's simply because they don't take history & psycology seriously either, but it's tough to argue against a Belief without being dismissed as paranoid - another good debate killer.



Right on.



Gun ownership is the core of Liberty, and once you take away that core, Liberty is vulnerable to subversion by naked force...When people have guns, the government can only creep along and quietly pass little-debated laws which slowly take away freedoms piecemeal, just enough to anger some people, but too little to cause an uproar.


Once the people can't defend themselves, though, they can do anything they want, and they won't have to make any more excuses to take your freedoms away...They won't have to because they have the power, and you don't.

I have one problem with licensing/registration:

You give the government (that body that will begin said genocide or whatever other type of repression) a list of who to go after first. Usually complete with address and such. Bad tactics.

As for the "not for self-defense" argument--at least in the US--the Supreme Court yet again affirmed that the police are NOT responsible for protecting the lives of citizens.

If they're not protecting us, then who is? No one but ourselves.

It's every individual's responsibility to ensure their own safety. No other party is responsible for doing it. So yes, a firearm for self defense is not paranoid, it's choosing a particular method of enacting one's own responsibility of defending themselves. But it MUST remain a choice. You can't force a firearm on others when they don't have the capability or inclination to use one. But if they choose to go undefended, it's their responsibility to deal with the consequences.

It all falls under that sadly diminishing umbrella called personal responsibility.

.50 long range benchrest perhaps?

Not a lot of rabbit left after that, I would think. ;)

I have one problem with licensing/registration:

You give the government (that body that will begin said genocide or whatever other type of repression) a list of who to go after first. Usually complete with address and such. Bad tactics. That's why Sinhue has finally come to "our" sode on that point... :D

As for the "not for self-defense" argument--at least in the US--the Supreme Court yet again affirmed that the police are NOT responsible for protecting the lives of citizens.

If they're not protecting us, then who is? No one but ourselves.

It's every individual's responsibility to ensure their own safety. No other party is responsible for doing it. So yes, a firearm for self defense is not paranoid, it's choosing a particular method of enacting one's own responsibility of defending themselves. But it MUST remain a choice. You can't force a firearm on others when they don't have the capability or inclination to use one. But if they choose to go undefended, it's their responsibility to deal with the consequences.

It all falls under that sadly diminishing umbrella called personal responsibility. Alas. Too true. :(

Note to all:

I now have the entire article in Word format. If you take the time to read the PDF and want to cite a bit (but hate typing) to support your argument (either side), reference the pg & paragraph numbers in your post and I'll TG you with the appropriate text to let you edit it into your post. (until I get permission to host the entire document in word format so you can cut'n'paste for yourselves.)

And who are you to determine what I need for hunting and sportsmanship?

Hoo ... defensive!

To answer your question, I don't determine such things except for myself. For myself, one gun is too many. I don't own a firearm. What you do is your business.

In my opinion one gun is too many.

Not one for self-defense or the individual's rights then, eh?

Anyways that PDF is goddamn long and I have to be out of the house in five minutes, but I'll take a proper look when I come back.

I now have the entire article in Word format. If you take the time to read the PDF and want to cite a bit (but hate typing) to support your argument (either side), reference the pg & paragraph numbers in your post and I'll TG you with the appropriate text to let you edit it into your post. (until I get permission to host the entire document in word format so you can cut'n'paste for yourselves.)

How big is it in Word format? How about zipped?

Not one for self-defense or the individual's rights then, eh?


Not fair. I believe one gun is too many and I'm all for self-defense and individual rights.

The conclusion of the article as a debate point/starter: (emphasis mine, spelling errors are a result of bad OCR)


VIII. Conclusion

Kofi Annan spoke eloquently: “Throughout the world, the victims of violence and injustice are waiting; waiting for us to keep our word. They notice when we use words to mask inaction. They notice when laws that should protect them are not applied. . . .Let our generation not be found wanting.” 220

Sadly, the anti-genocide promise “Never Again!” is a worthless platitude. Half a century after the international community made the Genocide Convention into binding international law, overt genocide is being perpetrated in Sudan. As with every other genocide in the last half-century, the international community, including the United Nations, has been collectively unwilling to take action which would stop the genocide.

The UN has consistently ignored its legal and moral obligations to prevent genocide, clearly laid out in one of its founding documents. Ten years from now, instead of apologizing for Srebrenica and Rwanda, the UN will be apologizing for its failure in Darfur. 221

Kofi Annan, expressing grief at the UN’s failure to protect seven thousand unarmed men and boys in Srebrenica in 1995, stated: "When the international community makes a solemn promise to safeguard and protect innocent civilians from massacre, then it must be willing to back its promise with the necessary means. Otherwise, it is surely better not to raise hopes and expectations in the first place, and not to impede whatever capability they may be able to muster in their own defense." 222

Secretary-General Annan is precisely right. The civilized world, by ratifying the Genocide Convention, made “a solemn promise to safeguard and protect innocent civilians from massacre.” Yet the civilized world has failed its legal obligation “to prevent” genocide. Accordingly, the world has a duty “not to impede whatever capability they [the genocide victims] may be able to muster in their own defense.”

When the Genocide Convention was being drafted, the Czechoslovak delegate noted with regret that the Convention could not really prevent genocide. 223 The delegate was correct in his prediction that nations could not, as a practical matter, be forced to affirmatively act on their legal duty “to prevent” genocide. However, it may be a simpler matter to persuade governments, including law enforcement officers and courts, simply to follow their passive legal duty not to interfere with self-defense against genocide.

In this Article, we have shown that, under existing international law, genocide victims are not obliged to wait for foreign governments or world organizations to rescue them. According to normative principles of international law and according to positive international law, genocide victims have a fundamental human right to use armed force to resist genocide. Because the prohibition of genocide is a preemptory jus cogens norm of international law, any local, national, or international laws or government actions which interfere with self-defense by genocide victims are necessarily unlawful. In particular, arms control laws which may be generally valid may not be enforced against genocide victims or against persons who supply arms to genocide victims; enforcement would make the enforcing court or other state agency complicit in genocide.

Accordingly, the Security Council 2005 arms embargo on Sudan may not lawfully be enforced so as to deny defensive arms to the genocide victims in Darfur. The new UN Protocol against firearms trafficking and manufacturing is equally inapplicable to arms acquisition by genocide victims, including the Darfur victims. All future international small arms control treaties should explicitly recognize that the treaty does not (and, as a matter of existing international law, can not) apply so as to prevent genocide victims from acquiring and using defensive arms.

Any interference—including interference under color of law—with the self- defense rights of genocide victims constitutes a grave violation of the most fundamental of all international and moral laws.

How big is it in Word format? How about zipped?
It's not big, it's just that the Publisher hasn't given me permission to post/republish the complete document online in an editable format.

I'll email it to you. (and anyone else who asks.) Fair Use rules and all that.

It's not big, it's just that the Publisher hasn't given me permission to post an editable format.

I'll email it to you. (and anyone else who asks.)

Cool. Thanks, man!

It's not big, it's just that the Publisher hasn't given me permission to post/republish the complete document online in an editable format.
PDFs are editable, believe me.

On the issue of safe storage, how about it isnt controlled, but taken into consideration if something goes wrong? E.g. kid grabs guns of father, runs amok. Father get punished in court as well, because he carelessly provided the guns and violated the safe storage law.

PDFs are editable, believe me.

On the issue of safe storage, how about it isnt controlled, but taken into consideration if something goes wrong? E.g. kid grabs guns of father, runs amok. Father get punished in court as well, because he carelessly provided the guns and violated the safe storage law.

According to laws today, parents aren't criminally responsible for the actions of their children--yet can still be sued for civil responsibility.

If someone has left a gun out in a privately owned house, and someone breaks in and steals the gun, it's not the gun owner's fault. It's the criminal's fault. It's the criminals actions that cause the crime, not the owner's.

"Every human being has a right to fight against aggressors intending genocide, and the way to do that is to remain armed."

Now that is a fact! I am Pro-Weapon and I don't see why, as a responsible and mentally healthy adult, you shouldn't have the right to get access to at least a 9mm handgun. As for you anti-gun idiots, blaming guns for what people are doing is stupid, guns are simple machines, if they wouldn't exist, then people would have found other ways to kill each other, it's simply in the Human's nature. Humans are animals just like Wolves, Sharks, Eagles, Snakes or what ever you want, you should know that!! And violence will always exist in all its' forms, whether it is only through speaking or fighting, it will always hurt, we need to defend ourselves, you feminist jerks won't change that!!

anti-gun idiots ... feminist jerks

mmm ... and it was such a nice thread ...

Not fair. I believe one gun is too many and I'm all for self-defense and individual rights.

Ah, so you're fine with self-defense, but you expect a 106 lbs waif of a girl to fight off three 220+lbs guys with physical power?

Wait, you're the one who said it's just not for you. That's ok then, that's your choice. I hope you can stand back and say "I was right" down the line. I hope all the time and money I put into firearms, however much that may be, is a complete waste.

The downside to this is in places like Darfur; you must have a way to get the guns to the people, guns cost money the people don't have, you have to train the people how to use the guns, and small arms aren't very effective against APCs, tanks, aircraft, etc.

The downside to this is in places like Darfur; you must have a way to get the guns to the people, guns cost money the people don't have, you have to train the people how to use the guns, and small arms aren't very effective against APCs, tanks, aircraft, etc.
Except that in Darfur the people doing the killing are not using APCs, Tanks, aircraft, etc.

IV. Defenseless Victims
Sudan is ruled by a racist, Islamist tyranny in Khartoum.
For many years, the Arab Sudanese dictatorship pursued a policy of genocide against the Christian and animist black Africans who live in southern Sudan. Victims who were not killed were often sold in slavery. Rape was extensively used as an instrument of state terror. Thanks to the continuing success of armed resistance by the south Sudanese, the Khartoum government finally accepted a cease-fire in late 2004. The government has promised that in 2010, the south Sudanese will be able to vote on a referendum for independence.
The vast Darfur region consists of three states in western Sudan.’23 As in the south, much of the population is black African. Unlike in the south, the black Africans of Darfur are Also inhabiting Darfur are camel-riding Arab nomads, who have a long-standing conflict with black African pastoralists there. The Arabs consider the blacks to be racially inferior, and fit only for slavery. “Beginning in the mid-1980s, successive governments in Khartoum inflamed matters by supporting and arming the Arab tribes, in part to prevent the southern rebels from gaining a foothold in the region. . . .Arabs formed militias, burned African villages, and killed thousands. Africans in turn formed self-defense groups, members of which eventually became the first Darfur insurgents to appear in
Two movements seeking independence for Darfur were created in February 2003:
the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA), and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM). In April 2003, the rebels successfully attacked a government airfield, provoking massive retaliation by the Khartoum government.’26
On the ground, the main force of the government’s attack on the black Africans of Darfur is Arab militia known as the Janjaweed (literally, “evil men on horseback” or “devil on a horse”).’27
The Janjaweed have caused the deaths of up to 400,000 black Sudanese, have raped many thousands, and have forced two million black Sudanese into refugee camps.’28 “When the janjaweed attack, they unmistakably hurl racial abuse at their victims, alleging in particular that Africans are born to be slaves: ‘Slaves, run! Leave the country. You don’t belong; why are you not leaving this area for Arab cattle to graze?” 129
The Janjaweed attacks on villages are supported with aerial bombing by the Sudan Air Force.’3° There are no reports of response to these attacks from villagers or from the JEM or SLA. The rebel groups do not appear to have anti-aircraft weapons, such as surface-to-air missiles. The rebels do possess small arms and light weapons, including firearms. 131
Salah Gosh, head of Sudan’s national security, admitted that the government is, indeed, bombing the villages, noting: “The [rebel] militia are attacking the government from the villages. What is the government going to do? It will bomb those villages.”32 Notably, the majority of villages bombed were villages where there were no armed rebels.’33 Thus, the destruction of the villages should be seen not as an overzealous form of counter-insurgency warfare, but rather as a deliberate attempt to destroy an entire society.
Although this is commonplace where the population supports an anti-government insurgency, it can also lead to deaths of innocent civilians on a large scale.’34 Intentionally targeting civilians has long been recognized as a violation of the laws of warfare. An Amnesty International report noted “international law also makes it clear that use of such tactics does not provide the other side with a license to kill civilians.”35
The Sudanese government tells the international community that the central government is not responsible for the Arab versus African violence in Darfur. However, Human Rights Watch observed that “Government forces not only participated and supported militia attacks on civilians, they also actively refused to provide security to civilians seeking protection from these militia attacks.”36

These attacks are more akin to (though far worse than) the racial terror of the KKK in Jim Crow South US that was ignored by (and sometimes supported by) the local government/constabulary. In the US, when the Freedom Riders armed themselves, the Thugs began looking elsewhere for victims.

Wait, you're the one who said it's just not for you.

Exactly. I don't want to strip anyone else of their freedoms.

That's ok then, that's your choice. I hope you can stand back and say "I was right" down the line. I hope all the time and money I put into firearms, however much that may be, is a complete waste.

I agree wholeheartedly. I hope for us all to live a life of peace and never have to defend our homes from assailants. I'll stick with sneaking up in the dark and chopping the robber's hand off, though. ;) No hands = No trigger finger.

Admittedly, though, if an enemy Army shows up at my door, I'm boned.

Having guns is not the problem, it is society itself. I am from a place where everyone over the age of 13 either owns or has imediate access to a firearm, no we are not a group of militants I am from the NWT where guns are viewed as tools not weapons. In fact one of the greatest punishments that is handed out in the traditional sentancing is having one's rifle taken away. This may seem ridiculous to some of you but think of it this way, if you provide for your family by hunting and traping having no rifle is a big deal? is it not?

Not one for self-defense or the individual's rights then, eh?


What does that have to do with my opinion?

Are there any statistics for the USA that show how many killings occur from a "justifiable" use of firearms in "self defence" as opposed to all the other thousands of people that die from the ridiculous levels of weapon ownership?

As for individual's rights, we limit plenty of other "rights", what's so special about the right to own something specifically designed to do serious harm to another human being?

What does that have to do with my opinion?


Absolutely nothing. It sounds like someone was putting words in your mouth.


Are there any statistics for the USA that show how many killings occur from a "justifiable" use of firearms in "self defence" as opposed to all the other thousands of people that die from the ridiculous levels of weapon ownership?


Not that I'm aware (that doesn't mean they don't exist), but there are variable statistics that show more crimes are stopped with firearms, than people killed with them (both liberal and conservative stats show that more crimes are stopped than murders perpetrated with guns).


As for individual's rights, we limit plenty of other "rights", what's so special about the right to own something specifically designed to do serious harm to another human being?

It's not about guns specifically. If you limit firearms, you can then start limiting other methods of defense as well, until you have no defenses from a potentially corrupt government. If the 2nd Amendment goes in the US, the rest will follow VERY shortly. They've already erroded many other amendments with the Patriot Act, and they'd fall completely without the 2nd. You have to have a global perspective on the issue. Yes, if you limit guns, you will start to limit gun-related murders. Murders in general won't go down, however, as it's the society that determines the number of deaths. Criminals will just switch over to other weapons, if they still can't easily get an illegal weapon (which they'll still be able to get--only those of us who are law-abiding won't be armed).

Whether or not they do it 10 at once, or 10 one at a time, you still have 10 dead people. The firearm is not the problem.

It's not about guns specifically. If you limit firearms, you can then start limiting other methods of defense as well, until you have no defenses from a potentially corrupt government.

I have a real problem with this argument, who is to judge the suitability of a government to armed uprising and overthrow by the citizens? Where does a politically informed social uprising end up, and how do you stop the situation deteriorating until it ends up like downtown Beirut on a bad day? For every person expressing their democratic right to overthrow the corrupt government there will be another one defending the rights of the government to make decisions in the interests of society as a whole, and a third bunch that just like shooting at people.
The right to bear arms is (if my understanding of it is correct, and as a UK citizen I admit it's sketchy) based on the danger of oppressive or corrupt regimes, and the potential overthrow thereof. In the modern USA the best defence against this is the ballot box (apart from Florida, obviously :D ) and the courts. The image of millions of armed Americans taking to the streets in defence of the Constitution is somewhat far-fetched to say the least.

If the 2nd Amendment goes in the US, the rest will follow VERY shortly. They've already erroded many other amendments with the Patriot Act, and they'd fall completely without the 2nd.

