NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: A truly awesome weapon, the Barrett 50-cal rifle can even take out tanks, with armor piercing rounds and a well-trained shooter. I had the opportunity to fire this weapon awhile back. It has pretty significant kick, but not nearly as much as you might expect from a 50-cal. There has never been an incident of civilian misuse of this weapon, so far as anyone knows.


GUN MAKER: Barrett Firearms' .50-Caliber Rifle (http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,Soldiertech_Barrett50,,00.html?ESRC=soldiertech.nl)


MURFREESBORO, Tenn. - When U.S. Soldiers need to penetrate a tank's armor from a mile away, they count on a weapon that evolved from the garage tinkering of a former wedding photographer.

The .50-caliber rifle created by Ronnie Barrett and sold by his company, Barrett Firearms Manufacturing Inc., is the most powerful firearm civilians can buy. It weighs about 30 pounds and can hit targets up to 2,000 yards away with armor-piercing bullets.

That kind of power has drawn a customer base of gun enthusiasts, Hollywood actors and Barrett's most loyal buyer, the U.S. military, which has been buying Barrett's rifles since the 1980s and using them in combat from the 1991 Gulf War to the present.

But the powerful gun has drawn plenty of critics, who say the rifle could be used by terrorists to bring down commercial airliners or penetrate rail cars and storage plants holding hazardous materials.

For years some state and federal lawmakers have sought to limit or ban the gun's sale, as California did this year.

Tom Diaz, a senior policy analyst with the Washington-based Violence Policy Center, says the guns should be more regulated and harder to purchase. The gun can now be bought by anyone 18 or older who passes a background check.

"They're (.50 caliber) easier to buy than a handgun," Diaz said. "These are ideal weapons of terrorist attack. Very dangerous elements gravitate toward these weapons."

The majority of Barrett's sales come from military orders, for armed forces and police departments in some 50 allied countries. Every branch of the U.S. military uses the rifles, and the Department of Defense last year spent about $8 million on his firearms, Barrett said.

Barrett estimates about 1,000 of his rifles - which each cost between $3,500 and $10,000 - have been used in both the 1991 Gulf War and the current war in Iraq.

The guns are used by most civilians for hunting big game and in marksmanship competitions. Civilian sales are crucial to business because military and police orders can fluctuate year to year, Barrett said.

"It's like, what does a 55-year-old man do with a Corvette? You drive it around and enjoy it," said Barrett, 51, whose customers include doctors, lawyers, movie makers and actors. "I know all the current actors who are Barrett rifle shooters, some Academy Award-winning people. But they don't publicize it. They love to play with them and have fun. Shooting is very fun."

A 1999 investigation by the U.S. General Accounting Office found the rifles were available on civilian markets with fewer restrictions than those placed on handguns. Ammunition dealers were willing to sell armor-piercing bullets even when an agent pretending to be a buyer said he wanted the ammunition for use against armored limousines or "to take a helicopter down."

Other reports have observed the rifles have made their way to terrorists, drug cartels and survivalists. [ NOTE: "Survivalists" = terrorists now? WTF, over? ]

Joseph King, a terrorism expert at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, said terrorists could use the weapon to take out a plane.

"I don't understand what good a .50-caliber is going to do you," King said. "I don't understand any civilian use of it. The only thing it's good for is for military or police application. You can't really hunt with it because it would destroy most of the meat."

Barrett and gun advocates say the gun's power has been exaggerated and doesn't pose a threat to citizens because the weapons are too expensive and heavy to be used by criminals.

Barrett and other gun advocacy groups heavily lobbied the state of California, the first state to pass a law making it illegal to make and sell the gun. Several other states and some federal lawmakers have introduced similar legislation.

Despite these efforts, Barrett says sales are up nearly $6 million from last year thanks to recent military and police orders.

The New York City Police Department recently announced it's training officers in its aviation unit to use the rifles, which will be on board some of the department's helicopters to intercept potential attacks from boats or airplanes. In 2002, the Army placed an order for 4,200 of the guns, Barrett said.

Other manufacturers now make the gun, but Barrett dominates the market.

In the next few years, he said he plans to more than double the current number of employees, 80, and the size of his 20,000-square-foot gun-making facility located in Murfreesboro, about 30 miles southeast of Nashville.

A lifelong gun enthusiast, Barrett never went to college and worked as a commercial photographer and reserve deputy for years before he started tinkering with the .50-caliber Browning Machine Gun in the early 1980s.

The heavy recoil of the Browning made it nearly impossible to shoot without it being mounted on a turret, but Barrett's rifle reduces recoil to the point where it can be shoulder-fired, while the weapon rests on a bipod.

Barrett says he was nearly $1.5 million in debt at one point trying to get the business on its feet. He sold his first guns to the military in the late 1980s and the long-range weapons gained popularity after they were used to attack Iraqi tanks in the 1991 war.

Barrett's son, Chris, who works with his sister at their father's business, said he watched his dad build the gun in the family garage and is not surprised by the growth and success of his father's business.

"He's worked hard all his life. I think he would do as well at anything he pursued," Chris Barrett said. "He's not one of these big suits, a CEO at the top of one these big money machines. He's not one to back down. He can make anything work, no matter what he's doing."

The Associated Press had to post a major retraction of parts of this story.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/12/01/national/a182920S49.DTL&hw=barrett&sn=001&sc=1000

In a Nov. 25 story about Barrett Firearms Manufacturing Inc., The Associated Press reported erroneously that .50-caliber rifles were used to penetrate the armor of Iraqi tanks from a mile away during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Such rifles were used against Iraqi armored personnel carriers, but military experts say they could not penetrate tank armor from that distance.

The story also said company founder Ronnie Barrett started tinkering with the .50-caliber Browning Machine Gun in the early 1980s. A company spokesman said Barrett took photos of one such gun, but then built his own rifle.

The story also quoted a criminal justice scholar who said the rifle wasn't useful for hunting because it would destroy game meat — a claim Barrett Firearms disputes. Bryce Towsley, a Vermont-based gun writer, said that when the .50-caliber rifle is used with the proper bullet, it would not destroy the meat.

The Associated Press had to post a major retraction of parts of this story.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2005/12/01/national/a182920S49.DTL&hw=barrett&sn=001&sc=1000

In a Nov. 25 story about Barrett Firearms Manufacturing Inc., The Associated Press reported erroneously that .50-caliber rifles were used to penetrate the armor of Iraqi tanks from a mile away during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Such rifles were used against Iraqi armored personnel carriers, but military experts say they could not penetrate tank armor from that distance.

The story also said company founder Ronnie Barrett started tinkering with the .50-caliber Browning Machine Gun in the early 1980s. A company spokesman said Barrett took photos of one such gun, but then built his own rifle.

The story also quoted a criminal justice scholar who said the rifle wasn't useful for hunting because it would destroy game meat — a claim Barrett Firearms disputes. Bryce Towsley, a Vermont-based gun writer, said that when the .50-caliber rifle is used with the proper bullet, it would not destroy the meat.
Thanks. :)

I personally own two Barrett .50 cal rifles, a M82A1 and a M99 and I love them. I use them more for long range shooting comps then anything, and I have yet to hear of someone using one to kill someone.

With regards to terrorists using the Barret rifle the I.R.A. had a couple of them in stock prior to suspending activities.There are road sings dotted around Co. Armagh warning of snipers at work.:mp5:

I personally own two Barrett .50 cal rifles, a M82A1 and a M99 and I love them. I use them more for long range shooting comps then anything, and I have yet to hear of someone using one to kill someone.
Me either. Where do you live? I wanna visit! :D

That's what I don't get about these anti-gun nuts. They want to take away our right to own these guns, yet they fail to notice what's right in front of their face. This guy built his prototype IN HIS GARAGE.

Make them illegal, and then a terrorist who wants to use one can just make on IN HIS GARAGE.

While it is a bit tricky to make a quality, well designed gun, it's not impossible with basic skills, and it's it is a simple as using basic machining tools to build a quick prototype weapon that can take down an Airliner. Add a bit of electronics knowledge, and you could make a remote controlled anti-aircraft gun with a Windows based PC. All without ever signing your name. I could make a cannon that could destroy a tank in a long workday with the right tools.

Freakin gun control people drive me NUTS!

The reason why you don't hear about people using said rifle to kill people (criminally, military action doesn't count) is probably the same why you don't hear about people using say, M249s or LAWs or any other heavy duty weapon for killing.

Too bulky and impractical for the job.

Most of the time I hear its either with handguns/revolvers are in some gang related cases, SMGs. The biggest weapon I've heard of used for criminal actions so far were AK-47s but that's about it.

