NationStates Jolt Archive

Happiness isn't a right. It's something to be pursued with your gun.

It's the Declaration of Independence that states it, btw.

Oops, my mistake, then. Sorry.

Oops, my mistake, then. Sorry.Oh, it's okay. I'm sorry to be this kind of a continent traitor having a shotgun and a rifle, though. I just never ever thought those were some kind of line of defence. I feel perfectly safe without them, and I certainly wouldn't take them with me when going and defend my country... To each their own, I guess.

Oops, my mistake, then. Sorry.Oh, it's okay. I'm sorry to be this kind of a continent traitor owning a shotgun and a rifle, though. I just never ever thought those were some kind of line of defence. I feel perfectly safe without them, and I certainly wouldn't take them with me when going out to defend my country. The army manages better without my personal guns... Oh well, to each their own, I guess.

Oh, it's okay. I'm sorry to be this kind of a continent traitor having a shotgun and a rifle, though. I just never ever thought those were some kind of line of defence. I feel perfectly safe without them, and I certainly wouldn't take them with me when going and defend my country... To each their own, I guess.

Perfect example then that gun laws in Europe don't mean that nobody can own a gun ;)

in cameroi there is no manufacture, sale nor importation in quantity of either balistic fire arms nor, for that matter anything too closely resembling an automobile. no paved roads. no gas stations. and of course no gun stores.

there is also no law against owning or possessing anything. just against the mass production of certain kinds of things. or selling them. or importing more then might one or two of them for personal use.

we have other ways of hunting. we have other ways of keeping the peace. we even have other ways of providing even emergancy transportation as well as the more everyday kind.

our people, for the most part, behaive themselves. not out of persuit of sainthood, nor fear of retribution, but for the sake of the kind of world we all prefer to live in.

we DO have personal security devices. many people have then. no one advertises the fact because in our culture that's just not something that has any sort of bragging potential.

these are often multi-function objects of peaceful and everyday sorts of uses. there's no dark secret about them.

a fairly common one is a kind of walking stick, stout enough to serve as a quarters staff in close combat. it also caries an energy source that can serve as a flashlight, or a cutting laser. large portions of it's surface, at the flick of a wrist, can be made hot enough to light campfires. there are also several sorts of energy force fields it can project. one of which deflects projectiles. another of which ablates them. and finaly, it can, fire a modest number of sleeping inducing 'darts'.

this is just one of the sorts of personal items that pretty much replace any need or use for personal side arms of a more conventional balistic projectile sort.

we are a harmless and peaceful people, but we do have our ways.

=^^=
.../\...

New Mexico was part of Mexico during the Mexican-American war, if my knowledge of history doesn't fail me.

So was Texas.

As such, it does have a history of agression towards US America, and particularly Texas.

Against the US, yes. But, not Texas.

But, this is irrelevant. New Mexico has no history of aggression towards Texas or the US. MEXICO does. New Mexico did not exist until after the Mexican/American War.

I don't dictate people what decision they can or can't make regarding the posession of firearms. As I pointed out before, they have the possibility to arm themselves if they choose. It would seem to me that you are simply annoyed by the fact that the largest part of Europe's population chooses not to arm themselves.

Not annoyed at all. You guys do what you like. I will, however - and, if I choose - point out the error of your ways. Of course, you are exceedingly reticent to point out the errors of the US, right?

Not annoyed at all. You guys do what you like. I will, however - and, if I choose - point out the error of your ways. Of course, you are exceedingly reticent to point out the errors of the US, right?

If that's aimed at me in particular, no.
I know enough about US culture to know that it's fundamentally different from European culture and trying to understand it makes my head hurt.

And giving advise without understanding the subject in full is foolish.

I seem to remember that your consitution also gives you the right to "pursuit of happiness", right?

You are wrong.

The Constitution has no power to grant rights. It can identify them, it can guarantee them, but it can not grant them.

As for the pursuit of happiness, it in no way guarantees success. Further, no right allows another to infringe upon the right of another.

Laugh at that one, son.

Does that mean that you're allowed to steal your neighbour's car cause it would make you happy?

Gee, lemme think...

No.

Stealing another's car violates their rights - aside from being illegal - and so is not part of one's rights.

Does it mean you can kill your mother in law cause it would make you happy?

Marital problems?

That aside, the answer is, no. Such an act would violate the rights of one's mother-in-law.

Seems like the regulations deny you that right, too, then.

I see no right violated in your examples. Care to point one out?

Right of free speech? Does that mean you can finally swear on TV, then?