Like I said earlier, use the courts. Vote for a different President, get different people involved in Politics, not just the two parties that are essentially the same party system.


You have to have a global perspective on the issue. Yes, if you limit guns, you will start to limit gun-related murders. Murders in general won't go down, however, as it's the society that determines the number of deaths. Criminals will just switch over to other weapons, if they still can't easily get an illegal weapon (which they'll still be able to get--only those of us who are law-abiding won't be armed).

Whether or not they do it 10 at once, or 10 one at a time, you still have 10 dead people. The firearm is not the problem.

So it's the old "guns don't kill people, People kill people" argument restated then.
Firstly, you've got to admit, Guns help ;) Secondly, as I mentioned earlier I live in the UK. Gun ownership is strictly controlled with the result that Gun related deaths are extremely rare, our Police are generally unarmed and the levels of overalll crime are declining (check the Home Office British Crime Statistics here for official figures http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb1004.pdf ) with violent crime down by a third since 1995. We don't have a huge number of people dead from being battered to death with a cricket bat, it is the easy access and easy use of guns that so distorts the murder statistics in the USA.

I have a real problem with this argument, who is to judge the suitability of a government to armed uprising and overthrow by the citizens? Where does a politically informed social uprising end up, and how do you stop the situation deteriorating until it ends up like downtown Beirut on a bad day? For every person expressing their democratic right to overthrow the corrupt government there will be another one defending the rights of the government to make decisions in the interests of society as a whole, and a third bunch that just like shooting at people.
The right to bear arms is (if my understanding of it is correct, and as a UK citizen I admit it's sketchy) based on the danger of oppressive or corrupt regimes, and the potential overthrow thereof. In the modern USA the best defence against this is the ballot box (apart from Florida, obviously :D ) and the courts. The image of millions of armed Americans taking to the streets in defence of the Constitution is somewhat far-fetched to say the least.


Using your Florida example, what if that becomes rampant in all the states, and the ballot box no longer counts (see Ohio)?

How did we decide to get rid of the British government in the first place?

There will always be questions, and those that would oppose direct action against the government (there was opposition in the days of the revolution as well--"loyalists"--and there were a great many of them).

It's not far fetched at all. You have 80 million gun owners in the US, with over 300 million firearms. A fair number of them (say only 10%) are pretty much mid-level snipers (can be silent when moving and fairly accurate at distance, due to knowing how to hunt)--that's 8 million snipers. That would definitely give any government cause to pause.


Like I said earlier, use the courts.


Like the court that just ruled we don't own our land? That the police are not responsible for protecting people? Or that have stated in the past (at least twice) that the payment of Social Security is not guaranteed and is just another tax to be used how the government feels? Yeah, I trust them a whole bunch....


Vote for a different President, get different people involved in Politics, not just the two parties that are essentially the same party system.


I did, but places such as Ohio and Florida keep getting in the way. I am already in a different party than the big two--read my sig line.


So it's the old "guns don't kill people, People kill people" argument restated then.


Yup--logic. There's a reason it keeps coming up--because it's the truth.


Firstly, you've got to admit, Guns help ;)


Any weapon helps. An explosive would help. Legally obtained fertilizer to make bombs with helps. It doesn't matter what tool you take away, murder will still occur.


Secondly, as I mentioned earlier I live in the UK. Gun ownership is strictly controlled with the result that Gun related deaths are extremely rare,


Yes, but you still have murder and assault and rape. It doesn't matter what the tool is, be it a fist, a knife, or a gun, it's not the tool that makes the crime.


our Police are generally unarmed and the levels of overalll crime are declining (check the Home Office British Crime Statistics here for official figures http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb1004.pdf ) with violent crime down by a third since 1995. We don't have a huge number of people dead from being battered to death with a cricket bat, it is the easy access and easy use of guns that so distorts the murder statistics in the USA.

Hmm...what are your rape, assault, robbery, and burglary rates doing these days? I'm looking at all crime--not just murder--and not just firearms related murder. You have a few of those that are higher per capita than the US.

Not that it really matters all that much, since we live in two different societies. I'm not saying that Britain should have firearms (I would like the rest of the world to have the freedom to do so, though), but for the US, it makes sense to have firearms available to the citizenry.

Hmm...what are your rape, assault, robbery, and burglary rates doing these days? I'm looking at all crime--not just murder--and not just firearms related murder. You have a few of those that are higher per capita than the US.

From the British Crime Survey:

Overall crime has fallen by five per cent according to the BCS.There has been an increase in the number of crimes recorded by the police in 2003/04 compared with 2002/03 ..............

...... Since the peak in 1995 BCS crime has fallen by 39 per cent, with vehicle crime and burglary falling by roughly half and violent crime falling by over a third durinmg this period.

The risk of becoming a victim of crime has fallen from 40 per cent in 1995 to 26 per cent according to BCS interviews in 2003/04, the lowest level recorded since the BCS began in 1981

By allowing everyone to be armed one of the results is that all criminals will be armed, and so the potential of people being killed escalates astronomically.


Using your Florida example, what if that becomes rampant in all the states, and the ballot box no longer counts (see Ohio)?

How did we decide to get rid of the British government in the first place?

There will always be questions, and those that would oppose direct action against the government (there was opposition in the days of the revolution as well--"loyalists"--and there were a great many of them).

It's not far fetched at all. You have 80 million gun owners in the US, with over 300 million firearms. A fair number of them (say only 10%) are pretty much mid-level snipers (can be silent when moving and fairly accurate at distance, due to knowing how to hunt)--that's 8 million snipers. That would definitely give any government cause to pause

So when do you all start taking to the streets?

Even if (and it's a monumentally big IF) it did happen, what are the army and police going to be doing about this? We saw in Afghanistan what happens when disorganised armed militia come up against well trained, well motivated and better armed soldiers.

The 1776 revolution has little bearing on the argument as to why you should allow everyone to have a gun today. I could equally suggest that the Battle of Agincourt proves every Englishman should still have a longbow to show the frenchies a thing or two should the need arise. (Actually I'm led to believe that legally I should, one of those great laws that was never repealed)

So far as your political afilliations, I'm afraid I have no idea what your sig line is, let alone where to find it. Are you a member of a political party or organisation?

I have a real problem with this argument, who is to judge the suitability of a government to armed uprising and overthrow by the citizens?
The citizens.

Where does a politically informed social uprising end up, and how do you stop the situation deteriorating until it ends up like downtown Beirut on a bad day?
A politically informed social uprising will work within the system until the system begind to use violence to crush them. At that point it is the System who is the aggressor and the shooting has already started. If I were a politically informed upriser at that juncture I would want the ability to shoot back.

For every person expressing their democratic right to overthrow the corrupt government there will be another one defending the rights of the government to make decisions in the interests of society as a whole, and a third bunch that just like shooting at people.Historically, at the point that the government begins (as policy) to use violence to quell uprisings, the latter two groups tend to be alligned. Thugs and bullies like numerical superiority and the cover of government sanction. Just look at the Brown Shirts.

The right to bear arms is (if my understanding of it is correct, and as a UK citizen I admit it's sketchy) based on the danger of oppressive or corrupt regimes, and the potential overthrow thereof. In the modern USA the best defence against this is the ballot box (apart from Florida, obviously :D ) and the courts.Agreed. However, see above.

The image of millions of armed Americans taking to the streets in defence of the Constitution is somewhat far-fetched to say the least.
Not if the government makes the first move it isn't. When it becomes obvious that the government policy is to use violence to quell dissent, then it is no longer the US and people will rise up.

Like I said earlier, use the courts. Vote for a different President, get different people involved in Politics, not just the two parties that are essentially the same party system. VOTE LIBERTARIAN! :D

So it's the old "guns don't kill people, People kill people" argument restated then. Firstly, you've got to admit, Guns help ;) Secondly, as I mentioned earlier I live in the UK. Gun ownership is strictly controlled with the result that Gun related deaths are extremely rare, our Police are generally unarmed and the levels of overalll crime are declining (check the Home Office British Crime Statistics here for official figures http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb1004.pdf ) with violent crime down by a third since 1995. We don't have a huge number of people dead from being battered to death with a cricket bat, it is the easy access and easy use of guns that so distorts the murder statistics in the USA.And racial tension. And Gangs. And the "War on Drugs", and cultural de-homoginization, and Size, and lack of border control, and a whole variety of other factors that apply to the US but not to any other 1st world nation.

From the British Crime Survey:

snip


And the other sources citing rises in your violent crime rates, including the BBC? Sounds like something isn't being taken into account....


By allowing everyone to be armed one of the results is that all criminals will be armed, and so the potential of people being killed escalates astronomically.


Sorry, but that's emotional rhetoric and opinion--not fact. Astronomically? Please.


Even if (and it's a monumentally big IF) it did happen, what are the army and police going to be doing about this? We saw in Afghanistan what happens when disorganised armed militia come up against well trained, well motivated and better armed soldiers.


Uh huh...look at Iraq. Look at Vietnam. And the US military is still in Afghanistan...it's not over. Not to mention that some of the military would side with the citizens.


The 1776 revolution has little bearing on the argument as to why you should allow everyone to have a gun today. I could equally suggest that the Battle of Agincourt proves every Englishman should still have a longbow to show the frenchies a thing or two should the need arise. (Actually I'm led to believe that legally I should, one of those great laws that was never repealed)


Yeah, the right to self defense is rather universal--you're the one putting a limit on which weapons are allowed. The firearm is no different.

The 1776 revolution has all the bearing in the world to the argument. The whole reason we fought against our own government was because our own government was pushing the citizens around and we didn't feel like taking it anymore. Government isn't in the US to rule. It's there to just administer some duties--not to control the populace.


So far as your political afilliations, I'm afraid I have no idea what your sig line is, let alone where to find it. Are you a member of a political party or organisation?

It means signature line. You can't read the bottom of each of my posts online? Wow. I forgot you could disable that.

It says, "Yes, dammit, Libertarian" (it's a political party in the US, and other places--or so I've heard--they take the stance that a human gets to choose what's best for themselves, as long as they aren't interfering with or harming others). Certainly not republican or democrat, where either one wants to control a person in at least some fashion.

<snip> By allowing everyone to be armed one of the results is that all criminals will be armed, and so the potential of people being killed escalates astronomically.[/snip] Criminals will always be armed. If I magically made every firearm in the US dissapear today, there would be guns in the hands of criminals by tomorrow.

So when do you all start taking to the streets? see my previous post.

Even if (and it's a monumentally big IF) it did happen, what are the army and police going to be doing about this? We saw in Afghanistan what happens when disorganised armed militia come up against well trained, well motivated and better armed soldiers. 1st, most of the US military would be on the side of the dissenters. Our oath was not to the Government of the United States, but to the Constitution of the United States. Whe the Constitution is Void, so is my Oath.

The 1776 revolution has little bearing on the argument as to why you should allow everyone to have a gun today. I could equally suggest that the Battle of Agincourt proves every Englishman should still have a longbow to show the frenchies a thing or two should the need arise. (Actually I'm led to believe that legally I should, one of those great laws that was never repealed)Longbows are fun. Go buy one and practice for a bit.

So far as your political afilliations, I'm afraid I have no idea what your sig line is, let alone where to find it. Are you a member of a political party or organisation?It means signature line. You can't read the bottom of each of my posts online? Wow.he/she might not be able to. Up at the top corner of your screen there is a tab called profiles. Open your profile and find and select "show Signatures". Then come back and see what we say about ourselves... :D

OK, as we seem to be going in circles on this one I'm going to call it a day.

I fundamentally do not believe there is ANY justification for anyone to have a gun in their home, however that is based on my having lived in England for 34 of my 42 years of life, the rest being in Sweden, France, New Zealand and Australia,none of which have a culture or history of gun ownership, nor is it a basic constitutional right in any of those countries. If I'd grown up in th eUSA I would almost definitely have a different view.

Some points to come back on,

And the other sources citing rises in your violent crime rates, including the BBC? Sounds like something isn't being taken into account

Even the BBC is a modern day journalistic organisation, and wants to report the news. A story about a drop in crime figures doesn't make for such good reading / viewing as a story about an armed robbery in Liverpool. It distorts teh perception of crime and distorts the public expectations of law enforcement but that's the way of the world.


1st, most of the US military would be on the side of the dissenters. Our oath was not to the Government of the United States, but to the Constitution of the United States. Whe the Constitution is Void, so is my Oath.


Yeah, right :rolleyes:
The army will support the government (almost) no matter what.
I know many British Soldiers who disagreed with the war in Iraq, but none of them would ever consider not doing what they were told to do, and Britain is a less authoritarian society than the USA so the thought of the USMC siding against the Government .....

Longbows are fun. Go buy one and practice for a bit.

I did. I couldn't draw the thing back. I am no Robin Hood.

Up at the top corner of your screen there is a tab called profiles. Open your profile and find and select "show Signatures". Then come back and see what we say about ourselves...

It means signature line. You can't read the bottom of each of my posts online? Wow. I forgot you could disable that.

It says, "Yes, dammit, Libertarian" (it's a political party in the US, and other places--or so I've heard--they take the stance that a human gets to choose what's best for themselves, as long as they aren't interfering with or harming others). Certainly not republican or democrat, where either one wants to control a person in at least some fashion

Gosh. That's nicer. :D

I fundamentally do not believe there is ANY justification for anyone to have a gun in their home, however that is based on my having lived in England for 34 of my 42 years of life, the rest being in Sweden, France, New Zealand and Australia,none of which have a culture or history of gun ownership, nor is it a basic constitutional right in any of those countries. If I'd grown up in th eUSA I would almost definitely have a different view.


I just see the firearm as another tool to get a job done. In this case, the job is protecting myself and my family. Just like having a hammer in my house (I occasionally hang stuff up on the walls). As a matter of fact, I shoot more at the range than I use said hammer. :)


Even the BBC is a modern day journalistic organisation, and wants to report the news. A story about a drop in crime figures doesn't make for such good reading / viewing as a story about an armed robbery in Liverpool. It distorts teh perception of crime and distorts the public expectations of law enforcement but that's the way of the world.


Valid point. I'll counter that the government wants to maintain control of the populace, and will show whatever numbers it wishes, to obtain their goal as well.


Yeah, right :rolleyes:
The army will support the government (almost) no matter what.
I know many British Soldiers who disagreed with the war in Iraq, but none of them would ever consider not doing what they were told to do, and Britain is a less authoritarian society than the USA so the thought of the USMC siding against the Government .....


I'm sorry, but I know too many military folks that would side with the people and Constitution rather than their superior officer. Then again, I'm over here, talking with them.


I did. I couldn't draw the thing back. I am no Robin Hood.


They're tough, yes. :) That's why I've gone with a smaller, lighter pull recurve or a compound bow. But they're still nifty to try.


Gosh. That's nicer. :D

Yeah, being able to see everything can be quite colorful. :)

I'm sorry, but I know too many military folks that would side with the people and Constitution rather than their superior officer. Then again, I'm over here, talking with them.


Yes, the difference being we take our oath to the Queen, and the British Army system encourages support of your colleagues more so than the US system.

Edit

Don't like the way that reads. What I meant was the fact that one tends to spend your entire career with the same unit can help create a strong sense of loyalty to your colleagues.

Niccolo Machiavelli, writer of 'The Prince,' had this to say about the Swiss. "They are the most armed and the most free."

<snip>Yeah, right :rolleyes: The army will support the government (almost) no matter what. I know many British Soldiers who disagreed with the war in Iraq, but none of them would ever consider not doing what they were told to do, and Britain is a less authoritarian society than the USA so the thought of the USMC siding against the Government ..... Erm, I was in the Army and I know how the ground troops think. There is a vast difference between saying "I don't like X War, so I refuse to go" and being ordered to fire on your own citizens. That is the reason we have the "POSSE COMITATUS ACT" (18 USC 1385): It is a Reconstruction Era criminal law proscribing use of Army (later, Air Force) to "execute the laws" except where expressly authorized by Constitution or Congress. Limit on use of military for civilian law enforcement also applies to Navy by regulation. Dec '81 additional laws were enacted (codified 10 USC 371-78) clarifying permissible military assistance to civilian law enforcement agencies--including the Coast Guard--especially in combating drug smuggling into the United States. Posse Comitatus clarifications emphasize supportive and technical assistance (e.g., use of facilities, vessels, aircraft, intelligence, tech aid, surveillance, etc.) while generally prohibiting direct participation of DoD personnel in law enforcement (e.g., search, seizure, and arrests). For example, Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachments (LEDETS) serve aboard Navy vessels and perform the actual boardings of interdicted suspect drug smuggling vessels and, if needed, arrest their crews). Positive results have been realized especially from Navy ship/aircraft involvement.