The reason why you don't hear about people using said rifle to kill people (criminally, military action doesn't count) is probably the same why you don't hear about people using say, M249s or LAWs or any other heavy duty weapon for killing.

Too bulky and impractical for the job.

Most of the time I hear its either with handguns/revolvers are in some gang related cases, SMGs. The biggest weapon I've heard of used for criminal actions so far were AK-47s but that's about it.

I have my own M-24, and my own civilian copy of the Mk 12.

Neither is heavy. Sure, you can't fit them under your coat, but they aren't any heavier than most rifles.

That's what I don't get about these anti-gun nuts. They want to take away our right to own these guns, yet they fail to notice what's right in front of their face. This guy built his prototype IN HIS GARAGE.

Make them illegal, and then a terrorist who wants to use one can just make on IN HIS GARAGE.

While it is a bit tricky to make a quality, well designed gun, it's not impossible with basic skills, and it's it is a simple as using basic machining tools to build a quick prototype weapon that can take down an Airliner. Add a bit of electronics knowledge, and you could make a remote controlled anti-aircraft gun with a Windows based PC. All without ever signing your name. I could make a cannon that could destroy a tank in a long workday with the right tools.

Freakin gun control people drive me NUTS!
They, together with the PETA head-cases, aren't known for their real good grip on either logic or reality in general. :rolleyes:

I have my own M-24, and my own civilian copy of the Mk 12.

First, what the heck is an MK12? A search on google shows me, so far as weapons go, both a Bristol Bofors anti-aircraft gun and/or what looks like a thermonuclear airdropped device clearly labelled under the WMD section of globalsecurity.org. I don't think you have either of those.


Neither is heavy. Sure, you can't fit them under your coat, but they aren't any heavier than most rifles.

Bulk is the key word. Big bulky weapons make it very difficult to conceal when you want to commit a crime and their mere presence in the public makes you a big object of interest to the local law enforcement. Sure you could hide them if you had the dedication and means, but its much harder than with say a handgun.

So it's really a matter of convenience.

And Fireantz, I would like to see you try to make a cannon based anti-tank weapon one day. It might be a bit harder than you think.

I have my own M-24, and my own civilian copy of the Mk 12.

Neither is heavy. Sure, you can't fit them under your coat, but they aren't any heavier than most rifles.
The Barrett 50-cal I used had about a 30-lb heft.

First, what the heck is an MK12? A search on google shows me, so far as weapons go, both a Bristol Bofors anti-aircraft gun and/or what looks like a thermonuclear airdropped device clearly labelled under the WMD section of globalsecurity.org. I don't think you have either of those.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/mk12.htm


Bulk is the key word. Big bulky weapons make it very difficult to conceal when you want to commit a crime and their mere presence in the public makes you a big object of interest to the local law enforcement. Sure you could hide them if you had the dedication and means, but its much harder than with say a handgun.

So it's really a matter of convenience.

I keep the M-24 in the trunk of my car, secured by a quick release mount.

http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/1683/barrett503wg.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/3230/barrett5028xt.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Here's my M-24 (it used to be black, but I got tired of looking at it, so I painted it). The truck is not mine (it belongs to a friend I shoot with).
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/m24.jpg

That's what I don't get about these anti-gun nuts. They want to take away our right to own these guns, yet they fail to notice what's right in front of their face. This guy built his prototype IN HIS GARAGE.

Make them illegal, and then a terrorist who wants to use one can just make on IN HIS GARAGE.

While it is a bit tricky to make a quality, well designed gun, it's not impossible with basic skills, and it's it is a simple as using basic machining tools to build a quick prototype weapon that can take down an Airliner. Add a bit of electronics knowledge, and you could make a remote controlled anti-aircraft gun with a Windows based PC. All without ever signing your name. I could make a cannon that could destroy a tank in a long workday with the right tools.

Freakin gun control people drive me NUTS!

I made a cannon from PVC plumbing, a stun gun, and some alcohol for fuel. It shot a chair leg through an old dodge’s door. :D

I made a cannon from PVC plumbing, a stun gun, and some alcohol for fuel. It shot a chair leg through an old dodge’s door. :D
ROFL! Man, you are frakkin' dangerous! :D

And Fireantz, I would like to see you try to make a cannon based anti-tank weapon one day. It might be a bit harder than you think.
Nope, it's actually pretty easy. You take a 6 inch piece of stainless steel stock, bore out a one inch hole for the barrel, bore a tiny hole in the side, big enough for a piece of wire (cut clean with snips) to go down into, run your wire till it's almost into the bore, fill it with about 1/3 pound of 4f black powder, make your self a solid brass projectile with a stainless steel core, slide it it, ground the cannon to the ground of a car battery, aim it, and touch the wire to the positive post of the battery. BOOM.

You can get creative with the mounting system, ignition, and aiming system, but the basic design takes far less than a day. The hardest part is getting the stainless stock bored out, but any machine shop will do it for you if you don't have the equipment! ;)


Note, that's a simple one day design. Give me a month, and a couple grand, and I'll knock your socks off! Never second guess the weapons engineering skills of a smart redneck! (yeah, I know, smart redneck = oxymoron. ha ha :rolleyes: )

A clarification...the 50BMG SLAP will penetrated about 1 inch of hardend steel. This equals 25.4mm armor. The Panzer III of WWII fame had 30mm armor on the sides. This means that whoever is telling people the "Fiddy Cal" can take out tanks is a few years behind the times. The last effective anti tank rifle was the PTRS of Russian WWII usage, a 14.5mm monster, that would effectively penetrate 30-35mm cold rolled steel, which made the Panzer III and IV vulnerable to good side shots.(Oddly enough, the first damaged Tiger was disabled due to a PTRS, lucky shot through a vision block)
Now, APCs are another animal entirely - most do not have enough hard armor to stop SLAP ammo, (Standard Light Armor Peircing), especially the old junk the Iraquis fielded. Many light armored vehicles are for recon, or battle taxis, and are for stopping rifle/light machine gun fire, and shrapnel. The Barret becomes effective against targets of this nature. Soft targets, such as unarmored trucks, etc, are easy prey for the sniper with any rifle, much less a 50 BMG Barret.

Ah...the .50 BMG. Or as I like to call it, the "Big Mutha Gun".

With a bullet that big, you either train it on something armored, or suffer the messiest form of overkill.

Ah...the .50 BMG. Or as I like to call it, the "Big Mutha Gun".

With a bullet that big, you either train it on something armored, or suffer the messiest form of overkill.
But ... but ... I like "overkill!"

But ... but ... I like "overkill!"
You can never have "enough" gun.

You can never have "enough" gun.
Depending on the circumstances, damn straight! :)

You can never have "enough" gun.
AMEN to that!

And incidentally, I'm surprised no one has come in flaming us as a bunch of crazy murderous gun nuts yet! :eek:

AMEN to that!

And incidentally, I'm surprised no one has come in flaming us as a bunch of crazy murderous gun nuts yet! :eek:
Have patience. This is pretty much "bait!" Mwahahahaha! :D

Meh, 50 cal... I'm just waiting for the 25mm M109 AMPR. Can't get much better than that.

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/articles/military_photos_200481522.asp
It's huge!!

AMEN to that!

And incidentally, I'm surprised no one has come in flaming us as a bunch of crazy murderous gun nuts yet! :eek:

So we're not crazy murderous gun nuts? I kinda thought I was. Except for the murderous part. Maybe.

Meh, 50 cal... I'm just waiting for the 25mm M109 AMPR. Can't get much better than that.

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/articles/military_photos_200481522.asp
It's huge!!

http://www.atk.com/AdvancedWeaponSystems/advanceweaponsystems_xm25.asp

Still a 25mm, but useful at close ranges as well, depending on the type of shell you put in the magazine.

;) Have patience. This is pretty much "bait!" Mwahahahaha! :D
You sly old dog, you! :D

BTW, my wife is in Basic Training at Lackland as we speak for the Air Force! She left Tuesday. Figured I'd let ya know there's still Americans willing to do what it takes and help the legacy of you old farts live on! ;)

Meh, 50 cal... I'm just waiting for the 25mm M109 AMPR. Can't get much better than that.

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/articles/military_photos_200481522.asp
It's huge!!
"Destroy enemy light armor cost effectively!" Heh!

So we're not crazy murderous gun nuts? I kinda thought I was. Except for the murderous part. Maybe.
Well, of course we are! But they aren't allowed to say it! :D

;)
You sly old dog, you! :D

BTW, my wife is in Basic Training at Lackland as we speak for the Air Force! She left Tuesday. Figured I'd let ya know there's still Americans willing to do what it takes and help the legacy of you old farts live on! ;)
STFU, dweeb! :p Heh!

