NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been pondering this one a bit really, and it's an old forum favorite. I'm certain it will spark at least some level of debate.

So what level of arms restrictions are reasonable for the average citizen? Handguns? Rifles? Concealed carry only? Howitzers? Would you include mandatory testing prior to license issuance? What's your stance on the matter.

People should be limited to two, one on each side.

The poll is lacking a complete restriction.

Shall not be infringed.

People should be limited to two, one on each side.

Screw you, the second amendment gives me the right to a third arm on the back of my head! It's what the Founding Father's wanted! How can we protect Freedom(tm) with only 2 arms? Why do you hate America?!




[/thread]

Whichever you can prove that you need, once you obtained a full training on use and safety, together with a psychological examination, to be repeated once every year.

As I think of it, there's a certain level of arms restriction I am ready to tolerate.

Namely, on nuclear weapons.

Reasoning by a different person can be found here. (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=2891635&postcount=120)

being british, i am quiet happy that there is a complete ban on guns.

i thought this forum might have been interesting in terms of international restrictions, so i shall now depart.

ciao

As I think of it, there's a certain level of arms restriction I am ready to tolerate.

Namely, on nuclear weapons.


But I want to own my own nukes... :( ...legally anyways. That way I can stop hiding them

I've been pondering this one a bit really, and it's an old forum favorite. I'm certain it will spark at least some level of debate.

So what level of arms restrictions are reasonable for the average citizen? Handguns? Rifles? Concealed carry only? Howitzers? Would you include mandatory testing prior to license issuance? What's your stance on the matter.

Hmmm. I'm fond of a computerized background check to see if you're a felon, a person fond of domestic violence, or have checked into a mental health facility for any length of time in your life (we have this check in the US).

If you're law abiding, I see no reason not to trust you with a handgun (concealed or otherwise), or a rifle, or a shotgun, or a fully automatic weapon.

There are hunting rifles that are as powerful as a .50 BMG rifle, so I see no reason to limit those, either. As long as you're a law abiding citizen, and are exercising your use of the weapon in a responsible manner (i.e., you're either hunting, going to a range, or using the weapon sensibly for self-defense) I fail to see any problem

Perhaps a lot of people are under the misconception that our firearm violence rate has been rising astronomically - when in fact it has plummeted over 63 percent in the past 10 years, which goes neatly along with the fact that the assault weapons ban was allowed to lapse, and we went from 200 million guns in circulation to 300 million guns in circulation. And we went to a majority of US states allowing concealed carry of handguns.

Gee, I wonder why the firearm violence rate went down, when we got so permissive with firearms, and bought so many more?

handguns should be after shotguns and rifles. shotguns and rifles have reasonable practical purposes. handguns are only for sport and killing people.

no guns simple (well apart from sportsmen of course since Britain needs to win things more often:p )

then again I'm British so my view doesn't count :(

no guns simple (well apart from sportsmen of course since Britain needs to win things more often:p )

then again I'm British so my view doesn't count :(

Oh, it counts in the UK. Just not in the US. My view on guns doesn't count in the UK.

being british, i am quiet happy that there is a complete ban on guns.


Being a member of the British NRA, and a regular target shooter, it is my reluctant duty to inform you that there is not a complete ban on guns. You can own any single-stroke or semi-auto rifle in .22, any single-stroke rifle up to and including .50, any shotgun you like (some require a shotgun licence, some require an FAC), and pretty much anything that uses black powder, including cap and ball revolvers.

As for my views on what guns one should be allowed to own, I think that for target shooting, pretty much any gun ought to be ok, provided that you pass the tests. I don't think that people should be allowed to carry a gun for self-defence, as it's just asking for trouble. Keep guns inside ranges, I say.

If you can wield it yourself, carry it around yourself, service it yourself, and just plain old use it yourself, you can have it, as far as I'm concerned, from a legal standpoint.

See, the problem with gun bans is that they only hurt law-abiding citizens. People who are going to use a gun for violent means aren't going to care whether they are allowed to have the gun or not. That's just a simple fact.

That said, we should enforce the idea of gun restriction--that is, people who are known to commit crimes should not be allowed to legally possess a gun, to make it harder for them to obtain one to commit crimes with. I fully support backround checks and whatnot.

We have to be realistic, on both accounts: people who want to use guns for illegal purposes will obtain them and use them regardless of gun laws, so we should go ahead and allow guns to be legally owned for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves with, and on that same token not make it easy for the criminals to just walk in and grab a gun themselves. Hopefully I made my point clear.

Of course, beyond that, I don't think you should have it legally. You don't need a cannon, or a freaking Howitzer, or a nuclear-armed missile--or for that matter, any missile.

Some reasons for gun control are:

1. That incidents where people shoot criminals in self defense are very rare, and shouldn't be used as excuses to own guns, just as incidents where presidential press secretaries are shot are very rare, and shouldn't be used as excuses to ban guns.

2. That a mugger will kill you in the half-second it takes to draw from the holster, but won't harm you while you dial 911 on your cell phone, talk to the dispatcher and wait half an hour for the cops to arrive.

3. That a hijacker could easily take a gun away from a pilot, but the hundreds of passengers aboard would then be unable to take the gun away from the hijacker. . .That if there'd been a gun aboard American Airlines Flight 93, someone could have been hurt. . . That pilots have enough to do in the cockpit, without having to worry about distractions like firearms to stop hijackers and fire extinguishers to stop fires, and these activities should be left to "trained professionals." . . . That such "trained professionals" will only be available on one flight in five. . . That rather than have the pilot risk human life by shooting at a hijacker, we should simply have the Air Force shoot down the plane, thus preserving life.

4. That car keys, umbrellas and hairspray are good tools for self-defense, despite the fact that police continue to carry guns.


5. That Washington DC's low murder rate of 80.6 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, but Arlington, Virginia's high murder rate of 1.6 per 100,000 is attributable to the lack of gun control.

6. That the depressed and emotionally disturbed should not be allowed to own guns that shoot bullets with 250 ft-lbs of energy, but should be allowed to own 4000 lb cars with 1,136,000 ft-lbs of energy (at 65 mph).

7. That among the hundreds of documented cases against anti-gun freaks we note that: the press secretary of Handgun Control was arrested in DC for discharging an illegal handgun, a ranking regional officer of the Million Moron March was convicted of felony assault, and other Million Morons in Colorado have been arrested for attacking firearm dealers and activists, but "gun nuts" are "obsessed with violence."


8. That Hitler and Stalin didn't disarm citizens, only Jews, Gypsies, gays, unionists and other "undesirables." (Yes, a liberal member of the MMM actually said this in the Washington Post, quoting www.potomac-inc.org.) . . . That to properly understand Nazi gun control, one must consider the "legitimate fears" they had of the Jewish population. (This was another self-proclaimed liberal. I'm beginning to wonder.)

9. That families with children should not be allowed to own guns for safety reasons, just as they aren't allowed to own dogs, power tools, or toxic chemicals.

10. That it's wrong to politicize that the World Trade Center attackers didn't need guns to hijack a plane, but okay to politicize that the Columbine killers bought gun illegally.

11. That a criminal is somehow more of a threat to a cop than to a regular person, so police need guns and regular citizens don't.

12. That only the government should control guns, just as only the government should control broadcasting, and only the government should control religion.

13. That the New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns, just as Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