When the US military is ordered to engage US Civillians, the Military Oath is Void - and many, if not most, will refuse to comply.

OK, as we seem to be going in circles on this one I'm going to call it a day.

I fundamentally do not believe there is ANY justification for anyone to have a gun in their home, however that is based on my having lived in England for 34 of my 42 years of life, the rest being in Sweden, France, New Zealand and Australia,none of which have a culture or history of gun ownership, nor is it a basic constitutional right in any of those countries. If I'd grown up in th eUSA I would almost definitely have a different view.


So you think people should starve to death? There are some places in the world where gun ownership is a necesity in order to survice (and I am not talking about defence). Also the fact that you have firearms does not make it more likely to commit violent crime. I live in a place where everyone (except in the capital) over the age of 13 owns, or has immediate access to a firearm. We also have one of the lowest rates of violent crime in the country. So the argument that having guns make violent crime more likely is wrong. There are many mitigating factors to violent crime. Guns just facilitate those who are already going to do something violent.

Erm, I was in the Army and I know how the ground troops think. There is a vast difference between saying "I don't like X War, so I refuse to go" and being ordered to fire on your own citizens. .......................
.........When the US military is ordered to engage US Civillians, the Military Oath is Void - and many, if not most, will refuse to comply.

I was too, and I know how we worked. There is a thin line between the "I was only carrying out orders" scenario and being a professional soldier getting on with his job.

If society has broken down to the point of armed insurrection on the streets then arguing over a piece of paper is pointless, however that is not going to happen either here or in the USA so the whole argument is fairly academic.

So you think people should starve to death? There are some places in the world where gun ownership is a necesity in order to survice (and I am not talking about defence). Also the fact that you have firearms does not make it more likely to commit violent crime. I live in a place where everyone (except in the capital) over the age of 13 owns, or has immediate access to a firearm. We also have one of the lowest rates of violent crime in the country. So the argument that having guns make violent crime more likely is wrong. There are many mitigating factors to violent crime. Guns just facilitate those who are already going to do something violent.

Oh grow up.

Where did I say anything about people starving to death? I said I fundamentally do not believe there is ANY justification for anyone to have a gun in their home

Note the IN THEIR HOME bit? What's so wrong about hunters keeping their guns at a local secure location? and more to the point we are discussing the developed world here, and I stand entirely by my statement.

To make the leap you made is so bizarre I would question your rationality. Do you think Vegetarians support starvation then? presumably you have an entirely meat based diet, and only eat wild meat, without access to shops, yet you have internet access and a computer.

Come back when you have a more well considered argument and I may consider discussing things in a serious manner, until then coinsider yourself ignored.

I was too, and I know how we worked. There is a thin line between the "I was only carrying out orders" scenario and being a professional soldier getting on with his job.

If society has broken down to the point of armed insurrection on the streets then arguing over a piece of paper is pointless, however that is not going to happen either here or in the USA so the whole argument is fairly academic.
I guess that my point is that in the US it will not come to armed insurrection unless and until the government repeals Posse Comitatus and becomes a Military/Police State that uses violence as policy. Until that point, we maintain our firearms as simple tools for hunting and sport, and we maintain them at home so they are dispersed enough that an abusive government can't easily take them - keeping us feom being able to defend ourselves from genocidal activities.

That is what the referenced article is talking about. If we are to maintain that defense against Genocide is a Good that all humans have a Right to act upon, we must also have the means to act upon it. Therefore, those actions taken by a government that make it easier for that or later governments to perpetrate genocide (such as disarming a population) are pernicious.

I guess that my point is that in the US it will not come to armed insurrection unless and until the government repeals Posse Comitatus and becomes a Military/Police State that uses violence as policy. Until that point, we maintain our firearms as simple tools for hunting and sport.

Which comes back to my point about having them in the home, why not keep them at an accessable local secure location? National Guard Armoury, Police Station, Gun Club, Hunting Club? where's the constitutional infringement there?

I think the point TB was trying to make was that humans are omnivores, not herbivores, and some use firearms to harvest animals to help them survive. Many times it is far less expensive to harvest your own food, than to purchase something in a can.

Unionista, you are entitled to have your opinion that there is no reason to own a firearm, but there are some that would have a rough time of it, if they didn't have at least a rifle. Many times people can't just walk to the store.

I guess that my point is that in the US it will not come to armed insurrection unless and until the government repeals Posse Comitatus and becomes a Military/Police State that uses violence as policy. Until that point, we maintain our firearms as simple tools for hunting and sport.

And self defense from criminal activity. :)

Which comes back to my point about having them in the home, why not keep them at an accessable local secure location? National Guard Armoury, Police Station, Gun Club, Hunting Club? where's the constitutional infringement there?

Because the criminal that is going to rob me then kill me won't wait for me to go to the local armory, nor wait for the local constabulary to take them off to jail. It's a personal responsibility to ensure one's own safety. In the US, the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no obligation to protect citizens from harm. This means it's back to us to do it for ourselves.

Which comes back to my point about having them in the home, why not keep them at an accessable local secure location? National Guard Armoury, Police Station, Gun Club, Hunting Club? where's the constitutional infringement there?
Edited post above. You beat me to the punch on the "send" button.

Here it is again:
I guess that my point is that in the US it will not come to armed insurrection unless and until the government repeals Posse Comitatus and becomes a Military/Police State that uses violence as policy. Until that point, we maintain our firearms as simple tools for hunting and sport, and we maintain them at home so they are dispersed enough that an abusive government can't easily take them - keeping us feom being able to defend ourselves from genocidal activities.

That is what the referenced article is talking about. If we are to maintain that defense against Genocide is a Good that all humans have a Right to act upon, we must also have the means to act upon it. Therefore, those actions taken by a government that make it easier for that or later governments to perpetrate genocide (such as disarming a population) are pernicious.

Unionista, you are entitled to have your opinion that there is no reason to own a firearm, but there are some that would have a rough time of it, if they didn't have at least a rifle. Many times people can't just walk to the store.

In fact I think people should be allowed to have firearms, (weapons I have a problem with) and hunting and pest control are among the legitimate purposes I cansee. I could even see a case where if you lived 50 miles from the nearest town (in Wisconsin, for example ;) ) where the rules on keeping them at a secure location could be relaxed. Where we will almost definitely disagree is keeping a gun in urban or suburban houses. An absolute no as far as I'm concerned.

According to laws today, parents aren't criminally responsible for the actions of their children--yet can still be sued for civil responsibility.

If someone has left a gun out in a privately owned house, and someone breaks in and steals the gun, it's not the gun owner's fault. It's the criminal's fault. It's the criminals actions that cause the crime, not the owner's.
They aren't held accountable for their children's actions, but for their own. If the gun was to be locked up, and the ammo locked up separate from it, WASN'T, the kid then shoots someone else (this happened in town near where I grew up just a few years ago), the parent can be charged for negligence leading to harm.

you feminist jerks won't change that!!
This feminist has this to say: Hush.

Because the criminal that is going to rob me then kill me won't wait for me to go to the local armory, nor wait for the local constabulary to take them off to jail. It's a personal responsibility to ensure one's own safety. In the US, the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no obligation to protect citizens from harm. This means it's back to us to do it for ourselves.

That's only any use if you have your gun with you at all times. The only US cop I've met to speak to (other than to explain why I was driving so fast but that's a dfifferent story) told me that he's needed his gun twice in his career, and each time he realised it about half a second too late to get it out.

In fact I think people should be allowed to have firearms, (weapons I have a problem with) and hunting and pest control are among the legitimate purposes I cansee. I could even see a case where if you lived 50 miles from the nearest town (in Wisconsin, for example ;) ) where the rules on keeping them at a secure location could be relaxed. Where we will almost definitely disagree is keeping a gun in urban or suburban houses. An absolute no as far as I'm concerned.

Interesting.

Edited post above. You beat me to the punch on the "send" button.

Here it is again:
I guess that my point is that in the US it will not come to armed insurrection unless and until the government repeals Posse Comitatus and becomes a Military/Police State that uses violence as policy. Until that point, we maintain our firearms as simple tools for hunting and sport, and we maintain them at home so they are dispersed enough that an abusive government can't easily take them - keeping us feom being able to defend ourselves from genocidal activities.

That is what the referenced article is talking about. If we are to maintain that defense against Genocide is a Good that all humans have a Right to act upon, we must also have the means to act upon it. Therefore, those actions taken by a government that make it easier for that or later governments to perpetrate genocide (such as disarming a population) are pernicious.

Whilst I fully admit to moving the goal posts here, I will shamelessly do it anyway :D

The problem here is not people such as yourself and Zaxon, who are clearly sensible, rational well adjusted members of society but rather the Lowest Common Denominator types. People who don't have the sense they were born with are still allowed guns, people that have extreme (to be polite) political views have easy access to guns. In short, you are not the problem, but many others are.

That's only any use if you have your gun with you at all times. The only US cop I've met to speak to (other than to explain why I was driving so fast but that's a dfifferent story) told me that he's needed his gun twice in his career, and each time he realised it about half a second too late to get it out.

I hope I never need mine at all. But I know of a few that have had to use theirs--never had to fire, but the weapon scared off the assailant.

Basically, it's rare that you'd ever need a firearm for self-defense, but when you do...I'm not willing to bet my life or the lives I love on a probability. I want to be prepared for that .0001% chance because their lives and my life are worth more than anything else in the world.

Just because that particular person was not aware enough to be on top of the situation or was genuinely surprised regardless of vigilance level, doesn't mean that will be the case for all attacks on all people.

This feminist has this to say: Hush.

I agree with the feminist.

The problem here is not people such as yourself and Zaxon, who are clearly sensible, rational <snip>.

Eh, I wouldn't always go that far--you should see me on my cranky days. :)

Whilst I fully admit to moving the goal posts here, I will shamelessly do it anyway :D

The problem here is not people such as yourself and Zaxon, who are clearly sensible, rational well adjusted members of society but rather the Lowest Common Denominator types. People who don't have the sense they were born with are still allowed guns, people that have extreme (to be polite) political views have easy access to guns. In short, you are not the problem, but many others are.

Okay, I guess the difference in opinion occurs here:

I believe that people should be punished for their actions--not until they've shown that they are irresponsible and a menace to their neighbors. Stiffer penalties for attacking another, as opposed to the Californian way (I think the latest obscene method was to try to give someone only five years probation for a homicide). You attack someone you go to jail for a long time, without parole.

I just can't rationalize pre-emptively punishing or restricting someone. I know, I'm weird that way.

mmm ... and it was such a nice thread ...
Sorry for the bad words, it's just that I got angry too easily.... ;)

Having guns is not the problem, it is society itself. I am from a place where everyone over the age of 13 either owns or has imediate access to a firearm, no we are not a group of militants I am from the NWT where guns are viewed as tools not weapons. In fact one of the greatest punishments that is handed out in the traditional sentancing is having one's rifle taken away. This may seem ridiculous to some of you but think of it this way, if you provide for your family by hunting and traping having no rifle is a big deal? is it not?
Vahn Gwiinzi/Ublaami ! And mahsi cho/quyanainni for being another person who understands the need for guns in isolated areas. I'm Albertan Cree, but I lived in Inuvik for 3 years. What really got me on the pro-gun side was a recent 'bust' of some West Coast natives (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/29/rifles050629.html) who were transporting guns and ammo to a band who were implementing a hunting program with their youth. They are being targeted under anti-terrorism laws, and the guns still have not been returned, even though no charges have yet been laid. I can just imagine other native bands being looked at with raised eyebrows for the number of guns they have, if the context of hunting was deliberately ignored.

That's only any use if you have your gun with you at all times. I do.
The only US cop I've met to speak to (other than to explain why I was driving so fast but that's a dfifferent story) told me that he's needed his gun twice in his career, and each time he realised it about half a second too late to get it out.Cops see less crime than civillians do. Most of the time all a cop gets to see is the aftermath of a crime.

In my 15 years of daily carry, I have been the (attempted) victim of 3 violent attacks, all of which were thwarted by my possession, and display, of a firearm. I have not had to shoot anyone. Since police officers are generally carrying their firearms openly, they begin all confrontations having "displayed" their ability to defend themselves with deadly force. Thus, any criminal who intends on putting a police officer in the position of "needing" to use his gun will automatically be in a superior tactical position - that "half a second" you speak of.

OTOH, the criminal that attacks me does so on the premise that I am unable or unwilling to defend myself. His bravado is high and his caution is low. This puts HIM at the disadvantage when I prove him wrong.

So you think people should starve to death? There are some places in the world where gun ownership is a necesity in order to survice (and I am not talking about defence). Also the fact that you have firearms does not make it more likely to commit violent crime. I live in a place where everyone (except in the capital) over the age of 13 owns, or has immediate access to a firearm. We also have one of the lowest rates of violent crime in the country. So the argument that having guns make violent crime more likely is wrong. There are many mitigating factors to violent crime. Guns just facilitate those who are already going to do something violent.
Um, you're also in one of the least populated areas of the country. You also have one of the highest rates of suicide, and for males, guns are the number one method.

Not that they wouldn't find other ways to do it.

But people in the territories don't carry guns around for 'defense' either, except from wildlife. And kids are taught early on how to handle or at least respect weapons, and see them used in the context of hunting. To me, this is very different from the 'protection' mentality. I wonder how much that has to do with violent crime...the perceived use of guns I mean...1) for hunting, 2) for protection. Hmmmmm....

Which comes back to my point about having them in the home, why not keep them at an accessable local secure location? National Guard Armoury, Police Station, Gun Club, Hunting Club? where's the constitutional infringement there?

So you should only be able to speak freely in those same places? :(

EVERY example you'd put for the 2nd Amendment stands for the 1st and all the rest.

So you should only be able to speak freely in those same places? :(

EVERY example you'd put for the 2nd Amendment stands for the 1st and all the rest.

VERY good point. I was too concentrated on the reasons for the Amendment, and forgot to include the scope! Agh!

Oh grow up.

Where did I say anything about people starving to death? I said

Note the IN THEIR HOME bit? What's so wrong about hunters keeping their guns at a local secure location? and more to the point we are discussing the developed world here, and I stand entirely by my statement.

To make the leap you made is so bizarre I would question your rationality. Do you think Vegetarians support starvation then? presumably you have an entirely meat based diet, and only eat wild meat, without access to shops, yet you have internet access and a computer.

Come back when you have a more well considered argument and I may consider discussing things in a serious manner, until then coinsider yourself ignored.

Now now, calm down. He's talking about in the context of the North, where hunting is not just a supplement to the diet, it is the means of providing the diet. And we ARE discussing the developed world. What you need to realise is that 'developed' means different things in different regions.

A lot of people in the Northwest Territories, the Yukon and Nunavut in Canada hunt. Not trophy hunting, hunting for food. For many, it is the traditional way of life that is still central to their way of living. We are talking very isolated communities here. Why on earth should they have to keep their guns at an RCMP detachment? Why should they have to ask permission to get their guns and go hunt? Or to protect themselves from wildlife that come into even the town centres? And many of these people are out in the bush for many weeks, even months during the hunting seasons...do you object to them having their guns in their cabins at that time? What about those that live out in the bush full time? Should they make the 3 hour trip to the RCMP to get a gun when a bear is forcing her way through the window?

Not every situation is the same, and the rules don't fit everyone the same. I'm sorry you misunderstood the context being spoken from by the poster you replied to, and I hope you'll apologise for your insulting response.

Whilst I fully admit to moving the goal posts here, I will shamelessly do it anyway :D

The problem here is not people such as yourself and Zaxon, who are clearly sensible, rational well adjusted members of society but rather the Lowest Common Denominator types. People who don't have the sense they were born with are still allowed guns, people that have extreme (to be polite) political views have easy access to guns. In short, you are not the problem, but many others are.True, but why should I be punished for the crimes of the minority? I don't blame all Muslims for the actions of the SplodyDopes.