I saw your earlier post about this on another thread. Tell her there's one "old fart" in NC who has nothing but admiration for her. :)

"Destroy enemy light armor cost effectively!" Heh!
Isn't that the American dream? :D

STFU, dweeb! :p Heh!

I saw your earlier post about this on another thread. Tell her there's one "old fart" in NC who has nothing but admiration for her. :)
Will do! I'm leaving NC in two weeks to go back to PA. Take care of the old gal (NC, not my wife, ya perv! :p )while I'm gone! ;)

Here's the ammunition that's typically used in the Barrett in the military:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/mk211.htm

Isn't that the American dream? :D
LMAO! Hmmm. Close, very close. :D

Will do! I'm leaving NC in two weeks to go back to PA. Take care of the old gal (NC, not my wife, ya perv! :p )while I'm gone! ;)
RATS! And here I had my hopes all built up! :D

RATS! And here I had my hopes all built up! :D
Not to worry, she has a sister! You like redheads, don't ya? :D

Here's the ammunition that's typically used in the Barrett in the military:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/mk211.htm
I like this: Safety All types are safe in transport, storage and handling. Drop test from 15 m with safe firing after drop. Comply with requirements in NATO standards and Stanag for 12.7 mm.

Before I used one in combat though, I would want to know more about the magazine. Had some really bad experiences with magazines in Vietnam. :(

Not to worry, she has a sister! You like redheads, don't ya? :D
Oh HELL yeah. :D

Aw, who am I kidding? I like em ALL! :D

Nope, it's actually pretty easy. You take a 6 inch piece of stainless steel stock, bore out a one inch hole for the barrel, bore a tiny hole in the side, big enough for a piece of wire (cut clean with snips) to go down into, run your wire till it's almost into the bore, fill it with about 1/3 pound of 4f black powder, make your self a solid brass projectile with a stainless steel core, slide it it, ground the cannon to the ground of a car battery, aim it, and touch the wire to the positive post of the battery. BOOM.

You can get creative with the mounting system, ignition, and aiming system, but the basic design takes far less than a day. The hardest part is getting the stainless stock bored out, but any machine shop will do it for you if you don't have the equipment! ;)


Note, that's a simple one day design. Give me a month, and a couple grand, and I'll knock your socks off! Never second guess the weapons engineering skills of a smart redneck! (yeah, I know, smart redneck = oxymoron. ha ha :rolleyes: )

And this would be effective against tanks? It seems to me that it would be fairly ineffective against most modern MBT armours.

You guys really are into guns. Not to generalise, but is this really how *most* americans feel? I always thought it was an exagerrated stereotype...

Oh HELL yeah. :D

Aw, who am I kidding? I like em ALL! :D

Interesting question for ya: if you had to choose, which would you allow me to make use of first, yer gun or yer wife? :D

I like this: Safety All types are safe in transport, storage and handling. Drop test from 15 m with safe firing after drop. Comply with requirements in NATO standards and Stanag for 12.7 mm.

Before I used one in combat though, I would want to know more about the magazine. Had some really bad experiences with magazines in Vietnam. :(

The Barrett's magazine works just fine.

There are, of course, intermittent problems with magazines in other weapons - depending on which contractor made them. The M9 pistol, for example, will perform well or not at all, depending on who made the magazines.

I always used to run rounds through all of my magazines for all of my weapons, and would just drop the bad ones off and draw new ones until I had a set of mags I could trust.

You guys really are into guns. Not to generalise, but is this really how *most* americans feel? I always thought it was an exagerrated stereotype...

There are 300 million guns owned by 60 million American adults - and this is only the count of legal weapons purchased since 1980.

Interesting question for ya: if you had to choose, which would you allow me to make use of first, yer gun or yer wife? :D
Impossible! Niether one would let you touch the other! :D

You guys really are into guns. Not to generalise, but is this really how *most* americans feel? I always thought it was an exagerrated stereotype...
Yes sir! If you think our military is tough to fight, just try going into a redneck neighborhood to cause trouble! YYYEEEEE HHHAAAAAAA :D

http://www.atk.com/AdvancedWeaponSystems/advanceweaponsystems_xm25.asp

Still a 25mm, but useful at close ranges as well, depending on the type of shell you put in the magazine.

That's a grenade launcher. Very nice, but I don't think it'll become available to civilians (ie. me). Whereas, if I had the money, I could get my hands on a 50 cal ...

Of course, they probably won't be selling 25 mm sniper rifles to the public either, but I can dream, can't I?

I always used to run rounds through all of my magazines for all of my weapons, and would just drop the bad ones off and draw new ones until I had a set of mags I could trust.
Not always practical in the heat of battle, particularly when you're out and have to beg, borrow or steal.

Yes sir! If you think are military is tough to fight, just try going into a redneck neighborhood to cause trouble! YYYEEEEE HHHAAAAAAA :D
ROFLMAO! You nut! Yer a frakkin GUN NUT! :D

Impossible! Niether one would let you touch the other! :D
Hahahahhaha! Good answer! :D

Does anyone remember that comment by the young cop in "Beverly Hills Cop 2:" "You can never have too much firepower." :D

Does anyone remember that comment by the young cop in "Beverly Hills Cop 2:" "You can never have too much firepower." :D
Yeah, he was great! He opened up his trunk and th other cop was like WTF?
I think all cops should keep that in their trunk. You know, just in case! ;)

Yeah, he was great! He opened up his trunk and th other cop was like WTF?
I think all cops should keep that in their trunk. You know, just in case! ;)

I dunno... you'd think the tactical shotguns they keep in the passenger seat would be enough.

There are 300 million guns owned by 60 million American adults - and this is only the count of legal weapons purchased since 1980.

Haha whats the population of the US? There are like more guns than people! Now I don't blame US for having so many gun related murders! I've been in fights before, if there's a pillow laying around I whack 'em with that, if there's a gun sitting next to me...

Haha whats the population of the US? There are like more guns than people! Now I don't blame US for having so many gun related murders! I've been in fights before, if there's a pillow laying around I whack 'em with that, if there's a gun sitting next to me...

Interestingly, that's an increase from 1991 to the present - an increase from an initial total of 200 million guns to 300 million guns.

Over that same time period, both gun murders and firearm related crime has plummeted by huge percentages.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wuvc01.txt

From 1993 through 2001 violent crime declined 54%; weapon
violence went down 59%; and firearm violence, 63%.

Yeah, he was great! He opened up his trunk and th other cop was like WTF?
I think all cops should keep that in their trunk. You know, just in case! ;)
Hahaha! You should have seen me comiing in from the field and walking through an entire airport terminal of newbies ( first time in-country )! Heh!

I was covered in that fine dust they so thoughtfully created when they bulldozed a huge area near Song Be to create an airfield. I had an AK-47 over one shoulder, an M16 over the other shoulder, a massive Bowie knife on my right hip, a Chicom 9mm on my left, and that floppy old boonie hat on my head.

When the newbies first saw me, they all went quiet. You could have heard a pin drop anywhere in that huge terminal! I could almost hear them thinking: "OMFG! Is that what I'm going to look like in a few days? And that guy is a frakkin' OFFICER! OMG! OMG!"

ROFLMAO! :D

Interestingly, that's an increase from 1991 to the present - an increase from an initial total of 200 million guns to 300 million guns.

Over that same time period, both gun murders and firearm related crime has plummeted by huge percentages.

Yeah, but you would still be talking like 10,000+ murders a year though, right? In Australia we usually have about 50-100 in a year:

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/9c85bd1298c075eaca2568a900139342?OpenDocument

I don't know if it's a co-incidence or not, but gun laws in Australia are pretty tough...

Yeah, but you would still be talking like 10,000+ murders a year though, right? In Australia we usually have about 50-100 in a year:

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/9c85bd1298c075eaca2568a900139342?OpenDocument

I don't know if it's a co-incidence or not, but gun laws in Australia are pretty tough...

If you figure we went from 55,000 murders down to 16,000 at present, that's pretty good.

. There has never been an incident of civilian misuse of this weapon, so far as anyone knows.

I believe the IRA used seven .50 cal rifles to kill over fifty British soldiers during the Troubles. It was their favorite weapon because of the high leathality over long range.

That being said, it's a very cool gun. I wouldn't want to pony up seven and a half grand for it, but I wouldn't mind firing it once or twice. Or twenty.

Yeah, but you would still be talking like 10,000+ murders a year though, right? In Australia we usually have about 50-100 in a year:

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/9c85bd1298c075eaca2568a900139342?OpenDocument

I don't know if it's a co-incidence or not, but gun laws in Australia are pretty tough...