You get the hint.

~~~Death to Tyrants~~~

12. That only the government should control guns, just as only the government should control broadcasting, and only the government should control religion.


Sorry, who else would you like to control guns? The national union of chefs, perhaps? Your local street mime? Ronald McDonald?

The poll is lacking a complete restriction.

poll is LACKING NO RESTRICTION

.gov serves the people not the other way around

Sorry, who else would you like to control guns? The national union of chefs, perhaps? Your local street mime? Ronald McDonald?

Individuals.

Sorry, who else would you like to control guns? The national union of chefs, perhaps? Your local street mime? Ronald McDonald?

No don't arm the mimes it can only end badly. Mimes, the silent killers on our streets...

Whichever you can prove that you need, once you obtained a full training on use and safety, together with a psychological examination, to be repeated once every year.

since guns are inanimate, the brain is the motivating force - thus you should require psychological testing for everyone - even nonfirearm owners as they could turn to any weapon at any time - better yet: lets have mind police with summary execution powers for those with impure thoughts

:gundge: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge:

btw the 2nd is not about need, it is about keeping politicians in check

Individuals.

How do you expect that to work? Are you seriously suggesting that it would be a good thing for everyone to just pick and choose how many guns they want, without any laws governing it? You do realise, I hope, that there would be no age restrictions to gun ownership? That any kid could save up his paper round money, go into a gun shop and buy a revolver?

Think harder.

SNIP

a British gun lobby :eek: *sounds of coming apocalypse* though yeah I do agree that self defence is just a ludicrous excuse

the weird thing is I've never even seen a gun nor has anyone I know (well apart from a Maltese lad but he’s Maltese nuff said)

I've been pondering this one a bit really, and it's an old forum favorite. I'm certain it will spark at least some level of debate.

Nah. It'll be the same old rehash, with a few new faces.

So what level of arms restrictions are reasonable for the average citizen? Handguns? Rifles? Concealed carry only? Howitzers? Would you include mandatory testing prior to license issuance? What's your stance on the matter.

Something similar to the reasoning from the post in the other forum linked by Allanea.

Completely unrestricted for hand weapons and small arms, with heavy weapons and special weapons (short of WMDs) available on a shall issue licensing system based on the militaries qualification system.

Hand weapons: hand combat weapons - knives, clubs, swords, etc.
Small arms: projectile weapons small enough to be carried normally and fired by one individual going about his daily business - pistols, rifles, automatic rifles, shotguns, and SMGs.
Heavy weapons: MGs, RPGs, and ATGLs, all the way up through MBTs and artillery pieces.
Special Weapons: small scale incediary weapons, irritant gases, local/focused effect HERF and other EMP type weapons, and the like.
WMDs: CBUs, toxics (other than nonpersitant irritants), nuclear and otyhe radiological weapons, biological agents, indescriminate HERF and other EMP type weapons, large scale incendiarys, and the like.

The poll is lacking a complete restriction.

It's also lacking the "unrestricted" and "other" options, which would have easily fit.

How do you expect that to work? Are you seriously suggesting that it would be a good thing for everyone to just pick and choose how many guns they want, without any laws governing it? You do realise, I hope, that there would be no age restrictions to gun ownership? That any kid could save up his paper round money, go into a gun shop and buy a revolver?

Think harder.

With some minor restrictions, it's like that where I am. Explain to me how our gun violence plummeted 63 percent while gun ownership went up 50% and assault weapons were made legal again and concealed carry is permissible in most US states now.

Yes, we have age restrictions, and a computerized instant background check. But if you're not a felon, not someone who has been known to beat his wife, and not mentally incompetent, you get to carry a pistol concealed where I live.

Doesn't seem to cause a problem...

If you can wield it yourself, carry it around yourself, service it yourself, and just plain old use it yourself, you can have it, as far as I'm concerned, from a legal standpoint.

See, the problem with gun bans is that they only hurt law-abiding citizens. People who are going to use a gun for violent means aren't going to care whether they are allowed to have the gun or not. That's just a simple fact.

That said, we should enforce the idea of gun restriction--that is, people who are known to commit crimes should not be allowed to legally possess a gun, to make it harder for them to obtain one to commit crimes with. I fully support backround checks and whatnot.

We have to be realistic, on both accounts: people who want to use guns for illegal purposes will obtain them and use them regardless of gun laws, so we should go ahead and allow guns to be legally owned for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves with, and on that same token not make it easy for the criminals to just walk in and grab a gun themselves. Hopefully I made my point clear.

Of course, beyond that, I don't think you should have it legally. You don't need a cannon, or a freaking Howitzer, or a nuclear-armed missile--or for that matter, any missile.


+1 up to the last paragraph

if you can afford it and use it for lawful purposes go for it [though i agree on nukes], have friends that restore ww2 and newer tanks at the patton museum, seen/felt/heard 90mm cannon fired in private hands - legally]

ymmv

With some minor restrictions...

...set by whom?

clue: it ain't "individuals"

...set by whom?

clue: it ain't "individuals"

The voters are individuals...

No don't arm the mimes it can only end badly. Mimes, the silent killers on our streets...

of seen a mime shootout very messy :p

btw the 2nd is not about need, it is about keeping politicians in check

with a 9mm? Weird I always thought the military sworn to uphold the constitution and the mass of people themselves who kept check

hat any kid could save up his paper round money, go into a gun shop and buy a revolver?

Think harder.

This situation existed in many countries in the world IRL up until the 1960's. I mean real countries, not third-world ones. And there was no random school violence.

Carrying .22LR revolvers or long rifles to school was common among children at the time.

Think harder.

The voters are individuals...

Oh, don't be silly. The elected government sets the gun laws. That doesn't mean the gun laws are set by individual voters, does it?

Oh, don't be silly. The elected government sets the gun laws. That doesn't mean the gun laws are set by individual voters, does it?

In some cases they do. There have been referenda on concealed carry.

Sorry, who else would you like to control guns? The national union of chefs, perhaps? Your local street mime? Ronald McDonald?


well gun control really means the ability to hit your target lol

law abiding citizens do a great job thank you very much

This situation existed in many countries in the world IRL up until the 1960's. I mean real countries, not third-world ones. And there was no random school violence.

Yeah, because society hasn't changed at all since then! There certainly haven't been any school shootings in recent years that I can think of! Good point, well made!

In some cases they do. There have been referenda on concealed carry.

You digress from the original point. The government sets gun laws, not individuals.

But if you're not a felon,

I'm confused does that mean someone who has served there prison sentence can't own a gun thus there rights are violated :confused:

I'm confused does that mean someone who has served there prison sentence can't own a gun thus there rights are violated :confused:

Well, they can't vote, either.

since guns are inanimate, the brain is the motivating force - thus you should require psychological testing for everyone - even nonfirearm owners as they could turn to any weapon at any time
I can't see any harm in this, aside from the no doubt prohibitive cost.
- better yet: lets have mind police with summary execution powers for those with impure thoughts
Wow, non sequitur and a half.

:gundge: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge:
This adds so much to your post, on so many levels.

btw the 2nd is not about need, it is about keeping politicians in check

This thread is not about the 2nd Amendment.

since guns are inanimate, the brain is the motivating force - thus you should require psychological testing for everyone - even nonfirearm owners as they could turn to any weapon at any time - better yet: lets have mind police with summary execution powers for those with impure thoughts

:gundge: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge: :gundge:

btw the 2nd is not about need, it is about keeping politicians in check

Wow... gun smilies. How utterly original.

I advocate psychological tests before letting people drive a car, and a gun is just as much a dagerous weapon. It's the effortlessness with which massive amount of damage and harm can be done that consitutes the danger here.

Oh, and about keeping politicians in check... that's really working, isn't it, what with your government sending thouasnds of soldiers off into a war that the public doesn't support and that can at best be regarded as criminal by international standards....

well gun control really means the ability to hit your target lol

law abiding citizens do a great job thank you very much

And if there are no restrictions how can you be sure those citizens are law abiding?

And if there are no restrictions how can you be sure those citizens are law abiding?

Well, we have laws against murder. We don't arrest everyone in advance of a murder, and make them prove they won't murder someone. We take it on faith that they are law abiding until they kill someone (by whatever means).

Yes, society would be safer if we just imprisoned everyone...

Well, we have laws against murder. We don't arrest everyone in advance of a murder, and make them prove they won't murder someone. We take it on faith that they are law abiding until they kill someone (by whatever means).

Yes, society would be safer if we just imprisoned everyone...

Society would be safer if we structured it in a way that made killing others undesirable and unprofitable to as many people as possible (I know, that won't help against sociopaths and crime for emotional motives, but it's a start)

Society would be safer if we structured it in a way that made killing others undesirable and unprofitable to as many people as possible (I know, that won't help against sociopaths and crime for emotional motives, but it's a start)

It certainly wouldn't hurt.

That's one of the reasons I don't like people carrying guns for "self-defence". I don't really want to live in a society where it's encouraged to guarantee your own safety by carrying a loaded weapon everywhere.

It certainly wouldn't hurt.

That's one of the reasons I don't like people carrying guns for "self-defence". I don't really want to live in a society where it's encouraged to guarantee your own safety by carrying a loaded weapon everywhere.

You're not "encouraged" to carry one. It's just presented as a possible option.

No one has advertisements on the television saying, "Carry a gun and you'll feel safer!"