Firearms/explosives will always be acquired by those wishing to do agressive harm. It doesn't matter how highly regulated explosives or precursors are, the SplodyDopes still blow themselves up. The same applies to guns. Your own Philip Luty (http://spaces.msn.com/members/Syniks/) proved that when he demonstrated to the Home Office that anyone with a hand saw, drill and bench grinder can build a Sten clone. (See the "Luty Freedom Kit" in the Photo Album.)

The only options are: Ban all guns, then only the Government and criminals will have them - in which case it is only the innocents who die; or ensure that the Right ot Self Defense is held sacrosanct by ensuring there are minimal restrictions on the Right to Choose the most effective tool for the job - in which case Good People have the option to be armed against the Criminals and/or a Bad Government. Innocents will still die, but not JUST the innocents.

Now now, calm down. He's talking about in the context of the North, where hunting is not just a supplement to the diet, it is the means of providing the diet. And we ARE discussing the developed world. What you need to realise is that 'developed' means different things in different regions.

A lot of people in the Northwest Territories, the Yukon and Nunavut in Canada hunt. Not trophy hunting, hunting for food. For many, it is the traditional way of life that is still central to their way of living. We are talking very isolated communities here. Why on earth should they have to keep their guns at an RCMP detachment? Why should they have to ask permission to get their guns and go hunt? Or to protect themselves from wildlife that come into even the town centres? And many of these people are out in the bush for many weeks, even months during the hunting seasons...do you object to them having their guns in their cabins at that time? What about those that live out in the bush full time? Should they make the 3 hour trip to the RCMP to get a gun when a bear is forcing her way through the window?

Not every situation is the same, and the rules don't fit everyone the same. I'm sorry you misunderstood the context being spoken from by the poster you replied to, and I hope you'll apologise for your insulting response.
:fluffle:

Whilst I fully admit to moving the goal posts here, I will shamelessly do it anyway :D

The problem here is not people such as yourself and Zaxon, who are clearly sensible, rational well adjusted members of society but rather the Lowest Common Denominator types. People who don't have the sense they were born with are still allowed guns, people that have extreme (to be polite) political views have easy access to guns. In short, you are not the problem, but many others are.
The kind of gun nut you are talking about usually doesn't live in suburbia anyway:)

And I don't in fact think the majority of gun owners are a problem. But the minority of violent ones get the press.

Um, you're also in one of the least populated areas of the country. You also have one of the highest rates of suicide, and for males, guns are the number one method.

Not that they wouldn't find other ways to do it.

But people in the territories don't carry guns around for 'defense' either, except from wildlife. And kids are taught early on how to handle or at least respect weapons, and see them used in the context of hunting. To me, this is very different from the 'protection' mentality. I wonder how much that has to do with violent crime...the perceived use of guns I mean...1) for hunting, 2) for protection. Hmmmmm....

Sinuhue, I'm in a aimilar position to you and Tacos Bells - remote area, subsistence hunting, protection from wildlife.

But regarding guns for self-protection from human predators - it's not a big concern, but occasionally some very bad people drive through town. Some years ago a well-known serial murderer spent a few hours here and buried one of his child victims, Sarah Ann Wood, not far from my home.

It's my impression that you're uncomfortable with the general issue of guns owned solely for self-protection. The way I see it, Syniks, for example, lives in an area where threat from humans is the primary concern - so self-protection is the role for the 'tool' taher than hunting.

I do find it logical (and there's plenty of evidence to support this) that more people owning firearms will reduce the threat from violent criminals - armed victims are less desireable. We all want to protect our families, the only matter is what we're protecting them from.

Now now, calm down. He's talking about in the context of the North, where hunting is not just a supplement to the diet, it is the means of providing the diet. And we ARE discussing the developed world. What you need to realise is that 'developed' means different things in different regions.

A lot of people in the Northwest Territories, the Yukon and Nunavut in Canada hunt. Not trophy hunting, hunting for food. For many, it is the traditional way of life that is still central to their way of living. We are talking very isolated communities here. Why on earth should they have to keep their guns at an RCMP detachment? Why should they have to ask permission to get their guns and go hunt? Or to protect themselves from wildlife that come into even the town centres? And many of these people are out in the bush for many weeks, even months during the hunting seasons...do you object to them having their guns in their cabins at that time? What about those that live out in the bush full time? Should they make the 3 hour trip to the RCMP to get a gun when a bear is forcing her way through the window?

Not every situation is the same, and the rules don't fit everyone the same. I'm sorry you misunderstood the context being spoken from by the poster you replied to, and I hope you'll apologise for your insulting response.

Read the rest of my posts and you'll see where I qualified my statements to Urban and Suburban houses, and specifically included hunting and pest control. I may not personally agree with hunting as a "sport" and I don't believe in the developed world there is any need to hunt for food, it being one of the criteria I would apply to define "Developed".

Do not presume to tell me to apologise for anything. My response was no more disproportionate than Tacos Bells ludicrous post. I would make the same response to anyone that made such a fatuous statement, other posters have shown that it is possible to debate a highly emotive subject without dragging it into the playground, and anyone that chooses to use the debating style of a nine year old will get treated as one.

So you should only be able to speak freely in those same places? :(

EVERY example you'd put for the 2nd Amendment stands for the 1st and all the rest.

Sorry, I really do not understand what you are going on about here.

It's my impression that you're uncomfortable with the general issue of guns owned solely for self-protection. The way I see it, Syniks, for example, lives in an area where threat from humans is the primary concern - so self-protection is the role for the 'tool' taher than hunting.
Yes, this is what I don't care for...because it doesn't match my situation.
But I have become better able to understand the context people like Syniks are speaking from. In fact, this whole 'be responsible for your own self-defense' argument seemed fairly silly to me until a case in Edmonton ( http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050715/MISSING15/TPNational/Canada) I hear about yesterday. Now, no one really knows what has happened to the woman in this case, and I really hope she just went a little weird and ran off, but I suspect she was grabbed. For some reason this case really struck me hard. I thought, were I in a situation where someone wanted to grab me, what could I do about it? It hasn't been an issue, because I've always lived in such relatively crime-free areas...but things are not always like that. I'm not going to go carrying a gun around, but I did get my butt signed up for martial arts training again (it's been about 8 years since I last trained, and I'm beyond rusty). I can't imagine living in a really dangerous place...well, I can, and I'm glad I don't...and I guess I can't really blame people for carrying protection.

.........

The only options are: Ban all guns, then only the Government and criminals will have them - in which case it is only the innocents who die; or ensure that the Right ot Self Defense is held sacrosanct by ensuring there are minimal restrictions on the Right to Choose the most effective tool for the job - in which case Good People have the option to be armed against the Criminals and/or a Bad Government. Innocents will still die, but not JUST the innocents.

Well they're clearly not the only options. How about allow people to own guns, but keep them secured in government / independantly approved locations (which could include a properly secured location in the home under certain circumstances). How about allow people to own hunting type guns but not allow weapons such as an AK47 or an M60 (that's the really big one isn't it? section level 7.62 machine gun?) How about licences to own guns, and a test before you can own it. At least make sure the owner is sane, and can hit what they're aiming at.

Read the rest of my posts and you'll see where I qualified my statements to Urban and Suburban houses, and specifically included hunting and pest control. I may not personally agree with hunting as a "sport" and I don't believe in the developed world there is any need to hunt for food, it being one of the criteria I would apply to define "Developed".
That may be YOUR criteria for developed, but it doesn't necessarily meet the criteria of those who still follow the Porcupine Caribou herd.

Many of my people, and the peoples of the North hunt wale, seal, caribou, moose etc and subsist mostly on this animal protein. When you see the price of a cut of beef after the tremendous cost of transport, perhaps you'll understand why. These are fly-in communities where you can pay $7 a litre for milk during freeze up and break up, when the barge can't get in. Now you go and tell people living up there to get used to being in a 'developed country' that they don't need to hunt for food. You're talking from YOUR perspective, where food is plentiful and cheap and available. Taco Bells is not.

Do not presume to tell me to apologise for anything. My response was no more disproportionate than Tacos Bells ludicrous post. I would make the same response to anyone that made such a fatuous statement, Fatuous from your standpoint. What he said would become the reality were people in the North deprived of their guns. Ludicrous post, only when you don't understand the context, which I provided for you. LATER ON you qualified your statement, but you hadn't at the time of his post. My request to you was that you consider the context of Taco Bell's post before descending into flames. Even though you seem to think those flames were justified, they are nonetheless prohibited by forum rules.

Of course, sometimes "Protection from Bears" means a little more than average firepower... (Edited to remove SNOPES urban legend errors)
The slain bear shown in these images was shot to death in October 2001 by 22-year-old airman Ted Winnen stationed at Eielson Air Force Base near Fairbanks, Alaska. His encounter with the enormous ursine took place while he was deer hunting on Hinchinbrook Island in Prince William Sound,
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/bear.bmp
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/bearpaw.bmp

When I go back to Alaska, I'm bringing somthing a little bigger... maybe one of these:
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/sniperriflem10710cn.jpg

As good a reason as any for not banning .50 rifles! :D

Well they're clearly not the only options. How about allow people to own guns, but keep them secured in government / independantly approved locations (which could include a properly secured location in the home under certain circumstances). How about allow people to own hunting type guns but not allow weapons such as an AK47 or an M60 (that's the really big one isn't it? section level 7.62 machine gun?) How about licences to own guns, and a test before you can own it. At least make sure the owner is sane, and can hit what they're aiming at.

Which was exactly my position until this case. (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/29/rifles050629.html) However, if you read the article, even though these men were licensed, the guns legally purchased, all their papers in order, they are being targeted under anti-terror legislation anyway. My worry is that even hunting rifles are going to be more tightly restricted with the justification of 'fighting terror', regardless of whether or not that fear is justified.

Of course, sometimes "Protection from Bears" means a little more than average firepower...


When I go back to Alaska, I'm bringing somthing a little bigger... maybe one of these:
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/sniperriflem10710cn.jpg

As good a reason as any for not banning .50 rifles! :D
I agree. A 22 isn't going to kill a moose. Or a bear. Or much of anything:). You need something with some serious punch to put one of these animals down.

Well they're clearly not the only options. How about allow people to own guns, but keep them secured in government / independantly approved locations (which could include a properly secured location in the home under certain circumstances). How about allow people to own hunting type guns but not allow weapons such as an AK47 or an M60 (that's the really big one isn't it? section level 7.62 machine gun?) How about licences to own guns, and a test before you can own it. At least make sure the owner is sane, and can hit what they're aiming at.

The firearms you mention, and any fully automatic weapons, are already illegal for general posession (except with a very expensive and restrictive permit). There is some confusion on this matter because it's legal to own rifles that look like them, but full auto is the criteria.

Every gun bought in the US requires an FBI background check. Every person who hunts must pass a hunter safety class - the last one I taught was 17 hours of class and range time.

There are many gun safety classes readily available nation-wide, many are free. Every new firearm comes with a safety manual, just like your lawnmower. This isn't rocket science. It is very easy to be safe if you follow several simple procedures.

There are very, very few crimes committed by legal gun owners. You'll find most of the problems come from criminals who can readily get there guns in any barroom.

What I don't understand, is why Canada moved ahead with gun registration. (well that, and why it's cost over a billion dollars and counting...) We never had a big problem with gun violence in the first place, Canadians don't tend to be big gun owners in urban areas...the majority of owners live in rural areas where guns are for hunting and protection from wildlife. A lot of the momentum for gun registration came from the Polytechnique Massacre ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_Massacre) in Montreal, but despite the high profile of such cases, they are rare. As someone has said before....guns are tools...and nutjobs will use them, or something else to do crazy stuff...the guns themselves are not the problem. However, it's easier to regulate the guns than the nutjobs themselves....so perhaps that is the wish?

Of course, sometimes "Protection from Bears" means a little more than average firepower...


When I go back to Alaska, I'm bringing somthing a little bigger... maybe one of these:
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/sniperriflem10710cn.jpg

As good a reason as any for not banning .50 rifles! :D

I am the survivor of a black bear attack - killed at 3 feet with a .35 rem. carbine. I also faced down a series of bluff charges armed with a little 20 gauge and bird shot - didn't need to kill it, but it was darn close.

I agree. A 22 isn't going to kill a moose. Or a bear. Or much of anything:). You need something with some serious punch to put one of these animals down.
That's why I suggested if you are going to keep only one gun in your home it should be a 12ga. :D

But given the Edmonton thing :( ... are you ready to buy that Glock now? :p

There are very, very few crimes committed by legal gun owners. You'll find most of the problems come from criminals who can readily get there guns in any barroom.Exactly.

Fatuous from your standpoint. What he said would become the reality were people in the North deprived of their guns. Ludicrous post, only when you don't understand the context, which I provided for you. LATER ON you qualified your statement, but you hadn't at the time of his post. My request to you was that you consider the context of Taco Bell's post before descending into flames. Even though you seem to think those flames were justified, they are nonetheless prohibited by forum rules.

Fatuous from any standpoint. I'm not going to get into a debate with you or anyone about whether or not I was justified, or whether I should apologise. I may start an argument about being patronising but that's probably a separate issue. Or maybe I should consider the context of your statement, are you a kindegarten teacher?

But given the Edmonton thing :( ... are you ready to buy that Glock now? :p
Nope.

But like I said, I'm getting back into unarmed defense.

If that's not enough, I doubt much else would be.

Sorry, I really do not understand what you are going on about here.

Why should I have to listen to you speak your mind in the street? From now on, all free speach activities are limited to inside the courthouse, police station, and bars.

Now, do you consider that unconsititutional? Same thing with limiting firearms, cars, books, whatever. That's why the war on drugs will fail just like Prohibition did.

.........................Good......................................
There are very, very few crimes committed by legal gun owners. You'll find most of the problems come from criminals who can readily get there guns in any barroom.

And most illegal guns start off as legal ones that get stolen, so if legal guns are more strictly policed there'd be fewer illegal ones. Or is that too simple?

And most illegal guns start off as legal ones that get stolen, so if legal guns are more strictly policed there'd be fewer illegal ones. Or is that too simple?
Do you have any stats on that? It strikes me as wrong...
you would have to be talking about some serious levels of theft to explain the number of illegal guns out there...I'm interested in knowing how the majority of illegal (non-registered) guns become available.

And what do you mean by more strictly policed? If a legal gun was stolen, how could policing prevent that, and even if the gun is later seized, how would that have an impact on crime rates?

Why should I have to listen to you speak your mind in the street? From now on, all free speach activities are limited to inside the courthouse, police station, and bars.

Now, do you consider that unconsititutional? Same thing with limiting firearms, cars, books, whatever. That's why the war on drugs will fail just like Prohibition did.

No, still don't understand.

I can't drive a car anywhere I feel like it. I have to keep to speed limits. I can't exercise my freedom of speech to make racially inflammatory statements, I can't suggest in the USA that I want to kill the president, all illegal and for mostly good reason. I could however keep a loaded Smith and Wesson pretty much anywhere I want. Which rights are inalienable then?

And most illegal guns start off as legal ones that get stolen, so if legal guns are more strictly policed there'd be fewer illegal ones. Or is that too simple?No, but THIS is:
The expedient machine gun discussed herein is a 9mm weapon of straight blowback design. The gun fires from the open bolt and has a magazine capacity of 18 rounds. For our purposes, as stated in the Preface, the true expedient firearm is one that is built from the position that no outside influences, such as machine tools or professional gunsmith materials, are available. For this reason, nearly all major component parts of the weapon, receivers, barrel, breech block, and magazine are constructed from readily available steel tubing, eliminating the need for a lathe.
The gun barrel, for example, is a two-piece tube assembly and is smooth-bore rather than rifled. While the accuracy of the smooth-bore barrel is restricted to relatively close ranges, the ease and speed of assembling the expedient barrel more than compensate for this necessary compromise. The breech block, too, is a two- piece tube assembly of a skeletonized design, eliminating any need for a milling machine.

Manufacturing a gun magazine using the normal method of folding sheet steel around a forming block is a tricky and time-consuming operation. The expedient magazine avoids these problems because it is made from a length of tube that requires only a few small modifications. The magazine is of the single- stack design and holds up to 18 rounds. This is less than the capacity of the commercially produced twin-stack design, but once again the simplicity of manufacture more than compensates for the slightly reduced capacity.