Now find out the rates BEFORE the various laws went into effect.

I don't know if it's a co-incidence or not, but gun laws in Australia are pretty tough...
Has nothing to do with it. Gun laws in Mexico are equally tough, and the murder rate is almost three times as high as in the USA.

I don't know if it's a co-incidence or not, but gun laws in Australia are pretty tough...
The problem is that when Australia bans guns, there isn't a gun to be found in the entire country. In America, It's by a state by state basis, so if one state bans guns, then a potential criminal can just drive over the border and pick one up. This then creates a power imbalance, because guns will be easy for criminals to obtain, but impossible for law-abiding citizens to obtain.

This may crime to even increase.

If you figure we went from 55,000 murders down to 16,000 at present, that's pretty good.
You had 55,000! That is exactly the population of New South Wales' largest inland city (Wagga Wagga)! Gone every year! Talk about population control! Sorry for being so over the top, but that level of crime just blows my mind. When someone gets shot in Australia it makes national news. Seriously though, I've lived in towns with populations of like 1-2,000 and 20-30,000...

I had no idea that many people were dying in US. I suppose you guys would all know someone who got shot (unless the murders are concentrated in specific areas). Doesn't it upset you all, y'know 10-50,000/year!? Is any one doing anything about it!?

The problem is that when Australia bans guns, there isn't a gun to be found in the entire country. In America, It's by a state by state basis, so if one state bans guns, then a potential criminal can just drive over the border and pick one up. This then creates a power imbalance, because guns will be easy for criminals to obtain, but impossible for law-abiding citizens to obtain.

This may crime to even increase.

So maybe gun control should be federal. Or does the US system not allow for that kind of thing?

The problem is that when Australia bans guns, there isn't a gun to be found in the entire country. In America, It's by a state by state basis, so if one state bans guns, then a potential criminal can just drive over the border and pick one up. This then creates a power imbalance, because guns will be easy for criminals to obtain, but impossible for law-abiding citizens to obtain.

This may crime to even increase.

The problem is the statistics I cited.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/wuvc01.htm

Crime and murder by firearm has plummeted in the US while gun ownership has skyrocketed.

And it's not so much a regional thing as it is a cultural thing - note in the study that blacks comprise half the murder and firearm violence victims AND perpetrators - and that 98 percent of the time, they're doing it to each other.

You had 55,000! That is exactly the population of New South Wales' largest inland city (Wagga Wagga)! Gone every year! Talk about population control! Sorry for being so over the top, but that level of crime just blows my mind. When someone gets shot in Australia it makes national news. Seriously though, I've lived in towns with populations of like 1-2,000 and 20-30,000...

I had no idea that many people were dying in US. I suppose you guys would all know someone who got shot (unless the murders are concentrated in specific areas). Doesn't it upset you all, y'know 10-50,000/year!? Is any one doing anything about it!?

There are some things being done about crime, others are encouraging the problem. The majority of murders are committed in less than a dozen counties nationwide. They are also heavy urban areas w/ high poverty/drug/crime/etc. rates. Read up on the so-called "Great Society" initiatives of the 60's and 70's. Sort of like an American "Great Leap Forward".

The problem is that when Australia bans guns, there isn't a gun to be found in the entire country. In America, It's by a state by state basis, so if one state bans guns, then a potential criminal can just drive over the border and pick one up. This then creates a power imbalance, because guns will be easy for criminals to obtain, but impossible for law-abiding citizens to obtain.

This may crime to even increase.

The problem is the statistics I cited.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/wuvc01.htm

Crime and murder by firearm has plummeted in the US while gun ownership has skyrocketed.

And it's not so much a regional thing as it is a cultural thing - note in the study that blacks comprise half the murder and firearm violence victims AND perpetrators - and that 98 percent of the time, they're doing it to each other.

So maybe gun control should be federal. Or does the US system not allow for that kind of thing?

No party in the US is ever going to have that as a central plank of thier platform. End of story.

You had 55,000! That is exactly the population of New South Wales' largest inland city (Wagga Wagga)! Gone every year! Talk about population control! Sorry for being so over the top, but that level of crime just blows my mind. When someone gets shot in Australia it makes national news. Seriously though, I've lived in towns with populations of like 1-2,000 and 20-30,000...

I had no idea that many people were dying in US. I suppose you guys would all know someone who got shot (unless the murders are concentrated in specific areas). Doesn't it upset you all, y'know 10-50,000/year!? Is any one doing anything about it!?

That was in the mid-1990s - the rate is now near 16,000. Which is a substantial drop.

The violence is concentrated mostly among the black population, who suffer from a culture of violence - more than half of all firearm violence victims are black, and 98 percent of their attackers are black.

If you figure that they are only 12 percent of the US population, and the rest of the US by comparison is not killing each other at that rate, there's something wrong with their living conditions or culture. Something that isn't guns - or the rest of us would be killing each other at the same rate.

I will also point out that the majority of violent crime is committed without any gun at all.

You had 55,000! That is exactly the population of New South Wales' largest inland city (Wagga Wagga)! Gone every year! Talk about population control! Sorry for being so over the top, but that level of crime just blows my mind. When someone gets shot in Australia it makes national news. Seriously though, I've lived in towns with populations of like 1-2,000 and 20-30,000...

I had no idea that many people were dying in US. I suppose you guys would all know someone who got shot (unless the murders are concentrated in specific areas). Doesn't it upset you all, y'know 10-50,000/year!? Is any one doing anything about it!?
Um ... America is just a tad larger than NZ ya-know. :rolleyes:

I know I'm getting a little provocative, and the last thing I want to do is troll but, how can a government justify any political campaign other than crime reduction? With figures that phenomenal Isn't it bizarre to run over to Iraq and stop killing there? I don't have a great understanding of the complexities of US current affairs, but it is constantly on tv and I didn't hear about that. Instead I'm hearing about Iraq. Surely a concerned govt would funnel all of it's spending to some kind of solution, or the search for one at least...

Please don't flame me for being ignorant if I am, it just seems that way from here.

I know I'm getting a little provocative, and the last thing I want to do is troll but, how can a government justify any political campaign other than crime reduction? With figures that phenomenal Isn't it bizarre to run over to Iraq and stop killing there? I don't have a great understanding of the complexities of US current affairs, but it is constantly on tv and I didn't hear about that. Instead I'm hearing about Iraq. Surely a concerned govt would funnel all of it's spending to some kind of solution, or the search for one at least...

Please don't flame me for being ignorant if I am, it just seems that way from here.

The President can already get up and claim a 63 percent reduction in violent crime.

Um ... America is just a tad larger than NZ ya-know. :rolleyes:

I'm from Australia. Sydney. Australia. Y'know kangaroos, boomerangs, Opera house...

I know I'm getting a little provocative, and the last thing I want to do is troll but, how can a government justify any political campaign other than crime reduction? With figures that phenomenal Isn't it bizarre to run over to Iraq and stop killing there?
It's not crime reduction the US citizens are against, it's gun control. A good chunk of the population believes it's possible to reduce crime without penalizing gun ownership.

And they're right. Simple criminalization of guns won't stop crime, guns are simply a tool.

I know I'm getting a little provocative, and the last thing I want to do is troll but, how can a government justify any political campaign other than crime reduction? With figures that phenomenal Isn't it bizarre to run over to Iraq and stop killing there? I don't have a great understanding of the complexities of US current affairs, but it is constantly on tv and I didn't hear about that. Instead I'm hearing about Iraq. Surely a concerned govt would funnel all of it's spending to some kind of solution, or the search for one at least...

Please don't flame me for being ignorant if I am, it just seems that way from here.

Civility is good.

The problem comes in the definition of "crime reduction". Those who want to ban guns try and argue that it's firearms that "cause" crime and ignore other aspects. Theythen try and pass laws that prevent those who actually follow the law from owning firearms.

A large percentage of crime is committed by illegal immigrants. Groups that support illegal immigration, however, have pushed for laws preventing police in several major cities from arresting them based on thier immigration status alone. They have to wait until a "real" crime is committed.

The President can already get up and claim a 63 percent reduction in violent crime.

ok. You see, this is the G.W.Bush you don't hear about in the left leaning Aussie press. Thats great. Out of curiousity, do you know which policy did that (60% drop)? That'd have to be the key to endless threads.

ok. You see, this is the G.W.Bush you don't hear about in the left leaning Aussie press. Thats great. Out of curiousity, do you know which policy did that (60% drop)? That'd have to be the key to endless threads.

It's not just one policy. It's a myriad of different things, reduced drug use, increased numbers of police, improved criminal prosecution, economic strength, etc.