Where have you been? I hear swearing on TV consistently. Is it comfy under your rock?

Does it mean you can lie under oath without consequences?

Only if you're name is Clinton.

Key word, son; "consequences."

If that's aimed at me in particular, no.

Who else?

I was replying to your post.

I know enough about US culture to know that it's fundamentally different from European culture and trying to understand it makes my head hurt.

Never made any claims that it wasn't.

You are wrong.

The Constitution has no power to grant rights. It can identify them, it can guarantee them, but it can not grant them.

As for the pursuit of happiness, it in no way guarantees success. Further, no right allows another to infringe upon the right of another.

Laugh at that one, son.

Could you please stop calling me "son", sweetheart? You're talking to a middle-aged lady here.

No, success isn't guaranteed, but the pursuit. It is in no way specified what that might entail, or what limits are set. It doesn't in fact imply any limitations.


Where have you been? I hear swearing on TV consistently. Is it comfy under your rock?

Check my location. Swearing on TV has never been an issue here, but we had tons of fun when watching the Osbornes in the US and could make neither heads nor tails of it because the entire dialogue was one big bleep.


Only if you're name is Clinton.

Key word, son; "consequences."

Exactly. Freedom of speech is limited when it comes to slander, libel, and perjury. Does that mean it's no longer a right?
I dare you to find any unlimited right, even in the USA.

Who else?

I was replying to your post.



What advise was I giving then that you objected to?

Could you please stop calling me "son", sweetheart? You're talking to a middle-aged lady here.

OK. Though, I didn't know until just now.

No, success isn't guaranteed, but the pursuit. It is in no way specified what that might entail, or what limits are set. It doesn't in fact imply any limitations.

It is perfectly specified by the use of the word "pursuit." It in no way specifies or even implies success in the pursuit, merely that it may be pursued.

We are in pursuit of bin Laden. Have we succeeded? If we do succeed, are we still in pursuit? How does one pursue that which one has achieved?

Check my location. Swearing on TV has never been an issue here, but we had tons of fun when watching the Osbornes in the US and could make neither heads nor tails of it because the entire dialogue was one big bleep.

Well, I live in Texas and I can turn on the TV and hear plenty of swearing. Do some stations choose to bleep or otherwise inhibit swearing? Sure. But, their station, their choice.

Exactly. Freedom of speech is limited when it comes to slander, libel, and perjury. Does that mean it's no longer a right?

I've said this before; just because a right may be denied, does not mean the right does not exist. If the right ceases to exist, then there is no right denied, is there? How does one deny that which does not exist?

One can say anything they like, but may have to face the consequences of what they say. Just because one has a right, does not mean that one is free of responsibility for the consequences of exercising that right.

The same applies to arms. My stand is that you have every right to them. But, you are responsible for the manner in which you exercise that right. If you unjustly shoot someone, you go to jail. If you unjustly kill someone, you get executed.

Possession of a right in no way controls the execution of said right.

I dare you to find any unlimited right, even in the USA.

Freedom of speech, assembly, worship, etc. But, in each case, one is not free of responsibility for how one exercises the right.

What advise was I giving then that you objected to?

You had said, "It would seem to me that you are simply annoyed by the fact that the largest part of Europe's population chooses not to arm themselves."

My reply was that I was not annoyed and that Europe can do what it liked. I also pointed out that I can choose to point out Europe's errors and made a sidebar - though sarcastically - that you seem free enough to point out the US' errors.

OK. Though, I didn't know until just now.



It is perfectly specified by the use of the word "pursuit." It in no way specifies or even implies success in the pursuit, merely that it may be pursued.

We are in pursuit of bin Laden. Have we succeeded? If we do succeed, are we still in pursuit? How does one pursue that which one has achieved?



Well, I live in Texas and I can turn on the TV and hear plenty of swearing. Do some stations choose to bleep or otherwise inhibit swearing? Sure. But, their station, their choice.



I've said this before; just because a right may be denied, does not mean the right does not exist. If the right ceases to exist, then there is no right denied, is there? How does one deny that which does not exist?

One can say anything they like, but may have to face the consequences of what they say. Just because one has a right, does not mean that one is free of responsibility for the consequences of exercising that right.

The same applies to arms. My stand is that you have every right to them. But, you are responsible for the manner in which you exercise that right. If you unjustly shoot someone, you go to jail. If you unjustly kill someone, you get executed.

Possession of a right in no way controls the execution of said right.