Certain parts of a machine gun, such as the sear, require the use of hardened steel. However, because the acquisition and heat treatment of specialized steels can be problematic, I have incorporated certain easy-to-obtain substitutes into the gun design that are as close as possible to the correct steel types required. I have not included any sights on the machine gun, since their only purpose would be cosmetic, rather than to make the gun more accurate.

The machine gun is primarily a point-and- fire weapon. The main priorities are reliability and simple functionality—especially on a weapon that must be kept as simple as possible. In short, the list of materials includes only the bare necessities to ensure that the gun will shoot reliably and is as simple as possible to build.

TOOLS REQUIRED

1. Electric drill or drill press
2. Drill bits, 1.5 mm to 12.5 mm
3. Hacksaw
4. Large files, round, half round, square, and flat
5. Angle grinder
6. Bench grinder
7. Hammer
8. Set square (try square)
9. 13/32” taper pin reamer
10. Taper cutting tool
11. Countersink tool
12. Large vise

Obviously the better selection of tools available, the easier the gun will be to construct. A drill press, for example, while not in the hand tool category, will make drilling holes much quicker and easier, though a good variable-speed hand drill will suffice. It is worth pointing out here that a second-hand drill press is no more expensive than a good quality electric hand drill. If you are considering buying a drill, a drill press will save you a lot of time and effort.

BUYING MATERIALS
As I mentioned earlier, almost the entire weapon is constructed from steel tubing. The best sources for this material are tube suppliers, who will usually have every conceivable size of tubing in stock, including those required to build the expedient machine gun. Tubing suppliers usually have minimum order charges, which means a full length of tube must be bought in each diameter required for the machine gun. The advantage of buying more tube than required is that a lot of guns can be built at little cost. For small quantities of tubing, engineering and steel fabrication shops are good places to purchase off-cuts at little cost. A list of materials and tube sizes is provided below. To avoid making the list too long, I have left out certain small nuts, bolts, washers, and such, but these are discussed in the following chapters. I would advise reading the book through before attempting any construction, so as to familiarize yourself with the following sizes and abbreviations. The list is a quick-reference guide only. The tube sizes are given in millimeters, just as they will appear in most catalogs, but inches are also used where appropriate. The exact length of each tube, or the minimum amount necessary, is also supplied but as pointed out earlier, it is wise to buy more tube than required in case of any manufacturing errors. Where appropriate, some materials are marked with an asterisk, which indicates that two or three of that particular product should be bought in case of mistakes during construction.

TUBING AND MATERIALS REQUIRED
1. Lower receiver: 50 x 25 x 2.5 mm rectangular tube (2 x 1”), 14 1/2” length minimum
2. Upper receiver 38.10 x 38.10 mm 16- gauge 1/2”-square tube, 14 1/2”
length minimum
3. Barrel/breech block tube: 15.88 x 3.25 mm round tube, 18” length minimum
4. Barrellblock sleeve: 19.05 x 16-gauge round tube (3/4”), 20” length minimum
5. Magazine: 34.93 x 15.88 mm 16-gauge rectangular tube, 10” length minimum
6. Grip: 40 x 20 x 2 mm rectangular tube, 10” length minimum
7. 3/4” steel collars (13)
8. 8 mm dia. socket screws (hex-drive, button-head, cap screws), 9.5 mm long (12)
9. 6 mm dia. socket screw, 11/8” long (1)
10. 4 mm dia. socket11. Mudwing washers, 11/4” dia. x 8 mm hole (3)*
12. Mudwing washers, 2” dia. x 8 mm hole*
13. Hexagon or Allen wrench, 12 mm dia.*
14. Spring pin (roll pin), 1/2” dia. x 3” long*
15. Spring steel strip, 24 ga., 1/2” wide x 12” long*
16. Piano wire, 19 gauge and 20 gauge (buy several rolls)
17. Round steel rod, 7 mm dia. x 6” long
18. 7 mm steel collar (1)
19. Steel plate, 3 x 2” x 3 mm thick
20. Hook bolt U bolt), 8 mm dia.* screw, 11/8” long (2)

... Tell me how any sort of restriction on firerarms will prevent me from making (and selling?) these if I wanted to?

Do you have any stats on that? It strikes me as wrong...
you would have to be talking about some serious levels of theft to explain the number of illegal guns out there...I'm interested in knowing how the majority of illegal (non-registered) guns become available.

Are you two different people? I'm having a bit of a problem with this.

I have no evidence other than "I read it in the paper a few years ago" about the main source of illegal guns being stolen legal ones, and I'm not getting into a discussion with you about telling Tacos to grow up.

No, but THIS is:
Tell me how any sort of restriction on firerarms will prevent me from making (and selling?) these if I wanted to?

They won't, clearly. However (and here's the clever bit) They aren't a gun.

They also require a certain amount of effort, expertise and equipment to tranform the pile of raw materials into a gun. Far easier surely to sneak into TAcos Bell's place whilat he's out hunting caribou and nick his spare FN.

And most illegal guns start off as legal ones that get stolen, so if legal guns are more strictly policed there'd be fewer illegal ones. Or is that too simple?

I think it's an oversimplification, though any stolen gun could end up on the street. Stolen guns get reported and investigated, though I can't say what the recovery rate is. Most gun owners keep them locked up, which helps.

There are circa hundreds of millions of guns floating around out there manufactured from the late 1800's to the present. They simply can't be accounted for - these are the ones the police tried to target with the failed 'buy-back' programs.

Are you two different people? I'm having a bit of a problem with this.

I have no evidence other than "I read it in the paper a few years ago" about the main source of illegal guns being stolen legal ones, and I'm not getting into a discussion with you about telling Tacos to grow up.
No, I'm one person. I take exception to your response to Taco's post because I understand what he is talking about (the need to hunt for subsistence) whereas you seem to think that is not a valid need in this day and age. Clearly, you're working from a different cultural framework. As long as you realise that, and do not attempt to make sweeping generalisations about 'hunting not being necessary in the developed world' we'll be fine.

So you read it in a paper...was this in your country? I can't imagine that theft could account for the numbers of illegal guns everywhere.

And I'm still unclear as to how policing legal guns would prevent them from being stolen?

No, still don't understand.

I can't drive a car anywhere I feel like it.Actually you can - as long as you aren't damaging someone elses property.
I have to keep to speed limits.Not under emergency conditions like a race to the hospital... equivilent to the emergency condition of self defense.
I can't exercise my freedom of speech to make racially inflammatory statements,Maybe not in England, but in the US you can if you are not White - and even then you can if you don't mind being sued.
I can't suggest in the USA that I want to kill the president, Not true. You can say it all you want - just not to his face and not in any way as could be construed that you inten to follow through with it (thereby constituting a threat vs. idle wishfullness)
all illegal and for mostly good reason.Nope. You don't know enough about US law to really comment.
I could however keep a loaded Smith and Wesson pretty much anywhere I want.Except Government buildings, Liquor stores/establishments, Churches or anywhere elst the owner/proprietor posts "no guns allowed".

Which rights are inalienable then?Life (and the preservation thereof), Liberty (and the preservation thereof), and the Persuit of Happiness.

They won't, clearly. However (and here's the clever bit) They aren't a gun.

They also require a certain amount of effort, expertise and equipment to tranform the pile of raw materials into a gun. Far easier surely to sneak into TAcos Bell's place whilat he's out hunting caribou and nick his spare FN.
LOL.

Good luck getting away with that in Taco Bell's area. People would recognise the gun and give that person all hell until he or she returned it to the owner.

Now, in a larger city setting, your example might work.

They won't, clearly. However (and here's the clever bit) They aren't a gun.Here's the clever bit - you can't read contextually. "These" refers to the machinegun made from the above listed raw materials.
They also require a certain amount of effort, expertise and equipment to tranform the pile of raw materials into a gun. Far easier surely to sneak into TAcos Bell's place whilat he's out hunting caribou and nick his spare FN.
Not really. I posted the link (http://spaces.msn.com/members/Syniks/PersonalSpace.aspx?_c11_PhotoAlbum_spaHandler=TWljcm9zb2Z0LlNwYWNlcy5XZWIuUGFydHMuUGhvdG9BbGJ1bS5GdW xsTW9kZUNvbnRyb2xsZXI%24&_c11_PhotoAlbum_spaFolderID=cns!1pAe7PHCtVOODaOYc9G_8dBg!174&_c=PhotoAlbum) for you to peruse Luty's book. It is, in fact, so ludicrously easy to build that particular gun that the Home Office put that book under the Ban. It is only available in England from very specific Libraries under restricted conditions - and can never leave the building.

I can build one of those machineguns in roughly 72 hours - and I dont have to find someone with guns in their home, then break in, then steal, (without getting caught/shot) to do it.

No, still don't understand.

I can't drive a car anywhere I feel like it. I have to keep to speed limits. I can't exercise my freedom of speech to make racially inflammatory statements, I can't suggest in the USA that I want to kill the president, all illegal and for mostly good reason. I could however keep a loaded Smith and Wesson pretty much anywhere I want. Which rights are inalienable then?

And I can't carry my .45 into a house of worship, school, government building, military installation or bar area. No difference.

The SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) ruled that laws may be made with REASONABLE limits for the public good. That's why you can yell FIRE! in a crowded theatre... if there IS a fire. Why you can't just print slander... etc.

What was proposed was the you can only keep guns in X areas. That's contrary to every OTHER right, where they're all allowed EXCEPT in Y case.

No, I'm one person. I take exception to your response to Taco's post because I understand what he is talking about (the need to hunt for subsistence) whereas you seem to think that is not a valid need in this day and age. Clearly, you're working from a different cultural framework. As long as you realise that, and do not attempt to make sweeping generalisations about 'hunting not being necessary in the developed world' we'll be fine.

So you read it in a paper...was this in your country? I can't imagine that theft could account for the numbers of illegal guns everywhere.

And I'm still unclear as to how policing legal guns would prevent them from being stolen?

I think it was the Daily Telegraph several years ago. And that several could be anywhere up to 20 years.

I use policing in the sense of Rugulation rather than the law enforcement sense, but if close checks are made on the storage of weapons and people are made accountable for them in the event of loss or theft then the supply of available weapons to steal is controlled, reduced and hopefully closed off completely. I would also make the manufacturers more responsible for the safety of the weapons, in a similar way to car manufacturers being responsible for passenger / pedestrian safety. I would also use statistical analyses, for example if it is seen that inner city gang members are less likely to be attacked by a Grizzly Bear I would not allow them to buy a gun capable of killing a Grizzly Bear. I would also take note that the Americans seem to kill more of their own citizens with guns than Al Qaeda have managed to, so I mihgt stop americans owning guns ;)

And I can't carry my .45 into a house of worship, school, government building, military installation or bar area. No difference.

.......

What was proposed was the you can only keep guns in X areas. That's contrary to every OTHER right, where they're all allowed EXCEPT in Y case.

I'm sure that will be a great comfort to the residents of Dunfermline and Columbine.

Guns can kill people. That is why "rights" surrounding them ought to be restricted.

I'm sure that will be a great comfort to the residents of Dunfermline and Columbine.
Ah, what little you know of Columbine.

Eric & Dylan intended to blow up the school. When their bombs turned out to be manifest failures, they fell to plan B. Had their bombs worked, the loss of life would have been considerably GREATER.

Guns cannot "kill" anyone. They are inanimate objects whose worth is entirely dependant on the holder.

Here is a fun one for you (since you like school shoootings)

Vice Principal Joel Myrick held his Colt .45 point blank to the high school boy's head. Last week, he told me what it was like. "I said 'why are you shooting my kids?' He said it was because nobody liked him and everything seemed hopeless," Myrick said. "Then I asked him his name. He said 'you know me, Mr. Myrick. Remember? I gave you a discount on your pizza delivery last week."

The shooter was Luke Woodham. On that day in 1997, Woodham slit his mother's throat then grabbed a .30-30 lever action deer rifle. He packed the pockets of his trench coat with ammo and headed off to Pearl High School, in Pearl, Miss.

The moment Myrick heard shots, he ran to his truck. He unlocked the door, removed his gun from its case, removed a round of bullets from another case, loaded the gun and went looking for the killer. "I've always kept a gun in the truck just in case something like this ever happened," said Myrick, who has since become Principal of Corinth High School, Corinth, Miss.

Woodham knew cops would arrive before too long, so he was all business, no play. No talk of Jesus, just shooting and reloading, shooting and reloading. He shot until he heard sirens, and then ran to his car. His plan, authorities subsequently learned, was to drive to nearby Pearl Junior High School and shoot more kids before police could show up.

But Myrick foiled that plan. He saw the killer fleeing the campus and positioned himself to point a gun at the windshield. Woodham, seeing the gun pointed at his head, crashed the car. Myrick approached the killer and confronted him. "Here was this monster killing kids in my school, and the minute I put a gun to his head he was a kid again," Myrick said.... Myrick and his gun, no matter how one looks at it, saved lives. His actions saved the lives of waiting victims at a nearby junior high. He may have kept Woodham from shooting police, who would have arrived at the scene disoriented, without Myrick's home turf frame of reference. Arguably, Myrick and his gun even saved the life of the killer, who likely would have killed himself or been shot by SWAT cops after spilling more blood.
http://www.davidkopel.com/2A/OthWr/principal&gun.htm

What if the principal had not followed Federal Law and carried that gun on his person instead of having to run to his truck (a mandatory 1000 ft away) to retrieve it? "Here was this monster killing kids in my school, and the minute I put a gun to his head he was a kid again," What if he had been able to put that gun to that monster's head a few minutes earlier? Do you think fewer kids might have died?

Of course, sometimes "Protection from Bears" means a little more than average firepower...


When I go back to Alaska, I'm bringing somthing a little bigger... maybe one of these:
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y180/MrMisanthrope/sniperriflem10710cn.jpg

As good a reason as any for not banning .50 rifles! :D

Gah! NOOOOOOO!!!! Don't use that as an example, Misanthrope! <sigh> unfortunately, the story isn't exactly true. :(

http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/bearhunt.asp

I'm sure that will be a great comfort to the residents of Dunfermline and Columbine.

Guns can kill people. That is why "rights" surrounding them ought to be restricted.

Sure. But lots of things are potentially dangerous used wrongly. Violent, evil people kill people. Usually at very close range. What did murderers kill people with before guns were invented?

Taking guns from law-abiding people will not prevent murderers, who can easily acquire illegal firearms, from killing people. Barring guns the same murderer will use a knife or a bat. The problem is with violent criminals who will remain violent even if you could magically deprive him of guns.

Which was exactly my position until this case. (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/29/rifles050629.html) However, if you read the article, even though these men were licensed, the guns legally purchased, all their papers in order, they are being targeted under anti-terror legislation anyway. My worry is that even hunting rifles are going to be more tightly restricted with the justification of 'fighting terror', regardless of whether or not that fear is justified.

Considering a .308 hunting rifle is more dangerous tactically than an AR-15....yeah, I'd be worried too. :(

I'm sure that will be a great comfort to the residents of Dunfermline and Columbine.

Guns can kill people. That is why "rights" surrounding them ought to be restricted.

And I'm sure that those speed limits make the people who are killed in motor vehicles feel better, too. :rolleyes:

So do cars, planes, and virtually every other tangible object.

And, for that matter, it IS already restricted! You can't legally carry/own without a license in most states.

And while you're at it, please explain to me why guns need more regulation than cars, since cars kill more people a year?

Gah! NOOOOOOO!!!! Don't use that as an example, Misanthrope! <sigh> unfortunately, the story isn't exactly true. :(

http://www.snopes.com/photos/animals/bearhunt.asp
My bad. Forgot to check snopes when I got it. It's fixed now.

But even still I think the point is valid. Anything that takes six shots from a .338 Win Mag (from snopes) (bigger & badder than the 7mm) still gives me a good hunting reason for a .50bmg. :D

No, still don't understand.

I can't drive a car anywhere I feel like it.


Freedom of movement across property you don't own isn't guaranteed in the US Constitution (which is all I have to go on here, in the US).


I have to keep to speed limits. I can't exercise my freedom of speech to make racially inflammatory statements,


Actually, yes, you can. At least here.


I can't suggest in the USA that I want to kill the president,


Again, yeah, you can. You can't just go about actively planning it, without having some issues with the Secret Service.


all illegal and for mostly good reason.


Not illegal...