I'm from Australia. Sydney. Australia. Y'know kangaroos, boomerangs, Opera house...
Australia Population: 19,731,984

US Population: 290,342,554

Percentage of US population represented by Australian population: 7%

I had no idea that many people were dying in US. I suppose you guys would all know someone who got shot (unless the murders are concentrated in specific areas). I know a few people who have been shot. One of my brother in laws friends was shot to death last month. NONE of the shooters aquired their guns legally, and NONE of the people shot were armed.

Doesn't it upset you all, y'know 10-50,000/year!? Is any one doing anything about it!?
Upsets the hell out of me. What are we doing about it? Were arming ourselves. Nobody breaks into your house when they know you have a twelve gauge!

ok. You see, this is the G.W.Bush you don't hear about in the left leaning Aussie press. Thats great. Out of curiousity, do you know which policy did that (60% drop)? That'd have to be the key to endless threads.
I already posted the link to the research, and the trend has continued to this day.

Part of the drop is due to a decrease in gang violence - the crack wars of the 90s are over, but not due to government intervention. Black on black violence used to take up more of the total than it does now. There is speculation that the gang members who were originally that violent have aged out, been killed, or gone to prison.

BTW, for a while there in the 1990s, if you were a young black male, you were more likely to be killed by gunfire or go to prison for a felony than you were to do anything else.

Governments do not always produce the solution, or cause things - but Presidents are always quick to take credit.

People said that the "assault weapons ban" would reduce the number of "assault weapons". They actually increased in number, legally, because the law was written so poorly. It caused a run on gun purchasing, radically increasing the number of guns in the US.

The guns do not cause people to shoot each other. Certainly, they provide the means, but a gun in your hand does not make you a crazy person. Your local culture, your upbringing, and your social status have far, far more to do with whether or not you will commit a felony or kill someone with a firearm than any other factor.

Civility is good.

The problem comes in the definition of "crime reduction". Those who want to ban guns try and argue that it's firearms that "cause" crime and ignore other aspects. Theythen try and pass laws that prevent those who actually follow the law from owning firearms.

A large percentage of crime is committed by illegal immigrants. Groups that support illegal immigration, however, have pushed for laws preventing police in several major cities from arresting them based on thier immigration status alone. They have to wait until a "real" crime is committed.

But then again, over here we have restrictive gun laws and illegal immigrants. Neither seem to be huge crime propellants. It must be something else, American culture and Aussie culture can't be that different. Why would Immy's be evil there and not here? Perhaps the poverty gap?

Australia Population: 19,731,984

US Population: 290,342,554

Percentage of US population represented by Australian population: 7%

ok so in 1995 (:$ latest I could find) gun related deaths in australia was at 67 for the year. to bring this at the same ratio to your qouted US pop then US should have about...957.14 deaths per year?

But then again, over here we have restrictive gun laws and illegal immigrants. Neither seem to be huge crime propellants. It must be something else, American culture and Aussie culture can't be that different. Why would Immy's be evil there and not here? Perhaps the poverty gap?

Well, I can only speak for Europe, and there is a large cultural difference in attitudes towards law enforcement. In America a dead felon seen as a good thing. In Europe, it's not.

Good thing you intervened, GreaterPacificNations. I fear the participants in this thread were reaching lethal concentrations of testosterone;)

ok. You see, this is the G.W.Bush you don't hear about in the left leaning Aussie press. Thats great. Out of curiousity, do you know which policy did that (60% drop)? That'd have to be the key to endless threads.
Tax cuts for small businesses that can then hire more people. You know, the "tax cuts for the rich" that people blab about? That also covers the largest sector of our jobs, which is small business, which files taxes under the personal tax bracket.

And then theres his ownership incentives, which encourage and help poor people to buy homes instaed of renting them, helping poor people to create capital. It's a little known fact that GW Bush has spent more than any other president in history (yes, even Clinton!) on poverty reduction, even though he apparently "doesn't care about black people" :rolleyes:

The war may not be going as well as we wish, but Dubya really is a good person who actually cares about people. Until the Liberals spin it, that is!

But then again, over here we have restrictive gun laws and illegal immigrants. Neither seem to be huge crime propellants. It must be something else, American culture and Aussie culture can't be that different. Why would Immy's be evil there and not here? Perhaps the poverty gap?

Poverty levels are a factor, yes.

Many of the illegal immigrants who do commit crimes beyond just coming into the country are members of foreign gangs that are international in scope. You have to remember that the US is not as geographically isolated as Aus.

As for the "restrictive" laws, Mexico also has restrictive laws and has a much higher murder/crime rate than the US.

Finland has a much higher per/capita ownership rate than the US but has lower crime than either the US, Aus, or the UK.

ok so in 1995 (:$ latest I could find) gun related deaths in australia was at 67 for the year. to bring this at the same ratio to your qouted US pop then US should have about...957.14 deaths per year?
No. The extropolation won't stretch that far. :p

Good thing you intervened, GreaterPacificNations. I fear the participants in this thread were reaching lethal concentrations of testosterone;)
Oh?? Then how, pray tell, do you explain my being the one who opened it? Hmmm? :D

Good thing you intervened, GreaterPacificNations. I fear the participants in this thread were reaching lethal concentrations of testosterone;)
My wife likes firearms as much as I do. I haven't seen any unnatural hair growth...

My wife likes firearms as much as I do. I haven't seen any unnatural hair growth...
ROFLMAO!!!! :D

There are many initiatives to stop violence, and gun violence in particular. However, as has been pointed out by several other posters, the vast, vast majority of the murders occur is very small areas. For this reason, most efforts to deal with these problems occur on a local level - either the state level, or, more commonly, the city level. It just doesn't make sense for the national government to legislate on what is overwhelmingly a local problem.

It is important to note, however, that gun ownership is not a localized phenomenon; high levels of gun ownership exist throughout the nation, particularly in the West. Gun ownership statistics do not correspond with violent crime statistics (in terms of areas of high concentration).

I hope this clears things up.

Oh - and as for your earlier question as to whether this gun-loving behavior is abnormal, I would say that it is not. At least out West, the attitudes expressed here are not at all uncommon. This is particularly true of males - females are culturally less inclined toward such things, although there are exceptions, as always.

Also, a positive attitude toward gun ownership is so deeply ingrained in American society and culture that it would be political suicide (and possibly physical suicide as well) to campaign for any kind of national gun ban.

I don't know, they may be right. My testosterone has shot up so high since I started reading this thread, I just scratched myself, and I didn't even itch! ;)

Upsets the hell out of me. What are we doing about it? Were arming ourselves. Nobody breaks into your house when they know you have a twelve gauge!

How do they know you have one? Secondly, wouldn't you say that someone who was at the point of breaking into your house would be a little beyond reason? To break into a house is unreasonable, why then would you turn around and be reasonable about the manner in which you will be unreasonable? I think holing up in the burbs with a shotty underarm waiting for a criminal would probably just cause more unneccesary death.

I don't know, they may be right. My testosterone has shot up so high since I started reading this thread, I just scratched myself, and I didn't even itch! ;)
LMAO!!! You frakkin' nut! :D

How do they know you have one?
You can get one of those signs with a revolver pointing straight at you that says: "Never mind the dog, beware of owner." :)

Those are funny.

Good thing you intervened, GreaterPacificNations. I fear the participants in this thread were reaching lethal concentrations of testosterone;)

;)

I really, really would like a response to this, please:




Good thing you intervened, GreaterPacificNations. I fear the participants in this thread were reaching lethal concentrations of testosterone

Oh?? Then how, pray tell, do you explain my being the one who opened it? Hmmm?

How do they know you have one? Secondly, wouldn't you say that someone who was at the point of breaking into your house would be a little beyond reason? To break into a house is unreasonable, why then would you turn around and be reasonable about the manner in which you will be unreasonable? I think holing up in the burbs with a shotty underarm waiting for a criminal would probably just cause more unneccesary death.

I sleep with my pistol on the bedside table. I'm not "holing up" in my house - I live there.

I keep one in almost every room - including one in the refrigerator.

And when I answer the door, if I can see that it isn't someone I know, I answer the door with the gun in my hand, but behind my back.

There are rules - laws - covering who you can shoot and when - these vary by state.

I also carry concealed when I leave the house. Perfectly legal.

You can get one of those signs with a revolver pointing straight at you that says: "Never mind the dog, beware of owner." :)

Those are funny.

haha, never seen one, sounds great!