So why do you think it unreasonable if certain countries demand proof of a certain level of expertise before giving their citizens permission to obtain firearms? European countries guarantee their citizens the right to migrate freely, but that doesn't mean that you can drive a car without a licence.



Freedom of speech, assembly, worship, etc. But, in each case, one is not free of responsibility for how one exercises the right.

All of those rights have certain restrictions.
I've already given you the limitations concerning the freedom of speech, the right of assembly is limited inasmuch as outlawed organisations may not hold assemblies, and right of worship does not mean right to worship wherever you please.

You had said, "It would seem to me that you are simply annoyed by the fact that the largest part of Europe's population chooses not to arm themselves."

My reply was that I was not annoyed and that Europe can do what it liked. I also pointed out that I can choose to point out Europe's errors and made a sidebar - though sarcastically - that you seem free enough to point out the US' errors.

And in what way was I pointing out any errors on the side of the US?

So why do you think it unreasonable if certain countries demand proof of a certain level of expertise before giving their citizens permission to obtain firearms?

Because that is a restriction on the EXERCISE of a right, not a consequence thereof.

European countries guarantee their citizens the right to migrate freely, but that doesn't mean that you can drive a car without a licence.

I don't know enough of European traffic laws, so I am going to speak from a US perspective.

A driver's license is only required to drive on PUBLIC property. If one drives on one's own land - say, a 50,000 acre ranch - no license is required. So, the license is not truly a license to drive, but more a license to use the public roads.

Further, there really is no right to drive. There can be a right to travel freely, but not necessarily by using a car.

And, in the US, driving a car does not have its own constitutional amendment guaranteeing its protection.

Now, to apply this to firearms would be to say that one needs to prove competance in order to use one's firearm on public property - nothing to do with ownership.

All of those rights have certain restrictions.

No. They carry responsibilities, but they are not restricted.

I've already given you the limitations concerning the freedom of speech,

No, you have not. Again, what you have shown is that exercise of the right carries consequences. Nothing to do with possession of the right.

the right of assembly is limited inasmuch as outlawed organisations may not hold assemblies,

In the US, there are no outlawed organizations. All may meet freely.

We have the KKK, Nazis, Black Panthers, even Hamas organizations that meet.

and right of worship does not mean right to worship wherever you please.

Certainly it does. I can worship anywhere I please. There is not a power on Earth that can stop me.

Now, if that worship entails human sacrifice, then I would be violating the rights of the sacrificial victim and that would be a consequence of the exercise of my right. Or, if my worship included the burning of a building, I'd be violating the property rights of the building owner. Another consequence.

But, as long as no one's rights are violated, I can worship as I please.

And in what way was I pointing out any errors on the side of the US?

Not necessarily in this thread. But, if I am incorrect in my recollection of other posts of yours, I'll apologize on this point.

So, have you never pointed out any errors of the US?

Oh. My. God.

I've just read the last 3-4 pages of this thread, and I was bowled over in both laughter and complete shock at some of the worst, nonsensical, rambling, ignorant and generally poor arguing I have seen on here- in a long time.

Regardless of my views on gun ownership in other states, the one thing I noticed was from Myseneum:

Your style of 'arguing' is akin to shouting louder and harder than anyone else to make sure they stop posting in sheer bewilderment and confusion before you mount the heap of silenced posters and proclaim that you don't care anyway, you're just plain right.

I've dealt with people like that quite regularly. Although, in their defence - they are only toddlers.

Good god man. Construct a point clearly will you?

Oh. My. God.

I've just read the last 3-4 pages of this thread, and I was bowled over in both laughter and complete shock at some of the worst, nonsensical, rambling, ignorant and generally poor arguing I have seen on here- in a long time.

Regardless of my views on gun ownership in other states, the one thing I noticed was from Myseneum:

Your style of 'arguing' is akin to shouting louder and harder than anyone else to make sure they stop posting in sheer bewilderment and confusion before you mount the heap of silenced posters and proclaim that you don't care anyway, you're just plain right.

I've deal with people like that quite regularly. Although, in their defence - they are only toddlers.

Good god man. Contruct a point clearly will you?

If there were a way to make threads private for posting, and public for reading, I'd debate gun ownership. But on reading other threads here (there seem to be favorite flame inducing topics), I'll pass.

If there were a way to make threads private for posting, and public for reading, I'd debate gun ownership. But on reading other threads here (there seem to be favorite flame inducing topics), I'll pass.

Ditto.

Regardless of my views on gun ownership in other states, the one thing I noticed was from Myseneum:

Your style of 'arguing' is akin to shouting louder and harder than anyone else to make sure they stop posting in sheer bewilderment and confusion before you mount the heap of silenced posters and proclaim that you don't care anyway, you're just plain right.