We just allow for the concealed carry in most US states.

You trust a policeman with a loaded weapon? Maybe you should think again, considering the number of people they accidentally shoot (or intentionally shoot with no solid justification).

You trust a policeman with a loaded weapon? Maybe you should think again, considering the number of people they accidentally shoot (or intentionally shoot with no solid justification).

I don't. Police around here don't carry firearms.

You're not "encouraged" to carry one. It's just presented as a possible option.
Many guns are manufactured specifically for the purpose of self-defence. You are very much encouraged, by the manufacturers and by the legislation allowing you to own a gun for self-defence.

You trust a policeman with a loaded weapon?
Nope. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes
Maybe you should think again
Nope.

You're not "encouraged" to carry one. It's just presented as a possible option.

No one has advertisements on the television saying, "Carry a gun and you'll feel safer!"

We just allow for the concealed carry in most US states.

You trust a policeman with a loaded weapon? Maybe you should think again, considering the number of people they accidentally shoot (or intentionally shoot with no solid justification).

Are you saying we shouldn't trust police officers who have presumably had years of training with firearms, but should trust average people on the streets who have not?

Are you saying we shouldn't trust police officers who have presumably had years of training with firearms, but should trust average people on the streets who have not?

Statistically, police are more likely to shoot an innocent person accidentally, through misidentification or other error, then normal people.

Statistically, police are also more likely to hit a bystander in a fight then normal people.

Statistically police also are more likely to miss a shot entirely then normal people.

And yes, I do mean in per-incident numbers. Obviously adjusting for the fact police end up shooting at people more often.

Are you saying we shouldn't trust police officers who have presumably had years of training with firearms, but should trust average people on the streets who have not?

Your presumption about the training level of police officers is specious, to say the least.

The typical gun owner in the US fires their weapon many more times than the average police officer, who is lucky to fire 50 rounds a year for qualification.

Go to the common gun range, and you'll see the typical gun owner go through several hundred rounds in a single session.

Miss rates for police are higher than the miss rates for the typical felon, who in turn has a higher miss rate than the typical law-abiding gun owner.

It's called "practice makes perfect". And if you wanted the police to practice that much, you have to take some police off the street a few hours a week to practice, instead of walking a beat (most police never fire their guns in their whole career - so decide now if that will be worth it).

I didn't vote on the poll for being limited on what to vote for. I think the average citizen should by law to own handguns (and be permitted to get a concealed/carry license), I also think they have the right to own shotguns and rifles.

Also, I don't feel that felons should be allowed to own any guns of any type.

I'm 100% in support of the average Joe owning a gun.

Statistically, police are more likely to shoot an innocent person accidentally, through misidentification or other error, then normal people.

Statistically, police are also more likely to hit a bystander in a fight then normal people.

Statistically police also are more likely to miss a shot entirely then normal people.

And yes, I do mean in per-incident numbers. Obviously adjusting for the fact police end up shooting at people more often.

Then clearly the police forces where ever you are need better training.

Your presumption about the training level of police officers is specious, to say the least.

The typical gun owner in the US fires their weapon many more times than the average police officer, who is lucky to fire 50 rounds a year for qualification.

Go to the common gun range, and you'll see the typical gun owner go through several hundred rounds in a single session.

Miss rates for police are higher than the miss rates for the typical felon, who in turn has a higher miss rate than the typical law-abiding gun owner.

It's called "practice makes perfect". And if you wanted the police to practice that much, you have to take some police off the street a few hours a week to practice, instead of walking a beat (most police never fire their guns in their whole career - so decide now if that will be worth it).

sources?

The typical gun owner in the US fires their weapon many more times than the average police officer, who is lucky to fire 50 rounds a year for qualification.
Go to the common gun range, and you'll see the typical gun owner go through several hundred rounds in a single session.


That's fairly irrelevant. If you get a gun for any purpose other than sport shooting, you won't be legally obliged to train with it regularly (Unless I'm mistaken). In order to keep a gun on a licence in the UK, you need to use it pretty much monthly.

Your presumption about the training level of police officers is specious, to say the least.

The typical gun owner in the US fires their weapon many more times than the average police officer, who is lucky to fire 50 rounds a year for qualification.

Go to the common gun range, and you'll see the typical gun owner go through several hundred rounds in a single session.

Miss rates for police are higher than the miss rates for the typical felon, who in turn has a higher miss rate than the typical law-abiding gun owner.

It's called "practice makes perfect". And if you wanted the police to practice that much, you have to take some police off the street a few hours a week to practice, instead of walking a beat (most police never fire their guns in their whole career - so decide now if that will be worth it).

It speaks poorly of your country that you insist on having an armed police force but won't insist on having them as capable of using their weapons as the criminals they're supposed to be using them against.

That's fairly irrelevant. If you get a gun for any purpose other than sport shooting, you won't be legally obliged to train with it regularly (Unless I'm mistaken). In order to keep a gun on a licence in the UK, you need to use it pretty much monthly.

It's not irrelevant. There's a big business in training civilians here in the US - we don't train because the government says "you must". We do it because we like to.

Then clearly the police forces where ever you are need better training.

Or less guns.

It's not irrelevant. There's a big business in training civilians here in the US - we don't train because the government says "you must". We do it because we like to.

Irrelevant. There's nothing to stop some old dear buying a desert eagle and never training with it, and then accidentally shooting an innocent person.

It speaks poorly of your country that you insist on having an armed police force but won't insist on having them as capable of using their weapons as the criminals they're supposed to be using them against.

Don't blame me - blame the bean counters. It's expensive to train (and you have to train almost weekly if you expect to be competent with a firearm).

That means that you would need to hire more officers, because each officer will spend more time at the range, and less time on the street.

It also means more expense on range facilities (yes, it needs to be more than a simple backstop if you want to train on moving targets, etc).

More ammunition expended means more money - about 65 cents per shot for premium pistol ammunition.

Irrelevant. There's nothing to stop some old dear buying a desert eagle and never training with it, and then accidentally shooting an innocent person.

It's not irrelevant. Since the 1960s, law abiding gun owners have consistently shot better and far more often than the police.

It's not irrelevant. Since the 1960s, law abiding gun owners have consistently shot better and far more often than the police.

Address the point I made, don't repeat yourself.

Don't blame me - blame the bean counters. It's expensive to train (and you have to train almost weekly if you expect to be competent with a firearm).

That means that you would need to hire more officers, because each officer will spend more time at the range, and less time on the street.

It also means more expense on range facilities (yes, it needs to be more than a simple backstop if you want to train on moving targets, etc).

More ammunition expended means more money - about 65 cents per shot for premium pistol ammunition.

Wait... you submit to the tyranny of bean counters?
If you want a well-trained police force, get one.

Or less guns.

Yes, or less guns. Or a combination of both, having possession of a gun on or off duty be dependent on regularly training with it and less regularly being tested on your abilities.

Yes, or less guns. Or a combination of both, having possession of a gun on or off duty be dependent on regularly training with it and less regularly being tested on your abilities.

If you aren't shooting several hundred rounds per week in training, your skills plummet dramatically.

Are you going to pay for the police to spend several hours a week (and their ammunition costs, increased wear and tear on their pistols) to do this?

Don't blame me - blame the bean counters. It's expensive to train (and you have to train almost weekly if you expect to be competent with a firearm).

That means that you would need to hire more officers, because each officer will spend more time at the range, and less time on the street.

It also means more expense on range facilities (yes, it needs to be more than a simple backstop if you want to train on moving targets, etc).

More ammunition expended means more money - about 65 cents per shot for premium pistol ammunition.

Then the police need more funding to pay for their training.

Wait a sec, you seem to have missed one option in there poll, one that says "noone at all, including police or army anywhere in the world should ever be let to get there hands on a gun".
If there is absolutely no reason for anyone to be producing them, then it would be a lot easier to catch anyone who is producing them to sell them to people who cant be trusted with one.
Anyway, what possible good can you do with a gun? All it exist for is to kill people. So why on earth would anyone want to own one?
If it was much much much more difficult to get your hands on any form of gun then families wouldnt feel they needed one for their own protection.

If you aren't shooting several hundred rounds per week in training, your skills plummet dramatically.

Are you going to pay for the police to spend several hours a week (and their ammunition costs, increased wear and tear on their pistols) to do this?

Better that than getting shot for having the bad luck to be an innocent bystander.

Oh, and of course having less armed officers would lower the cost considerably.

Are you going to pay for the police to spend several hours a week (and their ammunition costs, increased wear and tear on their pistols) to do this?

Incidentally, as a regular shooter, I can tell you first-hand what the (Non-subsidised) costs of regular shooting are.

My fees over the last year have come to a little over £150. If you assume that the police would be using higher-grade ammunition, it would come to about £200. That's a little over $400. Honestly, that's not a huge amount, per officer per year.