How do they know you have one? Secondly, wouldn't you say that someone who was at the point of breaking into your house would be a little beyond reason? To break into a house is unreasonable, why then would you turn around and be reasonable about the manner in which you will be unreasonable? I think holing up in the burbs with a shotty underarm waiting for a criminal would probably just cause more unneccesary death.
They know it because I put stickers on my windows and doors with the picture of a 357 magnum that says "I don't call 911"

And though the death of an intruder is something I wish to NEVER experience, it is preferable to the death or rape of my wife. They break in, they get shot. Bottom line. They've been warned. I don't go out looking to hurt people, and I expect the same courtesy.

I sleep with my pistol on the bedside table. I'm not "holing up" in my house - I live there.

I keep one in almost every room - including one in the refrigerator.

And when I answer the door, if I can see that it isn't someone I know, I answer the door with the gun in my hand, but behind my back.

There are rules - laws - covering who you can shoot and when - these vary by state.

I also carry concealed when I leave the house. Perfectly legal.

You serious? What, just in case? ok 2 questions

1) Do commie-nazi industrialist spy-ninjas raid your house often?

2) Do you keep a gun in the toilet? If so what kind?

My wife likes firearms as much as I do. I haven't seen any unnatural hair growth...

Wax?

They know it because I put stickers on my windows and doors with the picture of a 357 magnum that says "I don't call 911"

And though the death of an intruder is something I wish to NEVER experience, it is preferable to the death or rape of my wife. They break in, they get shot. Bottom line. They've been warned. I don't go out looking to hurt people, and I expect the same courtesy.

Again, I am not familiar with US crime, but do people break in to murder, rape and pillage? In Australia they usually just want the TV, and take off real quick with a sack full of mantlepiece ornaments if you wake up.

You serious? What, just in case? ok 2 questions

1) Do commie-nazi industrialist spy-ninjas raid your house often?

2) Do you keep a gun in the toilet? If so what kind?

1) Just because his house hasn't been broken into doesnt mean it wont be. There's a reason I installed a car alarm on my truck. While it hasnt been broken into in over 2 years now, it was at one time and the possibility still exists for it to happen again. Sure, the alarm wont shoot the bastard who breaks into the truck, but the alarm has a 2-way pager so it alerts me when it goes off and I can go out there and shoot the bastard.

Bottom line is that using the excuse of "it hasnt happened yet, so why worry?" is hardly a reasonable way of handling the chance that someday someone will break in.

2) I'd suggest a Glock. I prefer the -23 model.

Ironically, I just read a piece on how an AP reported did an interview w/ Barnett inc. for a "business piece" and then posted a biased, anti-gun article quoting more from the VPC and "experts" who apparently know little about firearms than they did from the company. They later posted a "correction" but it isn't linked to the article.

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051126/COUNTY07/511260345/1006/NEWS01

Here's a blog showing more details and Barnett's responses.

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051126/COUNTY07/511260345/1006/NEWS01

You serious? What, just in case? ok 2 questions

1) Do commie-nazi industrialist spy-ninjas raid your house often?

2) Do you keep a gun in the toilet? If so what kind?

There's a Les Baer 45 (a 1911 clone) in the cabinet above the toilet. Along with two magazines.

No, but I do house victims of domestic violence at my house. I get a lot of death threats. I've also had people attempt to rob me before (outside the grocery story in the suburbs, for example).

Most criminals are unarmed in the US. I have a significant advantage.

Again, I am not familiar with US crime, but do people break in to murder, rape and pillage? In Australia they usually just want the TV, and take off real quick with a sack full of mantlepiece ornaments if you wake up.

Criminals here tend to be a bit more violent apparently. It's unfortunately a fact that more people get hurt not resisting than by fighting back.

Again, I am not familiar with US crime, but do people break in to murder, rape and pillage? In Australia they usually just want the TV, and take off real quick with a sack full of mantlepiece ornaments if you wake up.
Hell yeah, it happens. It might not ever happen to me in my lifetime, but the probability is certainly high enough to be ready for it. If it never happens, no harm done, because I won't ever go looking for trouble. If it does though, I'll be ready. There are some sickos in this world.

Go find stats for rape in America. It's scary enough to be prepared. My wife WILL sleep safe and sound at night.

Sure, the alarm wont shoot the bastard who breaks into the truck, but the alarm has a 2-way pager so it alerts me when it goes off and I can go out there and shoot the bastard.

You would shoot someone for breaking into your truck? Why not take a photo, hand it to the boys in blue along with the rego? That way, the Grand theif auto gets some time to turn around and touch his toes while thinking about what he did, and you don't get any bullet-holes in your truck! :D win win!

You serious? What, just in case? ok 2 questions

1) Do commie-nazi industrialist spy-ninjas raid your house often?

2) Do you keep a gun in the toilet? If so what kind?

DK is involved in the protection of battered women. He's directly opposed to criminal violence so tends to be more "prepared" than average.
I keep a loaded shotgun in our bedroom. Mostly for varmint control but there are the occasional breakins.

Intruders, thieves, burglars, and even murderers are not mindless, contrary to what seems to be argued in many high-profile court cases of late. It is not realistic to portray criminals as "monolithically unreasonable" in that they are unreasonable in all instances and circumstances. How is it that a supposedly "unreasonable" person is able to drive (or walk, as even that takes coordination) to their target if they are so completely without reason?

The fact is that crime is more than merely crazy people robbing others for no reason - there are psychological, cultural, and environmental factors. The last of these - environmental factors - appear to me to be the most significant overall.

As for a criminal knowing or not whether a gun is in a specific house, he will certainly not know. That is the point - he might be robbing a hippie without so much as a kitchen knife in the house, or he might be robbing Deep Kimchi - the criminal doesn't know. Further, a great deal of violence is committed in groups - gangwars being a prime example. When the local gang knows that they would be out-gunned by any three houses from a suburban street, it is unlikely that any major conflicts will erupt.

People tend to think of hicks and farmers who live without a neighbor for a kilometer around as the gun-toting types, but this isn't true either. On my street in the suburbs of Colorado Springs (hardly a high-crime ghetto, and hardly an isolated hick-burgh), I would guess that better than onen out of two adults had access to a firearm in a reasonable period of time.

It amuses me, now, that here at Georgia Tech there are people who have never even fired a gun, let alone owned one.

[Edit: typographical error]

You would shoot someone for breaking into your truck? Why not take a photo, hand it to the boys in blue along with the rego? That way, the Grand theif auto gets some time to turn around and touch his toes while thinking about what he did, and you don't get any bullet-holes in your truck! :D win win!
Using a firearm does not always mean you fire it.

I've displayed it several times to good, non-lethal effect.

You would shoot someone for breaking into your truck? Why not take a photo, hand it to the boys in blue along with the rego? That way, the Grand theif auto gets some time to turn around and touch his toes while thinking about what he did, and you don't get any bullet-holes in your truck! :D win win!

You assume the police will be able to find the vehicle in time before it is stripped and/or vandalized beyond repair.

In most instances (95%+) just brandishing a firearm chases away a criminal.

How many problems would be solved if people just took some judo lessons or something? Just keep tossing them around until both parties forgot how it all began (due to brain cell loss) and proceed to the local for some cold ones.

How many problems would be solved if people just took some judo lessons or something? Just keep tossing them around until both parties forgot how it all began (due to brain cell loss) and proceed to the local for some cold ones.

Also helpful in some cases but not all. Many people also don't have the physical capabilities to be effective in martial arts. It's not like in the movies.

How many problems would be solved if people just took some judo lessons or something? Just keep tossing them around until both parties forgot how it all began (due to brain cell loss) and proceed to the local for some cold ones.

It takes just a few lessons to become fairly competent with a firearm.

It is far more effective than most judo masters, and just the mere display of a firearm is often enough to stop a crime.

I teach victims of domestic violence about shooting, situational awareness, and it keeps their attackers from bothering them again.

Most of these women are in desperate, emergency situations. They have no ability to defend themselves, and are being stalked by violent men. How fast do you think they could learn to be a judo master?

You assume the police will be able to find the vehicle in time before it is stripped and/or vandalized beyond repair.

In most instances (95%+) just brandishing a firearm chases away a criminal.
It's always nice to keep a starters pistol to go along with the real gun too! A nice safe "warning shot" will send the toughest hardass running like a little girl.

Just make sure you don't confuse them! ;)

It's always nice to keep a starters pistol to go along with the real gun too! A nice safe "warning shot" will send the toughest hardass running like a little girl.

Just make sure you don't confuse them! ;)

No, never fire a warning shot. It's not legal in most places.

DK is involved in the protection of battered women. He's directly opposed to criminal violence so tends to be more "prepared" than average.
I keep a loaded shotgun in our bedroom. Mostly for varmint control but there are the occasional breakins.