I haven't shouted at all. I've merely addressed comments as I've seen fit. If you take issue with something I've posted, tell me what it is and we can go from there.

I've dealt with people like that quite regularly. Although, in their defence - they are only toddlers.

Ah. Another superior intellect, eh? OK, don't bother bringing up any issues, then, as you clearly have no interest in discussing them, only in belittling me.

Good god man. Construct a point clearly will you?

Why bother? Your earlier words clearly demonstrate that you aren't interested in any points.

Overstatement? How many cars were burned "in the name of allah"? 6000? 10,000?

Guns are what forged your country! Had it not been for the armed militias in the French Revolution, you'd still be under the rule of King Louis XXXX.... Even if that weren't the case, how many civilian lives would it have saved if the citizens in paris were able to defend themselves? Your country has one of the highest crime rates in the world, simply because criminals are the only ones who have firearms now that civillians have them. Do you really think that CRIMINALS care about a stupid gun ban? They are criminals and live outside of the law by definition and therefore accquire their arms illegaly anyway. In other words, they import them from places like China, colombia, Taiwon, etc....

Overstatement? How many cars were burned "in the name of allah"? 6000? 10,000?

Paris burning is a huge overstatement.
In all of France, the totla number of burned cars was 8,973 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_civil_unrest_in_France#Summary_statistics), none of them in the name of Allah.


Guns are what forged your country! Had it not been for the armed militias in the French Revolution, you'd still be under the rule of King Louis XXXX.... Even if that weren't the case, how many civilian lives would it have saved if the citizens in paris were able to defend themselves? Your country has one of the highest crime rates in the world, simply because criminals are the only ones who have firearms now that civillians have them. Do you really think that CRIMINALS care about a stupid gun ban? They are criminals and live outside of the law by definition and therefore accquire their arms illegaly anyway. In other words, they import them from places like China, colombia, Taiwon, etc....

I should not be getting into this again, but if you want to debate at least get your facts straight :

There is no gun ban in France, guns can be obtained in a perfectly legal manner.

France does not have one of the highest crime rate in the world, it doesn't even have the highest crime rate in Europe.
France has a crime rate of 58/1000, the USA 786/1000, just to give you a rough idea. Source (http://www.securityworld.com/infocenter/international-crime-statistics/)
The French revolution did not lead to the current Republic of France. It led to the Empire, and then back to monarchy. France is currently what is called the Fifth Republic, and that wasn't established on the barricades.

This seems almost too appropriate;

http://img331.imageshack.us/img331/1328/svenherdygerdyson001ke0.jpg

;)

Pro-gun ownership, to be sure.

France does not have one of the highest crime rate in the world, it doesn't even have the highest crime rate in Europe.
That would be Kaliningrad, (which, while technically is not a country, there's no semblance of the Russian government there, so we might as well count it as something screwy like that) if I recall correctly...


France has a crime rate of 58/1000, the USA 786/1000, just to give you a rough idea. Source (http://www.securityworld.com/infocenter/international-crime-statistics/)

Where's the origins of these numbers? I don't fully understand how they were arrived at given the source you provided. From what I've seen France has a crime rate of roughly six percent, and the US has a crime rate of roughly seven percent.

American.

1 rifle, 1 pistol.

I think we are just all going to have to agree that Europe and the US are two different places, with two different ways of thinking. Just because us over here in the US firmly believe in gun owner (i know not all of us) for different reasons and based on our background, dosen't mean that Europe will fill the same. I think one factor which contributes to our support of gun ownership here is the fact that our own Civil War was fought barely about 150 years ago so, perhaps we still find security in the fact that we are allowed to own guns without much if any restriction. Europe meanwhile has some of the worlds oldest countries, much older then the US, so perhaps their past all that.

Once again, this is just a thought

Where's the origins of these numbers? I don't fully understand how they were arrived at given the source you provided. From what I've seen France has a crime rate of roughly six percent, and the US has a crime rate of roughly seven percent.

A bit of maths is involved. I took those numbers and averaged them with the populations of each respective country. I got the population statistics from the CIA factbook.

I think we are just all going to have to agree that Europe and the US are two different places, with two different ways of thinking. Just because us over here in the US firmly believe in gun owner (i know not all of us) for different reasons and based on our background, dosen't mean that Europe will fill the same. I think one factor which contributes to our support of gun ownership here is the fact that our own Civil War was fought barely about 150 years ago so, perhaps we still find security in the fact that we are allowed to own guns without much if any restriction. Europe meanwhile has some of the worlds oldest countries, much older then the US, so perhaps their past all that.