Then the police need more funding to pay for their training.

Some jurisdictions (very few, in actuality) spend the money.

It would add up to billions of dollars.

The typical US infantryman, for example, is expensive not only because they have a lot of exotic equipment, but because they fire about 40,000 rounds per year in training - on complex custom built ranges that simulate real situations (open field, urban areas, interiors of buildings, night firing, etc).

When not deployed, they spend a lot of time on those ranges. It makes a substantial difference in combat. Police fire, on average, 50 rounds or less per year in training.

Police and the jurisdictions who hire them don't have the means to pay for ranges of that quality, nor do they pay their police to spend a lot of time each week running through potential scenarios.

For those cities with SWAT teams, they may send their SWAT team to private courses (such as Gunsite) to learn and train - most police academies have only rudimentary facilities for teaching firearm basics.

Better that than getting shot for having the bad luck to be an innocent bystander.

Oh, and of course having less armed officers would lower the cost considerably.

Less armed officers would make sense. Most never use their weapons in their whole career.

Incidentally, as a regular shooter, I can tell you first-hand what the (Non-subsidised) costs of regular shooting are.

My fees over the last year have come to a little over £150. If you assume that the police would be using higher-grade ammunition, it would come to about £200. That's a little over $400. Honestly, that's not a huge amount, per officer per year.

Try 40,000 rounds per year to keep combat competence.

Some jurisdictions (very few, in actuality) spend the money.

It would add up to billions of dollars.

The typical US infantryman, for example, is expensive not only because they have a lot of exotic equipment, but because they fire about 40,000 rounds per year in training - on complex custom built ranges that simulate real situations (open field, urban areas, interiors of buildings, night firing, etc).

When not deployed, they spend a lot of time on those ranges. It makes a substantial difference in combat. Police fire, on average, 50 rounds or less per year in training.

Police and the jurisdictions who hire them don't have the means to pay for ranges of that quality, nor do they pay their police to spend a lot of time each week running through potential scenarios.

For those cities with SWAT teams, they may send their SWAT team to private courses (such as Gunsite) to learn and train - most police academies have only rudimentary facilities for teaching firearm basics.

And you're happy with having a terribly trained and funded police force? With handing them guns and not demanding the be well able to use them sensibly?

Try 40,000 rounds per year to keep combat competence.

Ha! Are you genuinely suggesting that the average person needs to fire 40,000 rounds per year to get to a decent level of skill with a gun? You're living in a fantasy world.

Ha! Are you genuinely suggesting that the average person needs to fire 40,000 rounds per year to get to a decent level of skill with a gun? You're living in a fantasy world.

Yes, I am saying that. No, it's not a fantasy.

I fire that many myself. It's not a fantasy world. This is also the number of rounds I fired while in the infantry.

Check out how much the top level pistol shooters fire per year. It's higher than that.

You have to practice at least weekly (and dry fire even more often), and fire at a variety of targets (moving, partially concealed, popup, close up and distant) in a variety of scenarios (shoot - don't shoot, shooting after drawing). Here's a basic test - if I don't shoot every week, my score drops below an 80.

Regardless of where you travel, men who pack a gun for serious purposes often ask, "How do you tell if someone is really 'good' with a sidearm?"
Defining "good" is nearly impossible if you are referring to the skill levels
necessary to be a top practical shooter. In some circles a top PPC score will
dictate "good". In many Latin countries, a winning score on the Mexican
Defense Course will indicate who is "good". One can argue that a really good
combat pistol shooter will be capable of doing many things with his or her
sidearm. Precision shooting is important, as well as the ability to
neutralize multiple targets at close quarters rapidly. Certainly, smooth
concealed draws matter if the sidearm is worn under a jacket or shirt. If your
handgun normally carried in a police or military duty rig, then fast and
positive pistol presentation is very important. The ability to reload or
recharge your pistol and keep it in action is also a very desirable technique.
So when someone asks, "What does is takes to be 'good' with a fighting
pistol?" the correct answer is most often...a number of things.

Over three decades ago Col. Jeff Cooper was faced with the task of training
a palace guard for a Central American republic. As usual, the troops wanted
to know just what they could practice to stay in shape with their sidearms.
Col. Cooper advised them that one has to practise many skills to remain
proficient with any arm. But, if they wanted to test themselves from time to
time in order to evaluate their martial skills, there was a simple shooting
drill that would serve well. This drill is the famous "El Presidente,"
designed by Col. Cooper. It remains a classic pistol-shooting drill, and I
find serves as one of the best all-around tests of practical pistol skill
yet devised. We are talking about the mechanics of shooting, not the basics
of mindsets or tactics. These factors can be added later, as we shall discuss.

The original and "pure" form of the El Presidente is fired at 10 meters
(33 feet). Three silhouette targets are spaced 3 meters apart (9 feet edge
to edge). The shooter will start with his back to the targets, feet
parallel to the firing line.

Hands will be normal at the sides or relaxed and clasped in the front. Your
handgun will be fully loaded and holstered. Spare magazines or speedloaders
will also be worn in a manner suitable for continued wear. Your sidearm and
spare ammo will be worn exactly as you would have them for everyday wear.
If you are not using police duty or military rigs, the sidearm will be worn
concealed. And concealed means that the gun or spares will not be noticeable
to a causal observer. If your sidearm is visible with the coat worn open,
then the jacket or shirt must be buttoned, zipped or closed to prevent any
exposure. Once the shooter declares that he is ready, the standby signal is
given, followed by a start signal. A whistle and stopwatch can be used or,
even better, one of the various electronic timers now on the market.
On the start signal, the shooter will turn, draw, and engage each target with
two rounds, make a mandatory reload, and engage each target again with two rounds. This will require a total of 12 rounds fired. The time will stop on
the last shot fired. If you are using an IPSC target the scoring rings will
be scored A/B=5, C=4 and D=2. Standard police-type B27 silhouettes can be
scored in a similar manner. Total the score for each target, and note that
any misses will result in a ten-point penalty for eaxh miss. Since there is
a total of 60 points possible and the par time is 10 seconds, a final score
of 6.0 (score divided by time, or 60/10=6.0) is considered good. For the
simple form, we move the decimal and call this a 60. If the shooter fired
a score of 54 points total on the targets, and did it in 9.23 seconds, we
would divide 54 by 9.23 (54/9.23=5.8). A score of 58 is respectable.
Obviously, anyone with a score above 60 is very good. Top shooters will
normally shoot 70s, and anybody breaking 75 is considered really "good".

The next time someone tells you that he is really "good" with a handgun,
remember that good means very little...until he measures up to a standard.
Sixty on the 'correct' El Presidente is a positive sign, and 75 or above
is really "good."

I have never personally met a policeman who can, with his service weapon, shoot a 75. And I've met quite a few.

Take this test yourself and let me know how you do.

Take this test yourself and let me know how you do.

I can't. It's illegal for me to use a handgun. However, 40,000 rounds is a massive overestimation, and I will stand by that.

Better that than getting shot for having the bad luck to be an innocent bystander.

Oh, and of course having less armed officers would lower the cost considerably.

To disarm Police Officers would be a Huge Mistake. We would have more names to put on the memorials such as the ones in this link...

http://www.fhp.state.fl.us/html/fhpinthenews/FHPnews042004.htm

By disarming the Police either partially or fully.........the thought of it shivers down my spine....Do you really think the criminals would be obeying these "No Gun Laws" that some here are advocating? As a matter of fact, generally speaking, a lot of the criminals are already better armed than the average Police Officers. Could you imagine what would happen if word got out that the Police are no longer armed with guns but they still have taser guns and their sticks? The Criminals would definately take Full advantage of that situation.

As for the ones who claim that the Police don't go to gun ranges or do anysort of target practice and claim that they rarely even fire a gun in their entire life...I would definately like to see a legitimate source of proof, I find that hardly believable.

The Police, for the most part, realize they could encounter deadly situations where the use of force is necessary to save a life, whether it's theirs or an innocent civilian. They, for the most part, understand that they best be prepared if it ever occurs. I think, for the most part, the Police do regularly train whether it be on their employers time or their personal time.

I can't. It's illegal for me to use a handgun. However, 40,000 rounds is a massive overestimation, and I will stand by that.

If you want to be able to draw and shoot accurately and rapidly, without having to give it any more thought than you do to breathing, you have to fire a LOT of rounds - often.

If you want to be able to draw and shoot accurately and rapidly, without having to give it any more thought than you do to breathing, you have to fire a LOT of rounds - often.

40,000 is far too many. I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that in order for a police officer to be able to fire his or her firearm accurately and safely, he or she would need to fire forty-thousand bullets per year.

40,000 is far too many. I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that in order for a police officer to be able to fire his or her firearm accurately and safely, he or she would need to fire forty-thousand bullets per year.

The US Army begs to differ.

two arms per person maximum. anything with eight or more arms should be ruthlessly exterminated.

The US Army begs to differ.

Ah right, I see where you've gone wrong here. I think you need a handy pointer.

Remember: The Army doesn't train the Police! They have completely different jobs! You'll notice that cops aren't trained in hand-grenade usage either!

The required level of competence for a police officer is completely different from that of a soldier. You've got confused somewhere along the way, and we'll say no more of it.

40,000 is far too many. I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that in order for a police officer to be able to fire his or her firearm accurately and safely, he or she would need to fire forty-thousand bullets per year.