I could however keep a loaded Smith and Wesson pretty much anywhere I want. Which rights are inalienable then?

Not within 1000 feet of a school, not in any federal government building, not in most financial institutions, etc....there are already several limitations on where you can and cannot carry a firearm--all mostly against the 2nd amendment, but someone mentioned mass brain-washing earlier...and it does work. :(

I would also make the manufacturers more responsible for the safety of the weapons, in a similar way to car manufacturers being responsible for passenger / pedestrian safety. I would also use statistical analyses, for example if it is seen that inner city gang members are less likely to be attacked by a Grizzly Bear I would not allow them to buy a gun capable of killing a Grizzly Bear.

That's not safety. That's USE.

All modern firearms (since about 1990) require no less than THREE actions to expend a round. You can't just drop a pistol and have it go off.

Sure. But lots of things are potentially dangerous used wrongly. Violent, evil people kill people. Usually at very close range. What did murderers kill people with before guns were invented?

Taking guns from law-abiding people will not prevent murderers, who can easily acquire illegal firearms, from killing people. Barring guns the same murderer will use a knife or a bat.

Yes, they will.

We do not have high levels of Gun ownership in the UK, and we do not have a correspondingly high level of death by stabbing / poisoning / cricket bat.

Are you suggesting there's something different about Americans that makes them more prone to violent and murderous crime?

Yes, they will.

We do not have high levels of Gun ownership in the UK, and we do not have a correspondingly high level of death by stabbing / poisoning / cricket bat.

Are you suggesting there's something different about Americans that makes them more prone to violent and murderous crime?

Yes.

Yes, they will.

We do not have high levels of Gun ownership in the UK, and we do not have a correspondingly high level of death by stabbing / poisoning / cricket bat.

Are you suggesting there's something different about Americans that makes them more prone to violent and murderous crime?

Er... you are aware of the violent crime rates in London vs. New York?!?

My bad. Forgot to check snopes when I got it. But even still I think the point is valid. Anything that takes six shots from a .338 Win Mag (from snopes) (bigger & badder than the 7mm) still gives me a good hunting reason for a .50bmg. :D

Good point. :D I'd probably still use the lever action Marlin. :D Either three or four rounds of .44 mag or one or two of .444 Marlin. Don't know which I'd choose...

Ah, what little you know of Columbine.

True, almost all I know about it is courtesy of Michael Moore and even I know he's full of crap.

Guns cannot "kill" anyone. They are inanimate objects whose worth is entirely dependant on the holder.

Here is a fun one for you (since you like school shoootings)


http://www.davidkopel.com/2A/OthWr/principal&gun.htm

What if the principal had not followed Federal Law and carried that gun on his person instead of having to run to his truck (a mandatory 1000 ft away) to retrieve it? "Here was this monster killing kids in my school, and the minute I put a gun to his head he was a kid again," What if he had been able to put that gun to that monster's head a few minutes earlier? Do you think fewer kids might have died?

What if the perpetrator had not been able to easily get hold of a gun in the first place?

Yes, they will.

We do not have high levels of Gun ownership in the UK, and we do not have a correspondingly high level of death by stabbing / poisoning / cricket bat.

Are you suggesting there's something different about Americans that makes them more prone to violent and murderous crime?

YES! There is definitely something different about the culture that promotes that behavior.

What if the perpetrator had not been able to easily get hold of a gun in the first place?

How do you do that? The UK is the size of OREGON and you still have some illegal guns. The US is MUCH larger, and not an island...

True, almost all I know about it is courtesy of Michael Moore and even I know he's full of crap.


Good. :)


What if the perpetrator had not been able to easily get hold of a gun in the first place?

Probably have built a homemade bomb out of fertilizer or something else easily aquired. Could do even more damage that way.

Er... you are aware of the violent crime rates in London vs. New York?!?

Yes.

Are you?

And let's not take cities in isolation, or I'll choose to compare Godalming with the Watts. Compare the USA crime figures per head of population with UK figures, particularly murder rates per head. I know where I'd feel safer.

Yes, they will.

We do not have high levels of Gun ownership in the UK, and we do not have a correspondingly high level of death by stabbing / poisoning / cricket bat.

Are you suggesting there's something different about Americans that makes them more prone to violent and murderous crime?

Cultural differences have a lot to do with violent crime, far more than the number of guns per capita. Note here that GB had a lower rate of gun homicide before the ban than after.

"Although there is more per capita firepower in Switzerland than any place in the world, it is one of the safest places to be. To the delight of Americans who support the right to keep and bear arms, Switzerland is the proof in the pudding of the argument that guns don't cause crime.

According to the UN International Study on Firearm Regulation, in 1994 the homicide rate in England (including Wales) was 1.4 (9% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 116, per 100,000 population. In the United States, the homicide rate was almost 9.0 (70% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 234, per 100,000. England has strict gun control laws, ergo, the argument goes, the homicide rate is far lower than in the United States. However, such comparisons can be dangerous: in 1900, when England had no gun controls, the homicide rate was only 1.0 per 100,000.

Moreover, using data through 1996, the U.S. Department of Justice study Crime and Justice concluded that in England the robbery rate was 1.4 times higher, the assault rate was 2.3 higher, and the burglary rate was 1.7 times higher than in the United States. Only the murder and rape rates in the United States were higher than in England.

The UN Study omits Switzerland from its comparative analysis. The Swiss example contradicts the Study's hypothesis that a high incidence of firearm ownership correlates with high violent crime.

The Swiss Federal Police Office reports that, in 1997, there were 87 intentional homicides and 102 attempted homicides in the entire country. Some 91 of these 189 murders and attempts involved firearms (the statistics do not distinguish firearm use in consummated murders from attempts). With its population of seven million (which includes 1.2 million foreigners), Switzerland had a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. There were 2,498 robberies (and attempted robberies), of which 546 involved firearms, giving a robbery rate of 36 per 100,000. Almost half of these criminal acts were committed by non-resident foreigners, which is why one hears reference in casual talk to "criminal tourists."

Sometimes, the data sounds too good to be true. In 1993, not a single armed robbery was reported in Geneva.

In a word, Switzerland, which is awash in guns, has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned."

EDIT: link - http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Vb8DzxSg0vkJ:www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html+switzerland+per+capita+handgun+ownership&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

YES! There is definitely something different about the culture that promotes that behavior.

Simple then. We only let English People living in America own guns. :D

Good. :)



Probably have built a homemade bomb out of fertilizer or something else easily aquired. Could do even more damage that way.

But fertilizer is readily available here, and (apart from Northern Ireland for fairly obvious reasons) there are no restrictions on buying or transporting it yet the place is generally surprisingly explosion free.

Good point. :D I'd probably still use the lever action Marlin. :D Either three or four rounds of .44 mag or one or two of .444 Marlin. Don't know which I'd choose...
Here's what I would carry (the Barret's really too heavy)

http://www.wildwestguns.com/CoPilot_And_Guide_Rifles/aksafclubcp.jpg
http://www.wildwestguns.com/CoPilot_And_Guide_Rifles/bigcopilotred.jpg
http://www.wildwestguns.com/CoPilot_And_Guide_Rifles/body_copilot_and_guide_rifles.html

Jim West bulds a hellofa gun. I used to buy all my brass & lead from him.

Simple then. We only let English People living in America own guns. :D

Ah, do we know it's the mainstream culture, though? Or is it some kind of alternate culture (like organized/disorganized crime circles)?

Not really all that simple.

I know you were being facetious, but I think it needed to be said.

Cultural differences have a lot to do with violent crime, far more than the number of guns per capita. Note here that GB had a lower rate of gun homicide before the ban than after.
............................................................................

In a word, Switzerland, which is awash in guns, has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned."

EDIT: link - http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:Vb8DzxSg0vkJ:www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html+switzerland+per+capita+handgun+ownership&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

Average standard of living have a bearing then?

And I don't in fact think the majority of gun owners are a problem. But the minority of violent ones get the press.

Replace "gun owners" with "Muslims" and this whole thread is really, really starting to sound familiar. :D

Here's what I would carry (the Barret's really too heavy)

http://www.wildwestguns.com/CoPilot_And_Guide_Rifles/aksafclubcp.jpg
http://www.wildwestguns.com/CoPilot_And_Guide_Rifles/bigcopilotred.jpg
http://www.wildwestguns.com/CoPilot_And_Guide_Rifles/body_copilot_and_guide_rifles.html

Jim West bulds a hellofa gun. I used to buy all my brass & lead from him.

Has to be said, nice looking bit of kit, both of them.

Although there is more per capita firepower in Switzerland than any place in the world, it is one of the safest places to be. To the delight of Americans who support the right to keep and bear arms, Switzerland is the proof in the pudding of the argument that guns don't cause crime.

In Switzerland EVERYONE is a soldier. Discipline. Training.

In the US a small proportion are soldiers. Outside that proportion how many are trained disciplined and all the rest which makes a soldier a responsible gun-user rather than a half-trained nut (generalisation I know).

Also Switzerland has some pretty solid accounting procedures for their weaponry. You don't misuse a weapon when every bullet is registered (pretty much).

But fertilizer is readily available here, and (apart from Northern Ireland for fairly obvious reasons) there are no restrictions on buying or transporting it yet the place is generally surprisingly explosion free.

So we're agreed then, that it's not the weapon?

You just proved the point. You have restrictions on firearms, and there are low homicide rates with them. You have no restrictions of fertilizer, and there are low rates of bombs being made of fertilizer.

Has to be said, nice looking bit of kit, both of them.
Yes, and they come in such delicious flavours too:
We take a Marlin 1895 Guide Gun in blue or stainless and dissemble it. The action is modified to allow use of the hot .457 Wild West Magnum while still allowing use of standard 45-70 loads, or is set up for the big .50 Alaskan. The front sight is changed to a fiber optic front bead for high visibility. Before reassembling, a reliability tune is performed on the action for feeding, extracting and ejecting. Our patent pending Trigger Happy Kit is installed for a crisp clean 3 pound trigger pull. We install a Pachmayr Decelerator pad to help with recoil and Parkerize the rifle. You now have a true Alaskan Guide rifle. And if you want a smaller package, you can get our Master Guide, the take down version of the original Alaskan Guide!
http://www.wildwestguns.com/Ammunition/Shellsactualsize.jpg

...the .457 Wild West Magnum is firing a 350 grain premium Kodiak "Bear" Bullet at 2200 fps for maximum shocking power and 405 grainers at 2000! IT'S THE HOTTEST 45 CALIBER CARTRIDGE CHAMBERED IN A LEVER GUN!

And it performs! How about FORTY INCHES of penetration at 100 yards into a trophy brown bear expanding to .70? Or a shoulder to shoulder shot through a moose with the slug expanding to .90? These recovered slugs demonstrate once and for all that a premium quality jacketed bullet driven at maximum velocity is the ultimate dangerous game cartridge.
And accurate beyond all imagination:
http://www.wildwestguns.com/CoPilot_And_Guide_Rifles/drewtarget.jpg
Self Defense never had it so good. :D

In Switzerland EVERYONE is a soldier. Discipline. Training.

In the US a small proportion are soldiers. Outside that proportion how many are trained disciplined and all the rest which makes a soldier a responsible gun-user rather than a half-trained nut (generalisation I know).

Also Switzerland has some pretty solid accounting procedures for their weaponry. You don't misuse a weapon when every bullet is registered (pretty much).

Guns don't cause crime. The Swiss people choose not to commit crimes despite the fact they are armed. Millions of armed Americans choose not to commit crimes with their legal firearms.

As to the soldier-training issue, that's baloney. How many million American gunowners have military background? Is miltary safety training any better than civilian? How safe is safe? Every bullet in Switzerland is not registered, and don't characterize American gunowners as half-trained nut's, it's insulting. Provide sources for your generalizations please.

I would also take note that the Americans seem to kill more of their own citizens with guns than Al Qaeda have managed to, so I mihgt stop americans owning guns ;)
I'm going to say something a little inflammatory...I apologise in advance to the USians here...

Do you really think that if all guns were banned, or even made completely unavailable, that people in the US would stop killing one another? Or that the levels of homicide would even decrease enough to make that sort of outright ban worth it?

I have less faith in humans than you I think.

I'm going to say something a little inflammatory...I apologise in advance to the USians here...

Do you really think that if all guns were banned, or even made completely unavailable, that people in the US would stop killing one another? Or that the levels of homicide would even decrease enough to make that sort of outright ban worth it?

I have less faith in humans than you I think.

As a citizen of the US, I think you're spot-on. Murders would continue at, or very near, the current rate.

Guns don't cause crime. Pretty much what I said then... The Swiss people choose not to commit crimes despite the fact they are armed. Yep. Why? Higher standards of living, discipline, accountability. Millions of armed Americans choose not to commit crimes with their legal firearms. This proves? Millions have doubtless committed petty arson with a lighter. Doesn't mean guns are safer than lighters.

As to the soldier-training issue, that's baloney. How many million American gunowners have military background? Not the foggiest old bean. Is miltary safety training any better than civilian? I'd damn well hope so! How safe is safe? Every bullet in Switzerland is not registered, I didn't say that. Try reading. If you have to account for your gun use you are less likely to be irresponsible however. That is a fact. and don't characterize American gunowners as half-trained nut's, it's insulting. I know it is. Unfortunately I'm a tad tired of this whole repetetive debate (yet once more I man the walls, crazy huh?) Provide sources for your generalizations please.

Bolded.

I'm going to say something a little inflammatory...I apologise in advance to the USians here... Why? It's true, and has less to do with being American than it does with being a criminal in a society that has laws that favor criminals over victims.
Do you really think that if all guns were banned, or even made completely unavailable, that people in the US would stop killing one another? Or that the levels of homicide would even decrease enough to make that sort of outright ban worth it? Shhh! Medicine Woman speak with Logical Tongue. Heap annoying. :p
I have less faith in humans than you I think.Not less than me. :(

Replace "gun owners" with "Muslims" and this whole thread is really, really starting to sound familiar. :D
Replace "gun owners" with ANY group and it'll still be as familiar:)

Average standard of living have a bearing then?
Who knows?

And that's exactly the point.

We don't REALLY know what causes gun violence. Clearly, the availability of guns can not be the sole factor. Or even an important one. Most places require you to be licensed and to take a firearms safety course in order to purchase weapons...so the violence can not be attributed to ignorance or the 'oops' factor either. Since these are really the only things registration addresses, it seems clear that REGISTRATION = LESS VIOLENCE is NOT a valid argument.

Therefore, why infringe on people to the extent you are suggesting, if we can not prove that it will actually make any sort of positive difference? You are talking about letting cops come into your home to 'check' how your guns are stored. To me, that is an unacceptable infringement when the results of such powers are highly suspect.

Back to the original Topic:

How many of you (other than Zaxon & I) have actually read the PDF (http://www.davidkopel.org/2A/Foreign/genocide.pdf), and what do you think?

Read it. Meh. In my mind, nothing terribly shocking or controversial in there.

Who knows?

And that's exactly the point.

We don't REALLY know what causes gun violence. Clearly, the availability of guns can not be the sole factor. Or even an important one. Most places require you to be licensed and to take a firearms safety course in order to purchase weapons...so the violence can not be attributed to ignorance or the 'oops' factor either. Since these are really the only things registration addresses, it seems clear that REGISTRATION = LESS VIOLENCE is NOT a valid argument.

Therefore, why infringe on people to the extent you are suggesting, if we can not prove that it will actually make any sort of positive difference? You are talking about letting cops come into your home to 'check' how your guns are stored. To me, that is an unacceptable infringement when the results of such powers are highly suspect.

No, I'm sorry but Guns are an important factor in th elevels of gun related violence. Possibly the most important

No, I'm sorry but Guns are an important factor in th elevels of gun related violence. Possibly the most important

Well, yah, and knives are the most important factor in knife related violence.

The point is to stop concentrating on the particular device, and concentrate on the violence aspect.

If you want to lower gun violence, yes, putting terrible restrictions on firearms will make a dent. But other violence types would go up.

No, I'm sorry but Guns are an important factor in th elevels of gun related violence. Possibly the most important
Just as <snip to Zaxon>, and Bombs are the single most important factor in Bomb violence and Knitting Needles are the single most important factor in Knitting Needle Violence... :rolleyes:

The problem isn't the Tool used in the violence, it is the Violence itself. Figure out how to control the Violence and the Tool becomes moot.