Really! So you have been broken into before more than once...hmm...methinks I am not in a position to pass on idyllic judgements from my cushy life of nil crime. Seriously though, I come from a lower socio-economic bracket (on the Australian scale, which isn't that bad of a place to be) and lived in 10 of the crappiest towns attending 11 of the crappiest schools (even the notorious Randwick high 'gang school') and not once have I or my family or anyone I know been a victim of crime (excluding petty theft). The idea of getting house-broken is foriegn. So I suppose that I should not judge you for being 'prepared'. The only thing I think I would do in that situation is move to Australia lol :p

Really! So you have been broken into before more than once...hmm...methinks I am not in a position to pass on idyllic judgements from my cushy life of nil crime. Seriously though, I come from a lower socio-economic bracket (on the Australian scale, which isn't that bad of a place to be) and lived in 10 of the crappiest towns attending 11 of the crappiest schools (even the notorious Randwick high 'gang school') and not once have I or my family or anyone I know been a victim of crime (excluding petty theft). The idea of getting house-broken is foriegn. So I suppose that I should not judge you for being 'prepared'. The only thing I think I would do in that situation is move to Australia lol :p

Men beat women in every country. And I believe there are worse things than death - a lifetime of being beaten and abused is a terrible thing to watch unfold.

Also helpful in some cases but not all. Many people also don't have the physical capabilities to be effective in martial arts. It's not like in the movies.

Thats why i said judo. I've seen old ladies take down ex-cons with judo. It's designed for people who are smaller and physically weaker than their adversaries, and instead robs the enemy of his power and turns it against him.

Thats why i said judo. I've seen old ladies take down ex-cons with judo. It's designed for people who are smaller and physically weaker than their adversaries, and instead robs the enemy of his power and turns it against him.

The problem is that you have to "use" it. And you have to be good at it.

If you are a criminal, unarmed (as is likely in the US), and you hear me tell you to get on your knees and put your hands on your head, which is more likely to make you comply:

1. You hear me say, "Do it! I know judo!"

or

2. You see the muzzle end of a 1911 pistol aimed at your head, just out of arm's reach.

Really! So you have been broken into before more than once...hmm...methinks I am not in a position to pass on idyllic judgements from my cushy life of nil crime. Seriously though, I come from a lower socio-economic bracket (on the Australian scale, which isn't that bad of a place to be) and lived in 10 of the crappiest towns attending 11 of the crappiest schools (even the notorious Randwick high 'gang school') and not once have I or my family or anyone I know been a victim of crime (excluding petty theft). The idea of getting house-broken is foriegn. So I suppose that I should not judge you for being 'prepared'. The only thing I think I would do in that situation is move to Australia lol :p

I knew that was going to be misinterpreted. I meant that there are breakiins, etc. in the area. We've had people come onto our property before . Mostly just stupid kids but neighbors have had problems w/ drunks causing problems.

I do own several firearms. They all have different purposes from plinking to WWII reenactments to "just for fun".

It takes just a few lessons to become fairly competent with a firearm.

It is far more effective than most judo masters, and just the mere display of a firearm is often enough to stop a crime.

I teach victims of domestic violence about shooting, situational awareness, and it keeps their attackers from bothering them again.

Most of these women are in desperate, emergency situations. They have no ability to defend themselves, and are being stalked by violent men. How fast do you think they could learn to be a judo master?

Keep in mind that robbed of their gun, these frail women are just that again. Also, (I don't even do judo, but seeing we are on the topic) Judo, as said earlier, is designed for weaker smaller fighters and is the simplest martial art to learn. On top of that, the victims in question would be out meeting new people developing a larger support network and excerising; that'd do wonders for their mental state(I assume it wouldn't be great in most cases) and really empower them.

Judo is certainly useful, but, as has been mentioned, requires a great deal of training. Further, the deterrence just isn't there - the old woman who knows Judo won't scare off a robber before he tries anything. The old woman with a shotgun shouting "Make my day!"* will. Also, despite what Jackie Chan or Bruce Lee may seem to display, gunfire is more effective than any martial art. Even at extremely close range (melee distance), a gun is still extremely effective - there is a reason man has tended to arm himself for conflicts throughout the ages.

[Edit: Deep Kimchi seems to have said this while I was typing. Must work on the Flying Fingers of Fury a bit more, I guess.]

* "Make my day" is the name of the law in Colorado that makes it legal to blast someone who enters your dwelling without your permission. Technically, you can't kill someone who tries to steal a car - the use of deadly force in such a case would probably bring criminal prosecution - but, if he sets foot inside your house, you can blow him away with the full protection of the law.

I like Colorado.

Keep in mind that robbed of their gun, these frail women are just that again. Also, (I don't even do judo, but seeing we are on the topic) Judo, as said earlier, is designed for weaker smaller fighters and is the simplest martial art to learn. On top of that, the victims in question would be out meeting new people developing a larger support network and excerising; that'd do wonders for their mental state(I assume it wouldn't be great in most cases) and really empower them.
The idea that civilians who use guns are disarmed by attackers is a myth.

Civilians use their weapons three times as often as police in order to stop a crime. They are twice as likely to hit what they shoot when compared to the police (who only hit once out of every six shots fired). Police are also more likely to lose their weapon to an attacker, because they have to obey more explicit rules of escalation and use of force.

Even then, the total number of police who lose their weapons to an attacker is very, very small.

It just doesn't happen to civilians in a real situation - it's no more than a statistical anomaly.

The problem is that you have to "use" it. And you have to be good at it.

If you are a criminal, unarmed (as is likely in the US), and you hear me tell you to get on your knees and put your hands on your head, which is more likely to make you comply:

1. You hear me say, "Do it! I know judo!"

or

2. You see the muzzle end of a 1911 pistol aimed at your head, just out of arm's reach.

You don't say anything, just the criminal finds himself on the floor in a lock with your knee against his head calling 000 (sorry '911'). Or alternatively, the criminal finds himself on the floor not knowing what has happened and you are nowhere to be seen.

I said that judo only takes a short while to gain basic competency (again, I don't do judo, but a few of my friends and their mothers do) and thats all you need.

You don't say anything, just the criminal finds himself on the floor in a lock with your knee against his head calling 000 (sorry '911'). Or alternatively, the criminal finds himself on the floor not knowing what has happened and you are nowhere to be seen.

I said that judo only takes a short while to gain basic competency (again, I don't do judo, but a few of my friends and their mothers do) and thats all you need.

Doesn't work against multiple attackers, and I know it takes some strength and time to learn. It's also something that usually results in you being hit at least once. An interesting part of any grappling or hand technique, or any knife fight, is that you can count on getting hit at least once.

I give demonstrations to martial arts classes locally, where we advise them NEVER to try disarming techniques or move against a man with a gun - there is no one in the area who has EVER beaten the drop of the hammer, even when I start with the weapon in the holster. And I never get hit.

You don't say anything, just the criminal finds himself on the floor in a lock with your knee against his head calling 000 (sorry '911'). Or alternatively, the criminal finds himself on the floor not knowing what has happened and you are nowhere to be seen.

I said that judo only takes a short while to gain basic competency (again, I don't do judo, but a few of my friends and their mothers do) and thats all you need.

Forget it. I'm a big guy, and I know several martial arts. A large degree of competence in annother martial are would be required to take me down. On the other hand, just showing that you're armed would have me sprinting the other way.

Judo is certainly useful, but, as has been mentioned, requires a great deal of training. Further, the deterrence just isn't there - the old woman who knows Judo won't scare off a robber before he tries anything. The old woman with a shotgun shouting "Make my day!"* will. Also, despite what Jackie Chan or Bruce Lee may seem to display, gunfire is more effective than any martial art. Even at extremely close range (melee distance), a gun is still extremely effective - there is a reason man has tended to arm himself for conflicts throughout the ages.

[Edit: Deep Kimchi seems to have said this while I was typing. Must work on the Flying Fingers of Fury a bit more, I guess.]

* "Make my day" is the name of the law in Colorado that makes it legal to blast someone who enters your dwelling without your permission. Technically, you can't kill someone who tries to steal a car - the use of deadly force in such a case would probably bring criminal prosecution - but, if he sets foot inside your house, you can blow him away with the full protection of the law.

I like Colorado.