I'm going to call BS on that as well. US Army Ranger training doesn't even require that much for every single weapon qualified in added together.

http://www.gordon.army.mil/itam/rangecontrol/Range%20Control_files/DA%20Pam350-39.pdf

Ah right, I see where you've gone wrong here. I think you need a handy pointer.

Remember: The Army doesn't train the Police! They have completely different jobs! You'll notice that cops aren't trained in hand-grenade usage either!

The required level of competence for a police officer is completely different from that of a soldier. You've got confused somewhere along the way, and we'll say no more of it.

You're saying you're happy with the police being relatively incompetent with firearms compared to the infantry...

You're saying you're happy with the police being relatively incompetent with firearms compared to the infantry...

No, I'm not.

The US Army begs to differ.

The Army requires 80 rounds/ year. Semi-annual qualification w/ 40 rounds each time. (Not including zeroing rounds)

I think the current NFA regime which restrics short-barreled rifles and shotguns as well as automatic weapons, suppressors and destructive devices is fine.

Under the system we have, all these things are legal to own on the condition that a 200 tax is paid and an extensive background check and application process - including a sign-off by a chief law enforcement officer - is completed.

The Army requires 80 rounds/ year. Semi-annual qualification w/ 40 rounds each time. (Not including zeroing rounds)

That's the "required" qualification.

The typical infantryman fires over 40,000 rounds per year in training (which is more than qualification).

I think the current NFA regime which restrics short-barreled rifles and shotguns as well as automatic weapons, suppressors and destructive devices is fine.

Under the system we have, all these things are legal to own on the condition that a 200 tax is paid and an extensive background check and application process - including a sign-off by a chief law enforcement officer - is completed.

Agreed. While I may not 100% like it, I find it an acceptable red-line for ownership.

That's the "required" qualification.

The typical infantryman fires over 40,000 rounds per year in training (which is more than qualification).

No they don't. They aren't even allocated nearly that much.

No they don't. They aren't even allocated nearly that much.

I sure was.

Hmm... The way I look at it a person should be able to own any firearm/weapon that they can afford, as long as the weapon was designed for discriminate and selective destruction of a target. A handgun, rifle, bazooka, anti-tank cannon and the like would be perfectly acceptable. Artillery, chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons are a no-no. I believe a felon should have no right to own a firearm, nor an illegal immigrant, nor some one too young to serve in the military.

Weapons like canons, rockets, what-have-you are pretty much solely for killing others - and are not viable as self-defense weapons. I see no reason that they should be available to the public.

As for actual guns, I agree with background checks to make sure that you aren't selling a gun to a violent felon. Beyond that, I'd like to see a scale of licenses much like we have with cars. The test for a license to own a simple pistol or shotgun would be easy - basically, do you understand the safety, how to clean it, how to use it. The test for a license to carry concealed would be a bit more stringent - you would need to know the laws regulating that (including the fact that your license probably will not cross over state lines - in the US anyways). If you want more powerful weapons, the tests are more geared towards those weapons (just like you need a separate license to drive a mac truck, while a regular license will get you cars and certain trucks).

I'm not big on saying that a person cannot own a certain gun, but I think the more powerful weapons should take a bit more for licensing.

I sure was.

What unit?

What unit?

B Company, 2/502nd Infantry

Weapons like canons, rockets, what-have-you are pretty much solely for killing others - and are not viable as self-defense weapons.

Your average self-defense handgun is designed pretty much solely for killing others. In truth, isn't the ability to kill another human being the key factor of a self defense weapon? I get what your saying the average person having no need for a "heavy" weapon, but I'm a bit paranoid about the governemnt. It seems irrational to need something that'd take out a main battle tank, but it'd be nice to know that I can legally own something that'd at least piss off an Abrams.

I'm going to call BS on that as well. US Army Ranger training doesn't even require that much for every single weapon qualified in added together.

http://www.gordon.army.mil/itam/rangecontrol/Range%20Control_files/DA%20Pam350-39.pdf

I didn't wade though all the extranious tables there, but unless you can point specifically to the total training allocation, I'm going to have to go with Eve... The allocations in your link appear to be simply just for qualifications. That's an utterly rediculous suggestion, seeing as one must practice regularly. If you think one can simply pick up a weapon and qualify with no practice, it's no wonder Ifreann doesn't understand why under funded police forces cannot function. (Hint: a properly trained, equiped, and manned police force would be too expensive to maintain.)

Your average self-defense handgun is designed pretty much solely for killing others. In truth, isn't the ability to kill another human being the key factor of a self defense weapon?

No, not really. The ability to incapacitate them is. You may very well kill them, or you might not. The goal is simply to keep yourself from being harmed.

For instance, if I owned a gun (which I don't, but this is a hypothetical) and someone was coming at me with a knife, I'd most likely shoot out his kneecaps and run. No need to kill him if he can't follow. And he'll most likely be in the vicinity when the cops get there.

If I shot him with a cannon (not that I could really be carrying a canon around with me, but that's beside the point, I suppose), he's pretty much done for.

I get what your saying the average person having no need for a "heavy" weapon, but I'm a bit paranoid about the governemnt. It seems irrational to need something that'd take out a main battle tank, but it'd be nice to know that I can legally own something that'd at least piss off an Abrams.

I'm of the mind that, if the military really started coming for the citizens, it would win - pretty much straight up. Luckily, we have a military made up of citizens, and most wouldn't actually go after civilians, instead joining the armed reistance with military weapons.

I didn't wade though all the extranious tables there, but unless you can point specifically to the total training allocation, I'm going to have to go with Eve... The allocations in your link appear to be simply just for qualifications. That's an utterly rediculous suggestion, seeing as one must practice regularly. If you think one can simply pick up a weapon and qualify with no practice, it's no wonder Ifreann doesn't understand why under funded police forces cannot function. (Hint: a properly trained, equiped, and manned police force would be too expensive to maintain.)


for example 2-3 (Annual ammunition requirement and training strategy for the M16) it states that 2900 rounds is the annual requirement for all exercises and qualification for special forces.

Are you stating that (even an A/B) infantryman is going to be allotted 13X that of what special forces get?

If you can point to the total amount being 40K, I'll concede.

for example 2-3 (Annual ammunition requirement and training strategy for the M16) it states that 2900 rounds is the annual requirement for all exercises and qualification for special forces.

Are you stating that (even an A/B) infantryman is going to be allotted 13X that of what special forces get?

If you can point to the total amount being 40K, I'll concede.

The lists you are looking at are minimums.

When we weren't in the field, we were at the range almost every day.

Weapons like canons, rockets, what-have-you are pretty much solely for killing others - and are not viable as self-defense weapons. I see no reason that they should be available to the public.

As for actual guns, I agree with background checks to make sure that you aren't selling a gun to a violent felon. Beyond that, I'd like to see a scale of licenses much like we have with cars. The test for a license to own a simple pistol or shotgun would be easy - basically, do you understand the safety, how to clean it, how to use it. The test for a license to carry concealed would be a bit more stringent - you would need to know the laws regulating that (including the fact that your license probably will not cross over state lines - in the US anyways). If you want more powerful weapons, the tests are more geared towards those weapons (just like you need a separate license to drive a mac truck, while a regular license will get you cars and certain trucks).

I'm not big on saying that a person cannot own a certain gun, but I think the more powerful weapons should take a bit more for licensing.

On the first point, I think you're missing the purpose of a self defense weapon- which is to kill an attacker as quickly and as reliably as possible

In Arizona at least, a short course which gives and overview of gun law, as well as a shooting qualification is required for a concealed carry permit already, and is a good system.

The problem with heavy weapons isn't that their owners should be extra-skilled in using them, it is that allowing them to be easily available at all means that they will filter into the hands of criminals.

Under the NFA regime, the cheapest sort of machine gun you can buy costs at least 5,000 dollars and shoots pistol ammo. Artificial scarcity has driven prices up and helps to keep the guns out of the hands of petty criminals, while making them available and quite dear to the dedicated enthusiast.

Voted for cannons but I'm not sure about restricting those.

Well, I have yet seen any sources being provided that claim that for the most part our Law Enforcements Officers are not trained and are to be found to be incompetenant. So, I am forced to take it all as opinions, nothing more nothing less.

I really disagree on them being incompetenant. If you think that the Police don't go to Gun Ranges, fine but I disagree. I'm pretty sure they do regularly attend Gun Ranges and to say the rarely fire a shot annually is just down right ludicrous.

I think the figure speak for themselves:
14.24 deaths per 100,000 people by guns in the USA
0.41 deaths per 100,000 people by guns in the UK.

So, you think we should let anyone carry a gun then?

there is no reason to own a gun-none-not even for hunting, what pride or skill is there to shoot an animal at a distance that the animal doesn't even know your there-want to satisfy your primal urge to kill? use a bow....

Well, I have yet seen any sources being provided that claim that for the most part our Law Enforcements Officers are not trained and are to be found to be incompetenant. So, I am forced to take it all as opinions, nothing more nothing less.

I really disagree on them being incompetenant. If you think that the Police don't go to Gun Ranges, fine but I disagree. I'm pretty sure they do regularly attend Gun Ranges and to say the rarely fire a shot annually is just down right ludicrous.

They hardly shoot compared to the typical US gun owner.

On the first point, I think you're missing the purpose of a self defense weapon- which is to kill an attacker as quickly and as reliably as possible