But fertilizer is readily available here, and (apart from Northern Ireland for fairly obvious reasons) there are no restrictions on buying or transporting it yet the place is generally surprisingly explosion free.

Right! Nothing happened in London 8 days ago... :rolleyes:

No, I'm sorry but Guns are an important factor in th elevels of gun related violence. Possibly the most important

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/nottinghamshire/4574965.stm

A judge has raised concerns about the sale of dangerous weapons after a man killed a neighbour with a crossbow and a sword he bought by mail order.
Sentencing Boyer on Tuesday, Judge Mr Justice Bean called for tighter laws to govern the sale of similar weapons.


...I can't wait to see what British judges are going to do when people will have reverted back to the rock and stick... Legislating THINGS never works. You need to legislate BEHAVIOR.

No, I'm sorry but Guns are an important factor in th elevels of gun related violence. Possibly the most important
You've yet to prove it.

And neither have the other anti-gun advocates.

Your opinion is not justification enough to invade my home, 'checking' for proper gun storage etc.

Edit: Wait, sorry...I just read that again and almost choked...

Of COURSE guns are a factor in gun-violence...just like knives are a factor in knife violence, and pasta is a factor in spaghetti dishes served in little Italy.
Maybe you could be a bit more clear? :D

You've yet to prove it.

And neither have the other anti-gun advocates.

Your opinion is not justification enough to invade my home, 'checking' for proper gun storage etc.

Edit: Wait, sorry...I just read that again and almost choked...

Of COURSE guns are a factor in gun-violence...just like knives are a factor in knife violence, and pasta is a factor in spaghetti dishes served in little Italy.
Maybe you could be a bit more clear? :D
Wow. Someone goes even slightly "pro gun" and they get Feisty! :eek:

Oh, wait, that was Sinhue... She was already feisty. My bad. :D

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/nottinghamshire/4574965.stm

A judge has raised concerns about the sale of dangerous weapons after a man killed a neighbour with a crossbow and a sword he bought by mail order.
Sentencing Boyer on Tuesday, Judge Mr Justice Bean called for tighter laws to govern the sale of similar weapons.


...I can't wait to see what British judges are going to do when people will have reverted back to the rock and stick... Legislating THINGS never works. You need to legislate BEHAVIOR.
BAN POINTY THINGS!

Now go ahead and attack me with the banana...

BAN POINTY THINGS!

Now go ahead and attack me with the banana...

:D

Let me just pick up this toaster...

http://www.reddwarf.vote.nhspeople.net/toaster.jpg

BAN POINTY THINGS!


Yeah...and soon my 'personal massager' will be illegal, making it even MORE difficult to handle my huband's two weeks per month absenses....

...and you can just imagine all the weird emergency room visits to get frozen hot dogs or zucchinis removed from strange places if they ban all pointy things.... :eek:

Right! Nothing happened in London 8 days ago... :rolleyes:

Yes, and in London they used Military Grade explosives. As for fertilizer bombs OKlahoma City is a prime example.

Yeah...and soon my 'personal massager' will be illegal, making it even MORE difficult to handle my huband's two weeks per month absenses....

...and you can just imagine all the weird emergency room visits to get frozen hot dogs or zucchinis removed from strange places if they ban all pointy things.... :eek:

RSM: (scornfully) Pointed stick? Oh, oh, oh. We want to learn how to defend ourselves against pointed sticks, do we? Getting all high and mighty, eh? Fresh fruit not good enough for you eh? Well I'll tell you something my lad. When you're walking home tonight and some great homicidal maniac comes after you with a bunch of loganberries, don't come crying to me! Right... the passion fruit. When your assailant lunges at you with a passion fruit thus... :D

http://www.geocities.com/fang_club/Fresh_Fruit.html

Which comes back to my point about having them in the home, why not keep them at an accessable local secure location? National Guard Armoury, Police Station, Gun Club, Hunting Club? where's the constitutional infringement there?

Because they are pretty goddamn useless there at 3 AM when some 7 foot tall drug-crazed gorilla breaks into your house and is going to kill you, rape your wife and four year-old daughter while looking for enough money to get his next fix.
You choose to be disarmed, fine. But I dare you to try to take my choice from me.

NOt to jack a thread or anything. But have you guys heard of the new law down in florida that allows someone to basicly "shoot first and ask questions later." It was somehting like, if a person feels threatened enough, they have the right to use a firearm. I can't really remember the specifics.

I'm pro gun and all, but to me this seems that it will cause the same problems as with harrasment laws. It's up to the individual. This would allow shootings to become legal. (ie. One gangmember "felt threatened" by another and a shootout began.)

NOt to jack a thread or anything. But have you guys heard of the new law down in florida that allows someone to basicly "shoot first and ask questions later." It was somehting like, if a person feels threatened enough, they have the right to use a firearm. I can't really remember the specifics.

I'm pro gun and all, but to me this seems that it will cause the same problems as with harrasment laws. It's up to the individual. This would allow shootings to become legal. (ie. One gangmember "felt threatened" by another and a shootout began.)

I shouldn't worry about that. It's just Jeb making sure the GOP don't pick him as a candidate in 2008...

And I stick by my previous posts: we need to get more Internet porn into Muslim countries.

And I stick by my previous posts: we need to get more Internet porn into Muslim countries.

Um, can we have more, too?

NOt to jack a thread or anything. But have you guys heard of the new law down in florida that allows someone to basicly "shoot first and ask questions later." It was somehting like, if a person feels threatened enough, they have the right to use a firearm. I can't really remember the specifics.

I'm pro gun and all, but to me this seems that it will cause the same problems as with harrasment laws. It's up to the individual. This would allow shootings to become legal. (ie. One gangmember "felt threatened" by another and a shootout began.)
No law allows anyone to shoot first and ask questions later. They just got rid of the retreat requirement. If you feel that you or someone else is in imminent danger from an assailant, you do not have to back up or try to run away. You can now produce your weapon and, if it comes to it, engage the assailant with that weapon in self defense without retreating.

And I stick by my previous posts: we need to get more Internet porn into Muslim countries.

At last someone is talking sense :D

I've read the whole thread, and rather than reply to each point individually, I'll just put all of my points in one nice little post. :)

I have no problem with the idea of gun ownership, but I do agree with Sinuhue's idea that guns must be locked up when you're not using them. Not because of the idea that someone might break in and steal it (you should not be responsible for that) but if your child takes it.

I don't have a problem with people who use guns for hunting, as long as they eat what they hunt (with the exception of an animal killed for self-defense.) I wouldn't mind seeing a ban on shooting an animal that one doesn't eat (if there isn't one already.) But that would be a ban on the use of the gun, and not the gun itself.

I do have a problem with people who hold the 2nd Amendment as being more imporant than the 1st. It just irritates me. :)

The reason, IMHO, that there is more crime in the U.S. than in England is that there is a higher disparity of wealth. I think that further equalizing wealth would lower crimes rates. But that's another thread. :D

Oh, and yes, don't vote Democrat! don't vote Republican! vote Green!

That's all for now...

I have no problem with the idea of gun ownership, but I do agree with Sinuhue's idea that guns must be locked up when you're not using them. Not because of the idea that someone might break in and steal it (you should not be responsible for that) but if your child takes it.


Considering that you're held liable for crimes committed with your firearm, if it wasn't "properly" locked up....but what if it's the middle of the night? If the gun is locked up, it's useless. You don't have time to retrieve it--which is why we have bed holsters. If you don't have the gun within arm's reach, you may as well not have it at all, in any kind of tactical situation.

Something else of note: I was exposed to guns at a very early age. Because I was taught to respect them, I never had the urge to get them out and show friends because they were "cool" or anything. It really isn't about locking up the guns--it's about parenting.


I do have a problem with people who hold the 2nd Amendment as being more imporant than the 1st. It just irritates me. :)


Here's the rub. It's not more important--it's AS important--they all are, even the third. I'm quite irritated at those that don't realize that. Once the 2nd amendment goes, the 1st will go very soon thereafter.


The reason, IMHO, that there is more crime in the U.S. than in England is that there is a higher disparity of wealth. I think that further equalizing wealth would lower crimes rates. But that's another thread. :D


Ugh, yeah it sure is another threat...er thread. :D


Oh, and yes, don't vote Democrat! don't vote Republican! vote Green!


Not in a million years--I like nature and all (and even support a few organizations dedicated to preservation), but I can't handle the socialist aspects of stealing my cash...

Um, can we have more, too?

:eek:

I don't even want to know... :D

:eek:

I don't even want to know... :D








:cool: :)

I would be happy with having the following firearm restrictions only:

- a firearm license, obtainable after a short firearm safety course
- the requirement that firearms locked and stored separate from ammunition

I wouldn't even mind if all guns were registered, as long as that didn't come along with the move to ban certain ones. Since that seems to be the gist of registration, I'm not in favour of it. And if someone is a real gun collecter (which is not necessarily the same as a gun nut), there should be no restriction on how many guns they have. However, they should expect visits from the cops from time to time...

If I ever stop hunting, I'll get rid of most of my rifles and keep a 22 just for scaring off critters.

OK you are from Canada there by your above quote, you must be against the current firearms legistation since this legisation, doses two of the items you are against:
1: It bans numerious types of firearm, and
2: the police have the right to enter your home at any time to enforce this legisation!

Read it. Meh. In my mind, nothing terribly shocking or controversial in there.
So, there are a whole 3 of us who took the time to look at it... the rest followed my injunction and knee-jerked into the guns=good/bad argument. (not that I didn't expect it :D )

I would think though that some of our more rabidly anti-gun compatriots would have bad things to say about it (or would try to anyway)...

So, there are a whole 3 of us who took the time to look at it... the rest followed my injunction and knee-jerked into the guns=good/bad argument. (not that I didn't expect it :D )

I would think though that some of our more rabidly anti-gun compatriots would have bad things to say about it (or would try to anyway)...

Well, it IS rather tough to debunk much of that paper...it's fairly solid.

Well, it IS rather tough to debunk much of that paper...it's fairly solid.
Yeah, far be it that any anti should review hard data... it makes thir position so untenable. Better to just ignore it and fall back on emotional rehtoric. :rolleyes:

Considering that you're held liable for crimes committed with your firearm, if it wasn't "properly" locked up....but what if it's the middle of the night? If the gun is locked up, it's useless. You don't have time to retrieve it--which is why we have bed holsters. If you don't have the gun within arm's reach, you may as well not have it at all, in any kind of tactical situation.Well, the purpose of locking the gun up (in my mind) is so that no one else aside from you would be able to use it (without your supervision). Certainly people should be able to have the gun with them at times, otherwise the gun is useless. So I don't view the idea of bed holsters as being inconsistent with locking the gun up.


Something else of note: I was exposed to guns at a very early age. Because I was taught to respect them, I never had the urge to get them out and show friends because they were "cool" or anything. It really isn't about locking up the guns--it's about parenting.Agreed.


Here's the rub. It's not more important--it's AS important--they all are, even the third. I'm quite irritated at those that don't realize that. Once the 2nd amendment goes, the 1st will go very soon thereafter.As important I can handle. Does the NRA ever involve itself with 1st Amendment cases?

Well, the purpose of locking the gun up (in my mind) is so that no one else aside from you would be able to use it (without your supervision). Certainly people should be able to have the gun with them at times, otherwise the gun is useless. So I don't view the idea of bed holsters as being inconsistent with locking the gun up.


Yeah, we can't carry concealed in Wisconsin (yet--we'll get something in this year, or the year we get that dipstick Doyle out of the Capital Building), so if I'm home, I carry, and at night the firearms are in the bed holsters. But during the day--they're in the lock box. You'd be surprised at the number of responsible gun owners over the irresponsible ones. You hear about every single irresponsible one--but of the remaining 80 million, not a word...


As important I can handle. Does the NRA ever involve itself with 1st Amendment cases?

Nope, they live up to their perceived paradigm--caring about guns and right to own firearms--and therefore only the 2nd amendment. Then again, the ACLU, whose name evokes defense of ALL amendments, never touches the 2nd. Don't get me wrong, I like some of the stuff the ACLU does, I just think the name is hypocritical (though it does kind of worry me that one of the founders was the socialist party presidential candidate in the US).

Yeah, we can't carry concealed in Wisconsin (yet--we'll get something in this year, or the year we get that dipstick Doyle out of the Capital Building), so if I'm home, I carry, and at night the firearms are in the bed holsters. But during the day--they're in the lock box. You'd be surprised at the number of responsible gun owners over the irresponsible ones. You hear about every single irresponsible one--but of the remaining 80 million, not a word...Ah, I see. I'm not sure of the concealed carry laws here in PA. If I ever get a large amount of disposable income, I think I'll learn how to shoot a gun.


Nope, they live up to their perceived paradigm--caring about guns and right to own firearms--and therefore only the 2nd amendment. Then again, the ACLU, whose name evokes defense of ALL amendments, never touches the 2nd. Don't get me wrong, I like some of the stuff the ACLU does, I just think the name is hypocritical (though it does kind of worry me that one of the founders was the socialist party presidential candidate in the US).I figured as much about the NRA. As far as the ACLU goes, you'll find more than once socialist among its founders. :)

Ah, I see. I'm not sure of the concealed carry laws here in PA.


www.packing.org :) It's a wonderful sight. It's how I figured to get the most bang for the buck (so to speak), I needed to get a FL non-resident permit (allows me to legally carry in 27 states). I'll be getting my MN permit in August.


If I ever get a large amount of disposable income, I think I'll learn how to shoot a gun.


Doesn't even have to be a really large amount. :) 9mm ammo is inexpensive, and a good 'ol Glock 17 is around $500-$550.


I figured as much about the NRA. As far as the ACLU goes, you'll find more than once socialist among its founders. :)

Well, yah. <sigh> :mad:

Ah, I see. I'm not sure of the concealed carry laws here in PA. If I ever get a large amount of disposable income, I think I'll learn how to shoot a gun.

You should be able to find an NRA class at a good range for about $75-100. Here in CT, I did that (3 hours, half class, half range), where we shot .22 revolvers and the Ruger II semi-automatic. My license cost another $100 roughly. Took 3 months to get the license, after I gently "prodded" my local police since they're supposed to get it to me in 2.

As Zax says, 9mm is cheap... .38 is also inexpensive, and .22 is VERY inexpensive.
I have a Taurus .22 revolver I like to use to hone my long distance shooting. I rarely shoot the .45 (Springfield 1911 Micro) over the 10 or 15 line, since it has a 3" barrel, and I probably won't be using it much past that anyway...

You should be able to find an NRA class at a good range for about $75-100. Here in CT, I did that (3 hours, half class, half range), where we shot .22 revolvers and the Ruger II semi-automatic. My license cost another $100 roughly. Took 3 months to get the license, after I gently "prodded" my local police since they're supposed to get it to me in 2.

As Zax says, 9mm is cheap... .38 is also inexpensive, and .22 is VERY inexpensive.
I have a Taurus .22 revolver I like to use to hone my long distance shooting. I rarely shoot the .45 (Springfield 1911 Micro) over the 10 or 15 line, since it has a 3" barrel, and I probably won't be using it much past that anyway...

Yeah, .22 is very inexpensive indeed! Generally $7-$10 for a brick of 500 rounds....and they're fun to shoot all day long.

But if you're just going to stick with just one firearm, and it has the possibility of being a self defense weapon in a concealed carry situation, I'd say go with at least the 9mm, but hey, that's just me. :D

And if you did, try the Glock 19 (compact 9mm, vs the full size Glock 17)-- it's easier to conceal.

Yeah, .22 is very inexpensive indeed! Generally $7-$10 for a brick of 500 rounds....and they're fun to shoot all day long.

But if you're just going to stick with just one firearm, and it has the possibility of being a self defense weapon in a concealed carry situation, I'd say go with at least the 9mm, but hey, that's just me. :D

And if you did, try the Glock 19 (compact 9mm, vs the full size Glock 17)-- it's easier to conceal.

Ayep. Especially outside.

I prefer the .45 all the way. Anything that will knock down a stoned Moro tribesman in one shot is good enough for me. :)
I agree... 9mm at least. The .22 is for handgun hunting... can't use any larger rounds in CT. :( Though it is fun, since it has like x3 the effective range of the .45.