Once again, this is just a thought

I think one of the reasons for the different attitude is simple population density.
Europe has been having one of the closest densities in the world for centuries now. If you have this many people living that closely together, vigilante justice simply will no longer work. Europe has developed firm social structures over the centuries, along with very good police forces.
The USA has much lower population density, and it doesn't have Europe's traditional structures. Due to the low population density, the police forces can't function in the same way as they do in Europe, either. The systems in place in Europe would fail in the USA, and the systems in place in the USA would turn Europe into a disaster zone.

That doesn't mean, however, that we can't learn from one another. Europe might learn a lot from US criminal investigation strategies, and the US might learn a thing or two about crime prevention from Europe.

A few people are making good point on both fronts. Those opposed to firearms are missing the bigger picture. It's not what you know it's who you know. Take for example Prohibition from 1920-1933 hear in the U.S. Distilleries closed, bars could no longer serve alcohol without heavy fines or the threat of imprisonment, and Speak eazys and boot legging flourished. Dispute the ban it was still available if you knew the right people. In our modern age ware changing ones identity is moderately easy and Identity theft is common it is safe to say even with a ban on firearms would still be available for the right price. "There are over 550 million firearms in worldwide circulation. That's one firearm for every twelve people on the planet. The only question is: How do we arm the other 11?"

There is no gun ban in France, guns can be obtained in a perfectly legal manner.

Indeed. You can also obtain silencers quite easily. Most shooting ranges in France require them, for hearing protection reasons.

A bit of maths is involved. I took those numbers and averaged them with the populations of each respective country. I got the population statistics from the CIA factbook.

CIA factbook? Did you somehow hack into the CIAs top secret data base which is gaurded by a very sophisticated software? I know for a fact those numbers are wrong. Especially in the US. And I never said that France had a gun ban, I was reffering to what that gentelmen wanted to do with France.

If you're argument is that population density causes crime, then look at Tokyo. One of the most densely populated metropolitan areas in the world, and they are one of the most law abiding countries in the world. Your use of "vigilante" is quite ludicrous. There is nothing "vigilante" about defending your own life or someone else's life from a threat in which either you or the individual you are defending have a right to be present. As I said before England is a perfect example. They ban firearms and the country's crime rate goes through the roof. Why? Criminals are the only ones with firearms, hence the term "criminals", in turn they don't accquire their arms legally to begin with, and in turn you're only taking firearms away from the law abiding citizens which are helpless against assault, rape, theft, etc... There's nothing wrong with owning a suppressor (it's not correct to say silencer), hence my family owns 5 of them (with a license).

If you're argument is that population density causes crime, then look at Tokyo. One of the most densely populated metropolitan areas in the world, and they are one of the most law abiding countries in the world. Your use of "vigilante" is quite ludicrous. There is nothing "vigilante" about defending your own life or someone else's life from a threat in which either you or the individual you are defending have a right to be present. As I said before England is a perfect example. They ban firearms and the country's crime rate goes through the roof. Why? Criminals are the only ones with firearms, hence the term "criminals", in turn they don't accquire their arms legally to begin with, and in turn you're only taking firearms away from the law abiding citizens which are helpless against assault, rape, theft, etc... There's nothing wrong with owning a suppressor (it's not correct to say silencer), hence my family owns 5 of them (with a license).

I may be wrong because I didn't bother checking, but isn't gun ownership in Japan illegal?

Also, do you have links to sources showing that the UK's crime is rampant since the gun-ban?

I don't own any but I will be inheriting some and am pro-gun ownership.

I will be inheriting:
2 .22 caliber revolvers used for target shooting.
An ancient single-barreled breach-loading 12 gauge shotgun, made by Montgomery Ward Circa the late 1800s.
A .30-40 Kraag, Military issue during the Mexican-American war, modified for hunting.
A .308 Winchester.
A Springfield 1903.

CIA factbook? Did you somehow hack into the CIAs top secret data base which is gaurded by a very sophisticated software? I know for a fact those numbers are wrong. Especially in the US. And I never said that France had a gun ban, I was reffering to what that gentelmen wanted to do with France.

Your ignorance is almost scary....