And here I thought the point of a self defense weapon was self defense - a goal that quite often does not necessitate killing anyone.

The most common weapon I have heard of people carrying concealed is a 22 pistol. Even at close range, you're incredibly unlikely to kill someone with the pistol. You probably will, however, stop them from advancing and get away from them - hence, self defense.

In Arizona at least, a short course which gives and overview of gun law, as well as a shooting qualification is required for a concealed carry permit already, and is a good system.

Indeed. Most places require courses for concealed carry.

The problem with heavy weapons isn't that their owners should be extra-skilled in using them, it is that allowing them to be easily available at all means that they will filter into the hands of criminals.

So you don't think that someone with a more dangerous weapon should receive more training?

As a general rule, any gun you highly regulate or make illegal is still going to be available on the black market. That's just the way it is.

Well, I have yet seen any sources being provided that claim that for the most part our Law Enforcements Officers are not trained and are to be found to be incompetenant. So, I am forced to take it all as opinions, nothing more nothing less.

Well, this is an opinion based on anecdotal evidence, but I'll tell it to you anyways. I have friends who regularly use airsoft (kind of like paintball, except I've been told they're less dangerous, more like real weapons, and they hurt more, or something) weapons for recreation. The local police forces have set up fake raids with them to test their own skills (all using airsoft weapons). As of yet, the police forces haven't achieved an objective. The airsoft people always win.

I really disagree on them being incompetenant. If you think that the Police don't go to Gun Ranges, fine but I disagree. I'm pretty sure they do regularly attend Gun Ranges and to say the rarely fire a shot annually is just down right ludicrous.[/QUOTE]

And here I thought the point of a self defense weapon was self defense - a goal that quite often does not necessitate killing anyone.

The most common weapon I have heard of people carrying concealed is a 22 pistol. Even at close range, you're incredibly unlikely to kill someone with the pistol. You probably will, however, stop them from advancing and get away from them - hence, self defense.


Most pistols are surprisingly non-lethal, unless you happen to hit someone in the brain or heart (and the bullet manages to penetrate).

Case in point:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2646834

SAO PAULO, Brazil Nov 12, 2006 (AP)— A woman was released from the hospital a day after she was shot in the head six times in an attack police blamed on her ex-husband, Brazilian media reported Saturday.

Patricia Goncalves Pereira, a 21-year-old housewife, was shot Friday after an altercation with her ex-husband, who was upset because she refused to get back together with him, Globo TV reported.

"I know this was a miracle," Pereira told the TV network. "Now I just want to extract the bullets and live my life."

Doctors could not explain how Pereira survived the attack. The .32-caliber bullets didn't break through her skull and didn't even need to be immediately extracted, doctors said. Pereira also was shot once in the hand.

It's not a miracle. This has happened before with a wide variety of pistol caliber bullets.

Rifles, on the other hand, especially hunting rifle cartridges, are extremely deadly.

Some reasons for gun control are:

2. That a mugger will kill you in the half-second it takes to draw from the holster, but won't harm you while you dial 911 on your cell phone, talk to the dispatcher and wait half an hour for the cops to arrive.
Mugger with gun out will probably beat you if you have one in a holster. If you don't give them a reason to shoot you by trying to shoot them then they might well not shoot you. End result you have more chance of getting shot if you try and use a gun on them.


3. That a hijacker could easily take a gun away from a pilot, but the hundreds of passengers aboard would then be unable to take the gun away from the hijacker. . .That if there'd been a gun aboard American Airlines Flight 93, someone could have been hurt. . . That pilots have enough to do in the cockpit, without having to worry about distractions like firearms to stop hijackers and fire extinguishers to stop fires, and these activities should be left to "trained professionals." . . . That such "trained professionals" will only be available on one flight in five. . . That rather than have the pilot risk human life by shooting at a hijacker, we should simply have the Air Force shoot down the plane, thus preserving life.

You want guns on planes? What with the high risk of death if any shots at all are fired? Also 93 was the exception rather than the rule, most hijackings land and often don't involve killings.


4. That car keys, umbrellas and hairspray are good tools for self-defense, despite the fact that police continue to carry guns.

As a UKite, most police don't carry guns. Also, mace spray etc


5. That Washington DC's low murder rate of 80.6 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, but Arlington, Virginia's high murder rate of 1.6 per 100,000 is attributable to the lack of gun control.

And the UK has a lower murder rate than the USA and also has stricter gun laws. More complex than that.


6. That the depressed and emotionally disturbed should not be allowed to own guns that shoot bullets with 250 ft-lbs of energy, but should be allowed to own 4000 lb cars with 1,136,000 ft-lbs of energy (at 65 mph).

Because if you want to kill someone it's much easier to use a gun than a car perhaps?


7. That among the hundreds of documented cases against anti-gun freaks we note that: the press secretary of Handgun Control was arrested in DC for discharging an illegal handgun, a ranking regional officer of the Million Moron March was convicted of felony assault, and other Million Morons in Colorado have been arrested for attacking firearm dealers and activists, but "gun nuts" are "obsessed with violence."
Some people are hypocrites, that's hardly new/


8. That Hitler and Stalin didn't disarm citizens, only Jews, Gypsies, gays, unionists and other "undesirables." (Yes, a liberal member of the MMM actually said this in the Washington Post, quoting www.potomac-inc.org.) . . . That to properly understand Nazi gun control, one must consider the "legitimate fears" they had of the Jewish population. (This was another self-proclaimed liberal. I'm beginning to wonder.)

By disarming you mean forming large militia formations with arms training.


9. That families with children should not be allowed to own guns for safety reasons, just as they aren't allowed to own dogs, power tools, or toxic chemicals.
Dog ownership is restricted (regarding dogs seen as dangerous) ditto with toxic chemicals. Not sure of laws regarding power tools, but generally guns are more dangerous than power tools (yes no stats so ignore if you like) and power tools aren't made for the purpose of causing harm.


10. That it's wrong to politicize that the World Trade Center attackers didn't need guns to hijack a plane, but okay to politicize that the Columbine killers bought gun illegally.
See first plane one. You really advocate most people on planes carrying guns?


11. That a criminal is somehow more of a threat to a cop than to a regular person, so police need guns and regular citizens don't.

See last police one.


12. That only the government should control guns, just as only the government should control broadcasting, and only the government should control religion.

So are you advocating everyone can have all the weapons they like? All the drugs they like? etc. Governments are there to make laws about things, in places where the electorate want gun restrictions, why can't the government restrict guns?


13. That the New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns, just as Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
No, doctors who deal with the effects of guns really shouldn't comment on guns /sarcasm

You get the hint.

Mugger with gun out will probably beat you if you have one in a holster. If you don't give them a reason to shoot you by trying to shoot them then they might well not shoot you. End result you have more chance of getting shot if you try and use a gun on them.

Someone committing a violent crime against you in the US is unlikely to be armed with a firearm.

Over 90 percent of violent crime in the US is committed without a weapon.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

Incidents involving a firearm represented 9% of the 4.7 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2005.

Odds on, if you have a gun, the robber has a 91% chance of not having one.

Oooh, how is he going to beat you to the draw?

And here I thought the point of a self defense weapon was self defense - a goal that quite often does not necessitate killing anyone.

The most common weapon I have heard of people carrying concealed is a 22 pistol. Even at close range, you're incredibly unlikely to kill someone with the pistol. You probably will, however, stop them from advancing and get away from them - hence, self defense.



This is getting off topic, but I have differing beliefs on this subject. If some one is intending to do me bodily harm, I have no way of knowing to what extent they wish to harm me. Are the just going to beat the crap out of me, or are they going to kill me? If I seriously feel that my physical well being is in jeopardy, then I must also believe that my attacker is going to attempt to take my life. I have no way of knowing if this is true, but to think otherwise is a stupid risk. If some one trying to kill me, I'm going to defend myself in a fashion that ensures that my attacker has NO chance of continuing their attack. The only guaranteed way of doing this is to kill them. Stun guns, pepper spray, martial arts, and "wounding" shots are nowhere near as effective as a killing shots.

Also, I know of no one who practices concealed carry that uses a .22 caliber pistol. The smallest I've heard is .32 caliber, and many consider this to be light for self-defense.

How about a poll option called 'none'?

You're gonna have to pry them from my cold, dead hands.

And here I thought the point of a self defense weapon was self defense - a goal that quite often does not necessitate killing anyone.

The most common weapon I have heard of people carrying concealed is a 22 pistol. Even at close range, you're incredibly unlikely to kill someone with the pistol. You probably will, however, stop them from advancing and get away from them - hence, self defense.



Indeed. Most places require courses for concealed carry.



So you don't think that someone with a more dangerous weapon should receive more training?

As a general rule, any gun you highly regulate or make illegal is still going to be available on the black market. That's just the way it is.

Most of the people who I know that carry concealed keep a 9mm or a 38acp with expanding rounds. I wouldn't trust a .22 to save my life, and I don't think many others would either. If I am attacked by a person on drugs, it is especially unlikely that a .22 would suffice.

I don't ever anticipate using my pistol unless I'm pretty sure I'd be killed or seriously injured by not using it, and in this sort of situation the maximum amount of lethal force is both necessary and legally permissible.