My carry is the Springfield Microcompact... it's plenty concealable. Mine's the all silvered version. Got it for only $800... some guy had bought it, then his wife made him sell it -- never fired. I've run about a thousand rounds through it. :D The big sells to me were the ambidexterous safety & general quality of the piece. (I shoot lefty.)
http://www.springfield-armory.com/prod-pstl-1911-mc.shtml

I don't care for the Glocks much. Besides, if 6+1 .45 rounds don't get me out of trouble...

I actually prefer revolvers anyway... still debating a Raging Thirty, if only I could find a place that would let me fire it...

Ayep. Especially outside.
I prefer the .45 all the way. Anything that will knock down a stoned Moro tribesman in one shot is good enough for me. :)


I hear ya--I carry the Glock 30 (compact in .45ACP), when I can. My other half carries a Glock 27 (sub compact chambered in .40S&W).


I agree... 9mm at least. The .22 is for handgun hunting... can't use any larger rounds in CT. :( Though it is fun, since it has like x3 the effective range of the .45.


I used to have a .22lr/.22WMR single action revolver, but sold it--never used it. :( I still have the Ruger 10/22, though!


My carry is the Springfield Microcompact... it's plenty concealable. Mine's the all silvered version. Got it for only $800... some guy had bought it, then his wife made him sell it -- never fired. I've run about a thousand rounds through it. :D The big sells to me were the ambidexterous safety & general quality of the piece. (I shoot lefty.)
http://www.springfield-armory.com/prod-pstl-1911-mc.shtml


I like the Glocks because the frame absorbs the recoil, and makes it very easy to shoot all day long. Plus, they feel right in my hands--since I learned to shoot pisols on them, my hand comes up in the "Glock" angle, with the sights on target, and I end up pointing high with a 1911. :( It's also a bit tougher to get the wife to buy in on a pistol that's on average twice the cost of a Glock.


I don't care for the Glocks much. Besides, if 6+1 .45 rounds don't get me out of trouble...


I agree about the capacity issue--I have the reduced capacity magazine on the G30, so it only holds nine rounds, so it's easier to conceal. If I need more shots than that, I was horribly lax in paying attention.


I actually prefer revolvers anyway... still debating a Raging Thirty, if only I could find a place that would let me fire it...

Rifle range won't let you? Revolvers are okay--I have only one--a .357 magnum Taurus Tracker Total Titanium.

We are now in the third phase of the thread (Pro-gunners using it to talk shop and wanking each other off about how superior they are because their country is fucked up enough to NEED concealed carry and firearms by the bed).

From what I've read of this pdf it's basically bashing the UN (fairly) and then going on to say (in effect) OMFG EVERYONE NEEDS GUNZ!!!11elevenone1!! because the Sudanese need an ass-kicking.

Somehow I find the logic a little off. if their criticisms of the UN were taken in then there would be no need for guns. Therefore effort would be better expended in UN reform (preferably someone would take unilateral action as a demonstration of necessity) than in giving AA missiles, assault rifles and field guns to the people of Darfur.

The second half of the article is essentially as biased and paranoid as any pro-gunner rant on NS. Bashing AI for their hate for guns for example. Wonder if the authors are Christian?

We are now in the third phase of the thread (Pro-gunners using it to talk shop and wanking each other off about how superior they are because their country is fucked up enough to NEED concealed carry and firearms by the bed).

From what I've read of this pdf it's basically bashing the UN (fairly) and then going on to say (in effect) OMFG EVERYONE NEEDS GUNZ!!!11elevenone1!! because the Sudanese need an ass-kicking.

Somehow I find the logic a little off. if their criticisms of the UN were taken in then there would be no need for guns. Therefore effort would be better expended in UN reform (preferably someone would take unilateral action as a demonstration of necessity) than in giving AA missiles, assault rifles and field guns to the people of Darfur.

The second half of the article is essentially as biased and paranoid as any pro-gunner rant on NS. Bashing AI for their hate for guns for example. Wonder if the authors are Christian?

As I always maintain: We need guns the way we all need freedom of the press, religion, and speech. :)

I like the Glocks because the frame absorbs the recoil, and makes it very easy to shoot all day long. Plus, they feel right in my hands--since I learned to shoot pisols on them, my hand comes up in the "Glock" angle, with the sights on target, and I end up pointing high with a 1911. :( It's also a bit tougher to get the wife to buy in on a pistol that's on average twice the cost of a Glock.

Yeah. It just didn't feel right to me. I shot the 19 and 21.

Rifle range won't let you? Revolvers are okay--I have only one--a .357 magnum Taurus Tracker Total Titanium.

Rifle range? In Connecticut? Few and far between... and none in my neck of the woods. :(

As I always maintain: We need guns the way we all need freedom of the press, religion, and speech. :)

Doesn't make it right though. We have all of those in the UK, and don't need guns.

NOt to jack a thread or anything. But have you guys heard of the new law down in florida that allows someone to basicly "shoot first and ask questions later." It was somehting like, if a person feels threatened enough, they have the right to use a firearm. I can't really remember the specifics.

I'm pro gun and all, but to me this seems that it will cause the same problems as with harrasment laws. It's up to the individual. This would allow shootings to become legal. (ie. One gangmember "felt threatened" by another and a shootout began.)
Texas has the same thing, and after it was implemented there was no increase of crime, if anything crime began to decrease a bit faster. You still have to have a valid reason for shooting, but you are no longer mandated to try and run away.

As I always maintain: We need guns the way we all need freedom of the press, religion, and speech. :)

Ditto that.

Doesn't make it right though. We have all of those in the UK, and don't need guns.

Question for you: The last person that was murdered in the UK--could them having been able to defend themselves with a firearm made a difference in whether they died or not?

The right to self defense is still a right, whether you choose to exercise it or not. I'm certainly not trying to force you to use guns for self defense--I just want you to let those that wish to carry, do so in peace.

Texas has the same thing, and after it was implemented there was no increase of crime, if anything crime began to decrease a bit faster. You still have to have a valid reason for shooting, but you are no longer mandated to try and run away.

Yeah, some of us are better if we don't have to get winded running first. :)

Yes, that was a joke....

Yeah. It just didn't feel right to me. I shot the 19 and 21.


Yup, some just don't like it. Well, I'll overlook it this time. :D


Rifle range? In Connecticut? Few and far between... and none in my neck of the woods. :(

Crap. I always forget where you live. Any plans to move in the future? I'm guessing Conneticut doesn't have many ranges because you can practically shoot across it. You'd be invading other states accidentally! ;)

We are now in the third phase of the thread (Pro-gunners using it to talk shop and wanking each other off about how superior they are because their country is fucked up enough to NEED concealed carry and firearms by the bed).


Never said we were superior. I just want to be prepared. It's neat how you try to twist it by calling it paranoia. Answer me this: do you wear a seatbelt in the car? Why?

Now, do I think that people who are unprepared to defend themselves may be lacking a little wisdom and pity their situation less as to whatever happens to them because they chose not to be a bit more prepared? Perhaps. Do I want them to come to harm? Certainly not. No one deserves to be attacked.

Like I've stated before, and in other posts: I hope to (insert diety of choice here) that I never have to use it. But if I need it to defend, I'll be glad it's there.

Doesn't make it right though. We have all of those in the UK, and don't need guns.

Ah, but you didn't always. :D
Further, the UK is an island the size of Oregon. It's a LOT easier to enforce what comes over your borders.

Crap. I always forget where you live. Any plans to move in the future? I'm guessing Conneticut doesn't have many ranges because you can practically shoot across it. You'd be invading other states accidentally! ;)

Nope, it's better than living IN NYC...
Yep.. but I look at it this way: if we just shoot North, all we'd hit would be Massachusettes... ;)

Nope, it's better than living IN NYC...
Yep.. but I look at it this way: if we just shoot North, all we'd hit would be Massachusettes... ;)


Ooooooo.....do you need any extra ammo? :D

Question for you: The last person that was murdered in the UK--could them having been able to defend themselves with a firearm made a difference in whether they died or not?

The right to self defense is still a right, whether you choose to exercise it or not. I'm certainly not trying to force you to use guns for self defense--I just want you to let those that wish to carry, do so in peace.

I don't believe it would, no.
I posted stats here earlier (or on the armed police thread, I forget which) that refer to the British Crime Survey, where analysis shows that the vast majority of murdes are carried out by persons known to the victim, usually a close family member in "the heat of the moment" in which case by the time you know you are in danger you're already dead. Unless of course each time you get into a disagreement with Mrs Zaxon you hold your gun to her head just in case. Firearms were used in 8% of murder cases in the UK in 2002/03, which equates to around 75 deaths. We had just over 1000 murders in the country all year, ours is not a society in which armed defence of teh individual is necessary or desirable. I don't believe the USA is either, I visit the states once or twice a year and have never felt I needed weaponry to be safe. I don't even believe that you having a gun makes me any safer, however as it is your country, your rules I wouldn't try to stop you (my cold dead fingers and all that ;) ) I just would resist any and every move to expand the use and ownership in my country.

I don't believe it would, no.


I guess I'd like to know the circumstances to analyze the situation--but I'm not going to ask for those. :) I'm guessing that kind of info wasn't published. So it doesn't make sense to hound ya for 'em.


I posted stats here earlier (or on the armed police thread, I forget which) that refer to the British Crime Survey, where analysis shows that the vast majority of murdes are carried out by persons known to the victim, usually a close family member in "the heat of the moment" in which case by the time you know you are in danger you're already dead. Unless of course each time you get into a disagreement with Mrs Zaxon you hold your gun to her head just in case.


Nah, she already shoots better than I do, so....I think it'd be in my best interests NOT to try something like that! :D I'm sorry, a chick shooting a gun is HOT--provided it's not at you.... ;) But you're right--having a firearm won't help in every situation. But it will help in some.


Firearms were used in 8% of murder cases in the UK in 2002/03, which equates to around 75 deaths. We had just over 1000 murders in the country all year, ours is not a society in which armed defence of teh individual is necessary or desirable. I don't believe the USA is either, I visit the states once or twice a year and have never felt I needed weaponry to be safe.


Neither do I--like I've stated before, I carry to be prepared. I live in a state where I can't carry concealed, and I still function. I still go to work, I still go to the store, and I still get together with friends outside my house. But you can be sure that when I'm in a state that my permit does allow carry, that I am armed. It's not an odds thing. Check that--it IS an odds thing, where I'm improving my chances and the chances of others to survive a situation, however small the increase may be--just because my life and the lives of those I care about are worth the time, money, and effort to purchase, practice with, and carry a firearm.

There's a saying in Information Technology Security (my profession): "How much are you willing to spend to go from covering 80% of the attacks to 90%?" What it means is how much is the resource you are protecting worth, to have exponentially higher costs to secure the resource from an exponentially lower number of attack types. In the case of my life, and the lives of those around me--those particular resources are priceless. This is why I arm myself--to protect that which I value the most. To give me that .1% more to protect them and myself.


I don't even believe that you having a gun makes me any safer, however as it is your country, your rules I wouldn't try to stop you (my cold dead fingers and all that ;) ) I just would resist any and every move to expand the use and ownership in my country.

As is your right as a human--you can peacibly attempt to alter your surroundings. It's when force is applied to others (by particularly flawed laws, like the former mis-named "Assault Weapons Ban" for instance) that I start to bark. :) It's from my silly Libertarian (liberal for those outside the US) viewpoint of never interfering with others, as long as they aren't interfering with anyone else (gun ownership, drug use, sex between consenting adults, etc.). As long as a person isn't harming or restricting another without that other's consent, I have no say in what they do. Same goes for them, regarding me.

You're probably right, though--my owning a firearm across the pond won't help you a whit. :D It may, however, help my wife, my friends, or possibly a complete stranger if I'm in the right place at the right time to stop a potentially harmful event from occurring.

We are now in the third phase of the thread (Pro-gunners using it to talk shop and wanking each other off about how superior they are because their country is fucked up enough to NEED concealed carry and firearms by the bed).The PDF explains why people in general need concealed carry, or at least firearms by the bed... because there are a lot of bad people out there in the World who will find unique and bloody ways to kill good people who can't defend themselves.

It's a Civil Rights issue. http://www.reason.com/hod/dk022405.shtml

From what I've read of this pdf it's basically bashing the UN (fairly) and then going on to say (in effect) OMFG EVERYONE NEEDS GUNZ!!!11elevenone1!! because the Sudanese need an ass-kicking.More than just the Sudanese...

Somehow I find the logic a little off. if their criticisms of the UN were taken in then there would be no need for guns. Therefore effort would be better expended in UN reform (preferably someone would take unilateral action as a demonstration of necessity)Like the US going in and stomping Saddam? I guarantee if we went over and Stomped Sudan the same people whining about what we are doing in Iraq would be whining about how the US is "killing babies in Sudan". :rolleyes:

than in giving AA missiles, assault rifles and field guns to the people of Darfur. Um, the article was about firearms for individual and group defense, not AA missiles and field guns (except most obliquely)

The second half of the article is essentially as biased and paranoid as any pro-gunner rant on NS. Bashing AI for their hate for guns for example.Granted. I'm glad to be in David Kopel's company.
Wonder if the authors are Christian?Wonder if this type of baseless comment will ever gain the Godwin status it deserves?

David Kopel:
Research Director, Independence Institute: http://www.independenceinstitute.org/index.aspx
Former Assistant Attorney General, State of Colorado. Hazardous and solid waste enforcement.
University of Michigan Law School, J.D. magna cum laude. Contributing Editor, Michigan Law Review.
Brown University, B.A. in History with Highest Honors. National Geographic Society Prize for best History thesis.
State of Arizona, concealed handgun license instructor. NRA-certified instructor for Pistol and for Personal Protection. NRA-qualified Distinguished Expert rating for Handgun.
Memberships: Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (Life member), American Civil Liberties Union, American Society of Criminology, National Council of Editorial Writers, National Rifle Association (Benefactor member), National Society of Newspaper Columnists, Society of Christian Philosophers. http://www.davidkopel.com/

Oh look, a member of the ACLU, the NRA and the "Society of Christian Philosophers"... I guess that invalidates every thing he says. :rolleyes:

A couple more Articles:

"Does the Right to Bear Arms Impede or Promote Economic Development?" Engage. Using case studies from Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa, this article refutes the claim of gun prohibition advocates that the presence of "small arms" is a cause of economic underdevelopment. The article also details the harmful effects of UN policy regarding malaria and AIDS in the Third World. Final, published version, in PDF. http://www.davidkopel.com/2A/Foreign/Development.pdf

"Microdisarmament: The Consequences for Public Safety and Human Rights." UMKC Law Review (forthcoming). Examines UN programs to disarm people in Cambodia, Bougainville, Albania, Panama, Guatemala, and Mali. In PDF.
http://www.davidkopel.com/2A/Foreign/MicroDisarmament.pdf

I'm christian too, just wonder how he reconciles his happiness with killing people.

According to that article the sudanese airforce bombs places that resist. Now pardon me if I'm wrong but most mid-70's USSR aircraft are more than a match for a few assault rifles I think. So merely giving the people of Darfur guns will force the government to attack them differently, then the Jajaweed just go in and rape anyone still breathing.

If the US goes into Sudan I will support it unless it goes in with bullshit reason after bullshit reason and makes itself look suspicious (no reference to Iraq I swear ;) ).

I'm christian too, just wonder how he reconciles his happiness with killing people.

According to that article the sudanese airforce bombs places that resist. Now pardon me if I'm wrong but most mid-70's USSR aircraft are more than a match for a few assault rifles I think. So merely giving the people of Darfur guns will force the government to attack them differently, then the Jajaweed just go in and rape anyone still breathing. And that would change in what way if they had Stingers? The government is intent on killing them. They should be allowed to defend themselves. Small Arms are the most immediately practical way to do that. Anyone can fire an AK... how many Sudanese could fire a SAM (or field gun)?

If the US goes into Sudan I will support it unless it goes in with bullshit reason after bullshit reason and makes itself look suspicious (no reference to Iraq I swear ;) ).And so we take on the hegemonic role of global policeman. Not that the world doesn't need one, but nobody seems to like us as it is and even our "good" actions will be used against us.

If you for once went in where you could be seen to be unambiguous and humanitarian in your efforts it'd be good. Afghanistan looked like revenge and the aftermath was bad. Iraq, well, I don't even need to say it do I.