CIA Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html)

If you're argument is that population density causes crime, then look at Tokyo. One of the most densely populated metropolitan areas in the world, and they are one of the most law abiding countries in the world. Your use of "vigilante" is quite ludicrous. There is nothing "vigilante" about defending your own life or someone else's life from a threat in which either you or the individual you are defending have a right to be present. As I said before England is a perfect example. They ban firearms and the country's crime rate goes through the roof. Why? Criminals are the only ones with firearms, hence the term "criminals", in turn they don't accquire their arms legally to begin with, and in turn you're only taking firearms away from the law abiding citizens which are helpless against assault, rape, theft, etc... There's nothing wrong with owning a suppressor (it's not correct to say silencer), hence my family owns 5 of them (with a license).

Well researched indeed. :rolleyes:

First of all, Japan's gun laws are stricter than any gun laws in Europe. Guns are outrighly banned for the public.
Secondly, the UK only banned handguns, not all firearms. And that ban affected actually less than 1% of the entire population, who had owned handguns prior to that ban. Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_and_crime#United_Kingdom_vs._Switzerland)

Next time, please check your facts before posting.

Your ignorance is almost scary....

CIA Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html)

Where does it say anything about comparing the nation's crime rates? I'm getting the impression that your "evidence" is based on your agenda.......

I don't own any but I will be inheriting some and am pro-gun ownership.

I will be inheriting:
2 .22 caliber revolvers used for target shooting.
An ancient single-barreled breach-loading 12 gauge shotgun, made by Montgomery Ward Circa the late 1800s.
A .30-40 Kraag, Military issue during the Mexican-American war, modified for hunting.
A .308 Winchester.
A Springfield 1903.

You modified a 150 year old gun? I sure hope you can put it back the way it was.

Well researched indeed. :rolleyes:

First of all, Japan's gun laws are stricter than any gun laws in Europe. Guns are outrighly banned for the public.
Secondly, the UK only banned handguns, not all firearms. And that ban affected actually less than 1% of the entire population, who had owned handguns prior to that ban. Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_and_crime#United_Kingdom_vs._Switzerland)

Next time, please check your facts before posting.

Yes I am well aware of Japan's gun bans. I am a Japanese American myself. I already had my research done the day I was born.....thankyou anyway. Your point was that population density causes crime. That's like saying flies cause garbage. Tokyo is a counter-example of your statement. I also know thate even though there are strict gun bans to civilians, many individuals have them anyway. They are mostly part of the Japanese maufia known as Yakuza....... So to the contrary, my research was already done.

Yes I am well aware of Japan's gun bans. I am a Japanese American myself. I already had my research done the day I was born.....thankyou anyway. Your point was that population density causes crime. That's like saying flies cause garbage. Tokyo is a counter-example of your statement. I also know thate even though there are strict gun bans to civilians, many individuals have them anyway. They are mostly part of the Japanese maufia known as Yakuza....... So to the contrary, my research was already done.
I'm just jumping in here without context, but are you saying, then, that crime causes population density? WTF?

Just out of curiosity, as the mere ownership of firearms is contoversial here in NSG, who owns firearms, of what sort, and, for comparitive purposes, what's your nationality?

Does this include non-explosively proppelled kinetic energy weapons?

Like bows, crossbows, pellet rifles, catapults, tazers, flamethrowers, rocket launchers, and electro-railguns? (though I doubt paintball or airsoft would qualify)

And does this include pure explosive based instruments, such as the ever popular half stick of old dynamite you find in your attic...

And does this include makeshift guns, such as illegal 'Zip' guns and potato launchers loaded with buckshot?

And is their any critera of what intended use we plan for these implements?

Currently I can accurately state I have between 2 and 8 inside my household (excluding pyrotechnic display grade explosives).

Heh.

Yeah. I own a gun or two dozen.

In fact, I'm a gunsmith, it's what I do for a living. One of the perks of gunsmithing is if someone refuses to pay for the work you do for them or just refuses to pick it up you can keep their gun. A lot of the guns were crap and I just traded them in, but I've got some nice pieces over the years, these are some of my personal favorites:

1: WWII US issue M1 Garand, mint condition, can shoot a ragged hole dead-center at 200 yards. Guy gave this to me for building a rifle for him.

2: HK P2000, .357 sig. The guy never showed up to pick it up and after a year of letters and phone calls it became mine. It's a damn fine pistol, shoots like a dream, my only complaint is .357 sig tears up spinner targets like crazy.

3: Romanian AK-47. Came into the shop for your standard detail clean and inspection. Shady dude who checked it in never showed up to check it out. It's mine now, bitch. I did a little smoothing up of the fire control mechanism and replaced the plywood stock with a polymer stock. When I was experimenting with duracoat I put a cool russian urban camo pattern on it. It's a sharp looking rifle now, compared to the cosmoline-soaked eastern bloc nightmare it was when it came in.