The great number of hoops and the great expense involved with getting a machine gun in the US is, in my opinion, a fine means to select only the most responsible owners of those guns. One infraction of gun law and your 15,000 dollar NFA gun is kaput, and you can't get another one.

Of course there will always be a black market for illegal weapons, but for legally own-able machine guns in the US, which have enormously inflated prices because of their scarcity, no black market is possible. Because of the very strict controls on machine guns, the amount that get into criminal hands is infinitesimal.

They hardly shoot compared to the typical US gun owner.

Why is a police officer so unlike a typical US gun owner? I would have thought that the typical police officer WAS a typical US gun owner...

Why is a police officer so unlike a typical US gun owner? I would have thought that the typical police officer WAS a typical US gun owner...

Sorry, but that is slightly wrong. I was a police officer for 8 years, and a reserve police officer for 2 years. I saw the changes in firearms qualifications. When I first started, we went to the range 1 time a year, just to meet the minimum state requirement for certification. As things went along, my department, along with others, started going more often to the range. The qualifications changed from the standard trying to hit the x ring, to a combat style of qualification (you ex military types, remember you will fight the same way you train). The last 3 years I spend as an active police officer, we were shooting quarterly, shooting 3 qualifying rounds and 3 combat rounds. Our department was giving us 200 rounds a month for us to practice with, and most of us took advantage of that.

If you don't think that 200 rounds a month is enough to practice and stay proficient, let me try this. From the 15 yard line, using my off duty .45 auto, I could fire off 23 rounds in under 20 seconds, and would consistently make head shots. Train the way you will fight, and fight the way you train.

As to the comment that most officers don't use their side arms, you are full of BS. They saying and the reality is that almost all police officers go thru their 30 year career without having to fire their weapon on the line of duty. I never had to shoot anyone on the job, but if I needed to reinforce my request, the barrel of my Glock would be in your ear or between your eyes very fast.

Was I afraid of subjects carrying guns? As a police officer, I dealt with the same 5% of the citizens about 90% of the time. So, I knew who was carrying the guns illegally. I was not concerned about the law abiding citizen carrying a concealed weapon, since a law abiding citizen by definition, will obey and follow the law. Criminals by definition, will not, so it makes no difference what type of anti gun laws you pass; criminals do not care.

As to the cops in the UK not carrying guns.....I noticed that the last few years they have changed to wearing not only ballistic armor, but wearing stab and puncture resistant body armor. Also, some units in the UK, mostly special units are not carrying 9mm pistols in uniform, and some patrol units are carrying H&K MP-5 submachine guns in their cruisers. Yea, thinks are really hunky dorry over there, that they are going to that extreme change.

If a bad guy has a draw on me, while I am carrying my personal weapon, I will draw on him. Not only can I outdraw you, but move and shoot at the same time. Even though I left the force many years ago, I am still as proficient with my personal side arm, and in a realistic situation, will outdraw and out shoot most civilians.

How about the fact that Switzerland has the highest number of military assault rifles in private hands than any other country? Most Swiss citizens that are not active military are reserves. And they are required to carry their military weapon and ammo kit with them to their residence. How many "assault weapon" shooting incidents occur in Switzerland? Japan has the most strict laws on guns, none whatsoever, only PD and military. Wow, someone forgot to tell the Yakuza that their full auto weapons are illegal.

Just my thoughts. If any one cares too, you can TG me and I will be glad to discuss my views with you.

Till then, y'all be careful out there.

Vic

~Death to Tyrants~

The poll is lacking a complete restriction.

Oops, sorry about that. But I've no idea how to edit the poll now that it's up.

I wouldn't mind more people have fully automatic weapons if certain people would be less willing to use them. *points at right-wing "militias"*

No guns, but handguns if there must be.

The poll is lacking a complete restriction.

Yes, it does lack that option. I would have voted for that option had it been there.

I think we shout take cannons out of the hands of pirates.

Just kidding. I think they are adorable with their giant balls.

As I think of it, there's a certain level of arms restriction I am ready to tolerate.

Namely, on nuclear weapons.

Reasoning by a different person can be found here. (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=2891635&postcount=120)

I find the reasoning here flawed. There is no reasonable excuse as to why a person should be able to own high performance explosives or cluster bombs as the area of effect is also not directly under the control of the operator. Debris and spread would be at best, of limited control with a high percentage chance of impacting people not within the target area.

Besides, I find it extremely unlikely that one could use items like that for self defense. Not to mention that deployment would mean either an artillery piece or fighter jet.

Well, we have laws against murder. We don't arrest everyone in advance of a murder, and make them prove they won't murder someone. We take it on faith that they are law abiding until they kill someone (by whatever means).

I'm fairly certain that in your country, people are required to take tests before they're allowed to pilot multi ton vehicles capable of creating quite a mess to show that they generally are capable of not creating said mess. Does that reasoning not also apply to weapons?

How about the fact that Switzerland has the highest number of military assault rifles in private hands than any other country? Most Swiss citizens that are not active military are reserves. And they are required to carry their military weapon and ammo kit with them to their residence. How many "assault weapon" shooting incidents occur in Switzerland? Japan has the most strict laws on guns, none whatsoever, only PD and military. Wow, someone forgot to tell the Yakuza that their full auto weapons are illegal.

Switzerland doesn't lack gun control. Would you be satisfied with the same level of gun control as Switzerland. Also all male Swiss citizens are required to serve in the military at least they were until 1996 when civilian service was given as a option. Should military or civil service be compulsory?

.50 cal full autos should be the level of resriction.

.50 cal full autos should be the level of resriction.

Well, that is a bit excessive, but I can't find a legitimate reason against it.

I should have the right to hunt rabits and prarie dogs with 155mm Howitzers!

Everyone should be limited to two.

It should be like a driver's license, take a test (written and use).

where's the option for total restriction?! The US really is a fucked up place if someone can make a poll like this and not think of putting an option for total restriction. The ownership of lethal weapons is NOT A HUMAN RIGHT. :headbang:

where's the option for total restriction?! The US really is a fucked up place if someone can make a poll like this and not think of putting an option for total restriction. The ownership of lethal weapons is NOT A HUMAN RIGHT. :headbang:

yes it is.

yes it is.

hahaha, I literally laughed out loud. What possible argument is there for being allowed to have an object that is designed specifically to injure or kill another human being, if you're not working for the police or the armed forces?

self defense against people with knifes.

self defense against people with knifes.

just call the police :rolleyes: And if the knife isn't a kitchen knife then it should be banned too.

didyou forget about hunting? if you want guns to be banned then why not bows and fishing rods too.

didyou forget about hunting? if you want guns to be banned then why not bows and fishing rods too.

guns are too efficient at killing, and therefore harmful to the environment. They're just not natural. We didn't evolve to hunt using guns, we evolved to hunt using spears and bows. And hunting/fishing when a person has other sources of food/resources should be banned anyway.

The poll is lacking a complete restriction.

And no restriction at all.

ok then. If you are ver in control i'll go do a drive by with a cross bow.(Sarcasm)

but before we had bows and spears we had rocks. let me see you try to get a baer with a rock.

ok then. If you are ver in control i'll go do a drive by with a cross bow.(Sarcasm)

murder would still be illegal :rolleyes:

but before we had bows and spears we had rocks. let me see you try to get a baer with a rock.

but why would a human ever need to kill a bear? There are much easier to kill sources of food. Unless it was in self defence, in which case, unfortunately, the only natural result would be a win for the bear in most cases. Nature can be cruel, but that's the way it is.

why would a human need to kill a bear?

To keep them out of our honey damn it.

Being a member of the British NRA, and a regular target shooter, it is my reluctant duty to inform you that there is not a complete ban on guns.

I don't think that people should be allowed to carry a gun for self-defence, as it's just asking for trouble. Keep guns inside ranges, I say.

I disagree. I am completely in favor of guns for self-defense. For example, if somebody walked up to me intending to do me harm, I could pull a gun on him and he would leave me alone. But if I have no gun, he could pretty much have his way with me.

Most importantly, I want to be able to defend myself from my GOVERNMENT. If I have a gun, I am a CITIZEN; if I DON'T have a gun, I am a SLAVE that the government can bully around, and I have no way to stop them from infringing on my life, liberty, and/or property; but if I DO own a gun, they'll think twice before trying to take away my life, liberty, and/or property.

I WANT TO BE ABLE TO PROTECT MYSELF FROM MY GOVERNMENT BECAUSE I DO NOT TRUST IT IMPLICITLY

Also, why are you reluctant to say there's not a complete ban on guns?

I have to agree with Eve Online about the number of bullets I went through in a year while I was in the Marines. I haven't done the math, but I regularly (ie, daily) blew through 100 rounds on my pistol, my M1, and usually more on my M16. I got quite accurate, but only as long as I kept up my training regimen.

As far as the poll goes, I think the US government got things right in the 1930s. Pistols, Revolvers, Rifles and Shotguns all have a valid use in the hands of the general public. I honestly do not see any purpose to civilians having fully automatic weaponry of any kind - including police, btw. Further, I see this as a reasonable restriction on the second amendment.

I disagree. I am completely in favor of guns for self-defense. For example, if somebody walked up to me intending to do me harm, I could pull a gun on him and he would leave me alone. But if I have no gun, he could pretty much have his way with me.

Most importantly, I want to be able to defend myself from my GOVERNMENT. If I have a gun, I am a CITIZEN; if I DON'T have a gun, I am a SLAVE that the government can bully around, and I have no way to stop them from infringing on my life, liberty, and/or property; but if I DO own a gun, they'll think twice before trying to take away my life, liberty, and/or property.