Obviously a firearm is the superior weapon, but if the stat that most crims in the US are unarmed (as everyone has been saying) is true then it doesn't matter. The whole point of judo isn't to scare the angry crim, it is to let him try whatever he wants to try then turn him upside down when he does. Last time I'm saying this 'judo is the simplest martial art and a working knowledge can be obtaind in only a handful of lessons. Also, you cannot be disarmed of judo. Finally, in the unhappy event of the criminal being armed, you are much better off unarmed (as opposed to pointing a gun at the agitated armed gunman) from what I have been told.

ok ok, I know a gun is the superior weapon, I'm just saying there are less lethal and equally as effective (in different situations granted) ways of defending yourself. I don't know, I just think it's weird to be lugging around a gun. Those thing kill! I don't want one, I would probably end up hurting someone with it in a serious way. I'd much prefer to smack someone in the head and leg it, or just give them whatever they want then to escalate the situation with a gun. Is anyone with me on that level?

ok ok, I know a gun is the superior weapon, I'm just saying there are less lethal and equally as effective (in different situations granted) ways of defending yourself. I don't know, I just think it's weird to be lugging around a gun. Those thing kill! I don't want one, I would probably end up hurting someone with it in a serious way. I'd much prefer to smack someone in the head and leg it, or just give them whatever they want then to escalate the situation with a gun. Is anyone with me on that level?

You live in Australia. Different country, different culture. Your criminals are different. Use what works for you.

You live in Australia. Different country, different culture. Your criminals are different. Use what works for you.

I suppose, I guess things are just a bit more tense in US. I don't know, I just beleive in the camaraderie of humankind. Nieve in ways, but also ... well nieve. You think thats nieve wait for this:

I truly hope that there might be a day, maybe not in my life time (I hope so, though), when the only things we use firearms for is hunting and target practice. When shooting becomes a hobby, not a form of violence.

I know you guys have your ways, your culture, and your problems which guide your descisions, but you gotta admit it'd be nice...

I don't understand any civilian use of it

We don't need a reason to be allowed to use it.

Those thing kill! I don't want one, I would probably end up hurting someone with it in a serious way.

I'm glad you don't have one then. If you don't trust yourself with a gun, then you better not have one.

You made a responsible, well informed choice.

No, never fire a warning shot. It's not legal in most places.
Even a starters pistol? I thought it isn't considered a "firearm" if it isn't designed to shoot a projectile?

I suppose, I guess things are just a bit more tense in US. I don't know, I just beleive in the camaraderie of humankind. Nieve in ways, but also ... well nieve. You think thats nieve wait for this:

I truly hope that there might be a day, maybe not in my life time (I hope so, though), when the only things we use firearms for is hunting and target practice. When shooting becomes a hobby, not a form of violence.

I know you guys have your ways, your culture, and your problems which guide your descisions, but you gotta admit it'd be nice...

And ya know what, the vast majority of firearm owners in the US hope for just the same thing.

It's a misconception pushed by the anti-self-defense lobby (no, not you) that anyone who owns a gun wants to go out and bag themselves a bad guy or get into shootouts on a regular basis.

I've used my guns to kill coyotes and other varmints but have never had to use one against a human. I hope I never do. I will, however, be prepared if it ever occurs though, the same way I keep a fire extinguisher in my kitchen.

You don't say anything, just the criminal finds himself on the floor in a lock with your knee against his head calling 000 (sorry '911'). Or alternatively, the criminal finds himself on the floor not knowing what has happened and you are nowhere to be seen.

I said that judo only takes a short while to gain basic competency (again, I don't do judo, but a few of my friends and their mothers do) and thats all you need.
UUHHMM. What if the attacker knows Judo?

UUHHMM. What if the attacker knows Judo?
then you're stuffed, just like if the attacker has a gun. Unless you wore a bulletproof vest and a kevlar helmet...

then you're stuffed, just like if the attacker has a gun. Unless you wore a bulletproof vest and a kevlar helmet...
No, your not stuffed if the attacker has a gun and you have a gun, and he breaks into your house. Ask anyone who knows about trying to get through a door and shoot someone who is sitting behind the door with the gun pointed at it. Any cop will tell you that the LAST thing they ever want to do is try a "breach" when they know the person inside is armed.

The major difference is you have your gun pointed at where they are, and they have to kick in the door, look around the room, find where you are, bring the gun to that point and shoot. Anyone who can shoot a gun fairly well would have already put two in the chest before they even figured out where in the room you are (that is, if they can even see you in a dark room). Thats why when someone breaks into your house, LEAVE THE LIGHTS OFF! You'll both have trouble seeing, but you know where your door is, they probably don't know where your bed is.

Even a starters pistol? I thought it isn't considered a "firearm" if it isn't designed to shoot a projectile?
If you shoot, shoot. Shooting blanks is a good way to get sued or killed, even if it's a starter pistol.

LEAVE THE LIGHTS OFF! You'll both have trouble seeing, but you know where your door is, they probably don't know where your bed is.

Don't you get nailed if you shoot someone who is unarmed? Even if they are breaking in? (I know not in colorado, but usually, or wherever you live) You would want to be sure. Also, do you have kids around the house? The house full of loaded guns? Do you keep them in a locked case? If so, wouldn't you feel stupid fumbling with the case while your random sicko takes your castle by coup.

then you're stuffed, just like if the attacker has a gun. Unless you wore a bulletproof vest and a kevlar helmet...

Still the advantage is w/ the legal firearm owner. On average, they do something that criminals don't: Train w/ thier firearm. I don't have direct stats on it but I can provide dozens of anecdotals where LAC's won against an armed intruder who got the drop on them and/or fired first.

Don't you get nailed if you shoot someone who is unarmed? Even if they are breaking in? (I know not in colorado, but usually, or wherever you live) You would want to be sure. Also, do you have kids around the house? The house full of loaded guns? Do you keep them in a locked case? If so, wouldn't you feel stupid fumbling with the case while your random sicko takes your castle by coup.

It depends on the locality and the situation. Even if someone is unarmed, they are still a threat if they are in your home.

I have kids. I keep all but the shotgun in a safe and I am teaching them firearm safety. It is that factor that reduces child "accidents". Not locking them away and pretending they aren't there.

You have, however, nailed the head on why many firearm owners oppose "safe storage laws".

It depends on the locality and the situation. Even if someone is unarmed, they are still a threat if they are in your home.

I have kids. I keep all but the shotgun in a safe and I am teaching them firearm safety. It is that factor that reduces child "accidents". Not locking them away and pretending they aren't there.

You have, however, nailed the head on why many firearm owners oppose "safe storage laws".

So basically you have to have say 30 seconds advance warning to prepare yourself for the breach. Too bad if you're asleep, or the crim is quiet. But as i said before, you could sleep in kevlar. But he could get armour peircing rounds, so you could set some kind of booby trap on you're door...It escalates. Perhaps trying to struggle against the impending invasion you should instead work on security if you're that worried. Just make your house so difficult to break into it's not worth it, or the cops have arrived to the silent alarm by the time you've figure out a way. Get a dog.

So basically you have to have say 30 seconds advance warning to prepare yourself for the breach. Too bad if you're asleep, or the crim is quiet. But as i said before, you could sleep in kevlar. But he could get armour peircing rounds, so you could set some kind of booby trap on you're door...It escalates. Perhaps trying to struggle against the impending invasion you should instead work on security if you're that worried. Just make your house so difficult to break into it's not worth it, or the cops have arrived to the silent alarm by the time you've figure out a way. Get a dog.

Have a dog. I also plant rosebushes and other thorny plants along the side of the house. Unusual noises also wake me up. The police are also at least 20 min. away and I can't afford an alarm system.

AP ammo is normally illegal and very difficult to acquire/expensive. Home "booby traps" are also normally illegal.

Whose "struggling". I keep a loaded gun in my home.

You would shoot someone for breaking into your truck? Why not take a photo, hand it to the boys in blue along with the rego? That way, the Grand theif auto gets some time to turn around and touch his toes while thinking about what he did, and you don't get any bullet-holes in your truck! :D win win!

Honestly?

If someone broke into my truck I'd probably unload a magazine into their ass. Bullet holes in the truck be damned - I'll just sue the bastard for repairs since him breaking into the truck directly led to me firing the weapon.

Simple rule of life: do unto others...

If I broke into someone else's vehicle, I'd deserve to be shot too...

But he could get armour peircing rounds, so you could set some kind of booby trap on you're door...It escalates.

It doesn't escalate the way you think.

There are no real armor piercing rounds available in any form in the US for pistols.

Almost all rifle rounds will go through anything except a Level IV vest - and those are not available to the public - they have all been bought up by the military and they can't make enough of them.

There is always someone awake in my house. I have a motion sensor system outside. My family and the others in my house have a weekly drill on intrusion, which includes practicing a center peel through the axis of the house and retreating to the master bedroom, which has a reinforced metal door and door frame.

If someone comes while we're all at home, the intruder would face at least three armed adults.