4: CZ 527, heavy barrel varmint configuration with a single set trigger, chambered in .204 ruger. Guy wanted me to refinish the stock he screwed up. I said it would cost 200$ and he said ok. I refinished the stock and he said he didn't want to spend 200$, so the rifle is now mine. Prarie dogs beware, this thing is a tackdriver.

5: Colt series 70 Commander 1911. Did a thorough custom job on this baby, the works. Spent a year trying to get a hold of the guy to pick it up but he never did so now it's mine. After aquisition I put a bobtail mainspring housing on it and duracoated the frame. Now it's my primary carry gun.

6: Remington 870 express 12 ga. Came in to have the shell stops re-staked. Did it. Guy didn't want to pay. Now it's mine. Put a mag extension and ghost ring sights on it and cut the barrel back to 19 inches, now it's my home defence gun.

7: Ithaca model 37 deluxe, 12 ga, 28", full choke, vent rib and very nice wood. A very nice Ithaca, came in for the standard clean and lube, guy never came back and couldn't be reached. Now it's my favorite pheasant gun.

There are more, of course, but those are some of my favorite free guns.

Anyways, the lesson of the day, kids: If you check your gun into a gunsmith, give them your correct address and phone number, otherwise they might have a free gun on their hands if you forget to pick it up.

Compound Bows:
The "Buck": My personal shooting/hunting bow, smooth draw and good let-off, the only dissadvantages are that the manufacturer went bankrupt when someone decided to collect a patent on the 'single cam' technology and the strings tend to get shredded every 250 draws...

The 'Hoyt': big heavy double cam, good string life and plenty accurate, this is my father's bow.

The 'klunker': an old junk compound, bad paint finish and is a double cam, this is my brother's bow, he's not too much into hunting, but he's plenty good at the target range. His girlfriend has taken up the sport.

Recurves:
Bear bow: Wooden laminate short recurve, collectable, saved it from 'bow collectors' who mistreated it badly (like stringing it as if it was a longbow) rough;y 50 pound draw.

'Barbie': An old pink 15# fiberglass beginer's bow, we generally keep this for my brother's girlfriend, every so often a competition is made to see who can get an arrow to stay in the target (after hitting it) without sights and at 20 yards (it sometimes bounces off carboard, or falls out)...

Shotguns:
Savage arms Bolt action 20 ga, full choke barrel, I'm plenty accurate with this.
Remmington Model 870 pump action (slug gun configuration with rifle scope fittings)

2 Pellet guns (.177 caliber):
One is fitted with a rifle scope (from shotgun, since we don't use it anymore), with iron sight redundancy.
The other is pure iron sights.
Sighted on in in our garage, the other at a rifle range.

Slingshot:
Old slingshot, band has aged and broken many years ago, a piece of surgical tubing works fine as a replacement though...

That qualifies me for 10...
There may be others, but I don't believe they would be legitimate firearms.
All the listed weapons either have been used, or are intended to be used to kill animals.
(even the 'barbie' bow killed a rabbit)

Where does it say anything about comparing the nation's crime rates? I'm getting the impression that your "evidence" is based on your agenda.......

I provided the link to the page with the overall number of crimes. I used that number and the population given in the CIA factbook to proivde a relative number, the number of crimes per 1000 inhabitants.
Is that really too complex to grasp?

Yes I am well aware of Japan's gun bans. I am a Japanese American myself. I already had my research done the day I was born.....thankyou anyway. Your point was that population density causes crime. That's like saying flies cause garbage. Tokyo is a counter-example of your statement. I also know thate even though there are strict gun bans to civilians, many individuals have them anyway. They are mostly part of the Japanese maufia known as Yakuza....... So to the contrary, my research was already done.

No, that wasn't my statement. Read my post again.
I didn't say anything about population density in relation to the number of crime. I said that high population density and liberal gun laws are a very dangerous combination, which is why countries with high population density tend to have stricter gun laws.
To use your example, garbage disposal can be left to the individual in a place with low population density. Everybody can take care of their own garbage without problem. In an area with high population density, such a conecpt would lead to pest infestation and epidemics, garbage removal has to be centrally organised.

Regarding Yakuza, yes, there is illegal gun ownership. But the numbers are small enough to be called non-existent (source) (http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html)

Research again, and next time please reply to things I actually said.

...and the additional possible threat of potentially armed "victims".