I WANT TO BE ABLE TO PROTECT MYSELF FROM MY GOVERNMENT BECAUSE I DO NOT TRUST IT IMPLICITLY

Also, why are you reluctant to say there's not a complete ban on guns?

I agree.

Most importantly, I want to be able to defend myself from my GOVERNMENT. If I have a gun, I am a CITIZEN; if I DON'T have a gun, I am a SLAVE that the government can bully around, and I have no way to stop them from infringing on my life, liberty, and/or property; but if I DO own a gun, they'll think twice before trying to take away my life, liberty, and/or property.

You think that it's a handgun that's keeping the evil forces of the government at bay? You think a handgun it's what's stopping the government from breaking down the door and hauling you away?

Lemme clue you in on something...the government have SWAT teams with bullet proof vests. It has assault rifles, tear gas, grenades, sattelite imagery, night vision, snipers, planes, tanks and covert ops special fucking forces.

And you think that if the government really and truly wanted to fuck with your shit, a handgun is going to stop that? It won't do a damned thing about it, and I promise you, it won't really give a damn that you have one.

but when they do that there will be wide spread rebelion.(atkeast in the US.)

but when they do that there will be wide spread rebelion.(atkeast in the US.)

yeah, cause...we all took to the streets after Waco. Or did you miss the part when armed special forces under the command of the US attorney general laid seige?

Now don't get me wrong, I defend their actions of the government in Waco, and while I don't want to make light of anyone's deaths...just look what the fuck happened to the poor shits that had all their special guns.

You think that it's a handgun that's keeping the evil forces of the government at bay? You think a handgun it's what's stopping the government from breaking down the door and hauling you away?

Lemme clue you in on something...the government have SWAT teams with bullet proof vests. It has assault rifles, tear gas, grenades, sattelite imagery, night vision, snipers, planes, tanks and covert ops special fucking forces.

And you think that if the government really and truly wanted to fuck with your shit, a handgun is going to stop that? It won't do a damned thing about it, and I promise you, it won't really give a damn that you have one.

Arthais, you really just want to have your cake and eat it too:
Handguns won't make a difference against the government, yet you object to the populace having weaponry that could compete. The only unifying theme in your arguments is that the government can basically rape us anytime they want, and we should just lay back and take it.

I still maintain that there are many justified uses for handguns outside of the possibility of the government going evil.

And it also follows that a handgun is a better weapon than no gun, if we ever do need to protect ourselves against an over-powerful government.

Arthais, you really just want to have your cake and eat it too:
Handguns won't make a difference against the government, yet you object to the populace having weaponry that could compete. The only unifying theme in your arguments is that the government can basically rape us anytime they want, and we should just lay back and take it.

There's a difference between "sit back and take it" and the recognition that...well, that's what's going to happen.

Yes I object to the populace having that kind of weaponry because we've already seen what happens when nut jubs can get ahold of simply chemicals, what's going to happen when people can legally aquire heavy weaponry?

I think the argument of "we need weapons to protect ourselves from the government" is nonsense, because at most levels you can't arm yourself to the point necessary for protection if the government really goes hog wild, and if you arm the populace to the teeth so they can...then you have bigger problems to worry about than the government going all 1984 on us.

Armed white supremacist militias with sniper rifles kind of problems.

I still maintain that there are many justified uses for handguns outside of the possibility of the government going evil.

Well, yes. And that's a different argument all together. Arguing that a handgun is a good thing for self protection against crime and home invasion by criminals, is, in my opinion, a whole lot better than going "I need my guns to stop the tank!"

And in fact it's a far more logical argument, and one I respect far more, because it is, to some degree, logical. At least it makes some sense as an argument. That other one...doesn't.

And it also follows that a handgun is a better weapon than no gun, if we ever do need to protect ourselves against an over-powerful government.

A toothpick is better than no toothpick. Doesn't mean it's going to help a whole hell of a lot.

Also, why are you reluctant to say there's not a complete ban on guns?

Because I was contradicting someone else.


I WANT TO BE ABLE TO PROTECT MYSELF FROM MY GOVERNMENT BECAUSE I DO NOT TRUST IT IMPLICITLY

I don't see how guns are going to help you "protect yourself from the government", unless you think it's particularly likely that Condoleezza Rice is going to smash through your door armed with a chainsaw.
In fact, the whole "threat of violence protects us from the government" rhetoric worries me a little. In the United States, several people have "defended" themselves against the government. Ted Kaczynski, for example, or Timothy McVeigh. Hardly all-American heroes, those two.

I understand that a pistol wont knock a bomber out of the sky, and a hunting rifle wont stop a tank. I will admit that if it ever came down to the government vs me, I'd be at an astronomically huge disadvantage. However, even considering the vast resources at the government's disposal, the private possession of a firearm still would give a person a better chance at resisting then no weapon at all. I do not expect that in my life time, or my children's life times, that there will ever be a genuine need for armed resistance against the government. That being said I'd rather have a firearm, as woefully incapable of halting the government, just in case.

I just want to say one thing about something that has amused me. I have always found it very comical that a lot of the people who scream and holler about liberal activist judges and how we need to preserve the intent of the founders and resist even the slightest urge to view the constitution in a more modern, egalitarian light are the very same people that seem to want to suggest that a two hundred year old amendment written in the time of single shot muskets was created with the intent to allow american citizens the right to own an uzi.

Cannons are probably too much, at least for the individual - though I could see some exceptions. Beyond that, people should be allowed to own weaponry for self-defense.

Cannons are probably too much, at least for the individual - though I could see some exceptions.

What kind of exceptions?

I think every town of 1,000 or more people should be equipped with at least 1 cannon.

I think that, instead of focusing on the type of firearm, laws should focus on the owner. Has he a criminal record? Is he psychically stable? Has he shown a propension for violence? Does he attend regular training in weapons' use and safety? Does he regularly use mind-altering substances, like alcohol or cocaine? Has he shown lack of responsibility?

Such controls should be made regularly - at least once per year. Anyone failing to pass the test should be banned from owning and carrying any kind of weapon, forever.

What kind of exceptions?

I would have no objection to an organization of popular militia distinct from the state owning artillery.

I would have no objection to an organization of popular militia distinct from the state owning artillery.

Perhaps LA street gangs should be given them, too. It would make a change from drivebys.

Why stop there, what about a field thermo nuclear device?

hahaha, I literally laughed out loud. What possible argument is there for being allowed to have an object that is designed specifically to injure or kill another human being, if you're not working for the police or the armed forces?

Quite a few but I'll start with the right to protect yourself. If you are in fear of your life you have every right to defend yourself by any and all means available. Not only does the armed forces and Police have guns but the criminals has access to all sorts of weaponsry. By taking the guns away from the Honest, hard working people would make them all sitting ducks for the criminals who possess a firearm.

They hardly shoot compared to the typical US gun owner.

I'll take this that this is your source then....Right. :rolleyes:

Quite a few but I'll start with the right to protect yourself. If you are in fear of your life you have every right to defend yourself by any and all means available. Not only does the armed forces and Police have guns but the criminals has access to all sorts of weaponsry. By taking the guns away from the Honest, hard working people would make them all sitting ducks for the criminals who possess a firearm.

Well stop giving your criminals access to so many guns for gods sake. What test are you using to determine whether someone is honest and hard working - as obviously people are going to be that way all their lives and never commit a criminal act in the future.

Only weapons that were technologically possible when the 2nd amendment was written should be legal in the USA, apart from sporks because they're just so damned useful :D

IMO, I feel that sane, law abiding citizens should be allowed to own .50 cal and full auto weaponry without restriction (or extra tax of $200). Besides, I want to attend events like this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5854686068870249151&q=machine+gun+shoot

IMO, I feel that sane, law abiding citizens should be allowed to own .50 cal and full auto weaponry without restriction (or extra tax of $200). Besides, I want to attend events like this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5854686068870249151&q=machine+gun+shoot

Now that is kickass.

Well stop giving your criminals access to so many guns for gods sake. What test are you using to determine whether someone is honest and hard working - as obviously people are going to be that way all their lives and never commit a criminal act in the future.

Is the US, you have to pass a background check in order to purchase a firearm from an FFL (Federal Firearms License) holder. One way that criminals get around background checks is by way of a straw purchase. Basically, the criminal hires someone with a clean record to purchase the firearm for them. The criminal then buys the firearm from the person, usually in either cash or drugs.

What we in the US should do, instead of punishing the law abiding citizens for the actions of the criminals, is to hand out harsher sentences for firearms crime.

I want a holocaust of guns. i want to see every one of them melted.

I want a holocaust of guns. i want to see every one of them melted.

You can wish in one hand and crap in the other, and see which one fills up first. Even if all the current firearms manufacturers shut their doors tommorow, there's no way to get ALL firearms off the streets. For one thing, I'm sure many (if not all) firearms owners would be unwilling to be punished for the actions of criminals (I know I wouldn't stand for it). Also, it's relatively easy for people to make their own firearms and ammunition (so criminals would become more dominant over law abiding citizens, because they would still have firearms).