Funny you said that. I was watching Penn and Teller's Bullshit! and they cited that each state that passed concealed weapon permit laws all experienced a lower crime rate consequently.

I also remember reading a while back (it was probably something Drudge posted) something a Japanese general wrote about a possible war between China and America. He was almost certain it would be a nuclear war due to America's inability to fight guerilla warfare (so we couldn't invade China) and the fact that if China invaded the U.S. they'd soon find themselves fighting against 300 million natives armed with guns. The general went on to say no nation could ever win a land war against America on its on soil.

Secondly, the UK only banned handguns, not all firearms.

You can still get long-barrel revolvers, and all. They're just a bit tougher to get than rifles and such.

You can still get long-barrel revolvers, and all. They're just a bit tougher to get than rifles and such.

I don't think any European country has an outright ban on firearms, no matter what our American cousins would like to think.

I don't think any European country has an outright ban on firearms, no matter what our American cousins would like to think.

I've yet to find one, I know that.

Funny you said that. I was watching Penn and Teller's Bullshit! and they cited that each state that passed concealed weapon permit laws all experienced a lower crime rate consequently.

Are any of them as low as the crime rates in, say, Ireland and Sweden?


I also remember reading a while back (it was probably something Drudge posted) something a Japanese general wrote about a possible war between China and America. He was almost certain it would be a nuclear war due to America's inability to fight guerilla warfare (so we couldn't invade China) and the fact that if China invaded the U.S. they'd soon find themselves fighting against 300 million natives armed with guns. The general went on to say no nation could ever win a land war against America on its on soil.

So, basically, he's saying that nobody these days can win guerilla wars. As experienced by the US first hand at the moment.

You can still get long-barrel revolvers, and all. They're just a bit tougher to get than rifles and such.

Yeah, you can get revolvers with 12 inch barrels and arm-braces, and black-powder revolvers.

Yeah, you can get revolvers with 12 inch barrels and arm-braces, and black-powder revolvers.
Oh yes, I forgot about Blackpowder stuff...

I'm not about to post what I have or how many. I do have a weapon to fit almost any situation (or adaptable to fit) should the need arise. Some are family "heirlooms", although that doesn't stop me from shooting them. What good is something if you can't use it?

I'm from Michigan and I have a Yugoslavian SKS and a Romanian AK-47. I've always been fascinated with Soviet military equipment.

We should get together at the range and compare our Soviet and German technologies. ;) I've had a few AK's and an SKS, but could never really get into them (although now I really miss my SKS). The HK91/93 pattern rifles I found to really enjoy though. I've wanted to acquire/build an FAL pattern, but don't have the time or $$ right now.

I'm not about to post what I have or how many. I do have a weapon to fit almost any situation (or adaptable to fit) should the need arise. Some are family "heirlooms", although that doesn't stop me from shooting them. What good is something if you can't use it?

Any situation? Should I make a joke about shotgun weddings now or would that be inappropriate?

No firearms, but I think I'llbuy a saber and a main-gauche. Just for showing them in the dining room.

Any situation? Should I make a joke about shotgun weddings now or would that be inappropriate?

LOL :D

I'm about to have one of those in February actually... no shotguns will present as far as I know though. ;)

I said that high population density and liberal gun laws are a very dangerous combination, which is why countries with high population density tend to have stricter gun laws.

Seems to fail in Washington DC.


DC has a high population density (9,015/sqm - 32 x France, 18 x Italy, 15 x Germany, 14 x UK, 11 x Japan),
Very strict gun laws (Handguns have been outlawed unless registered as of February 5, 1977, carrying guns concealed or not is prohibited, and all guns and ammunition must be registered)
Crime in DC is higher than the rest of the US

Overall crime, 1.29 x US
Violent crime, 2.53 x US
Murders, 5.13 x US

It seems that DC presents a case of high population density and strict gun laws being more dangerous.

Sources
-- http://www.cesla.med.ucla.edu/html/pdf/charts.pdf
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.
-- http://washingtondc.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm

Also, do you have links to sources showing that the UK's crime is rampant since the gun-ban?

Data and link --

According to the House of Commons, who submitted a report in 2003 entitled Social Indicators, crime with handguns increased 122% from 2,648 in 1997 to 5,871 in 2002. Just five years.
-- http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib...3/rp03-003.pdf

..|..........*
..|..........*
C.|..........*
r.|..........*
i.|..........*
m.|......*.*.*
e.|......*.*.*
..|*.*.*.*.*.*
---------------
Y.|1|1|1|2|2|2|
e.|9|9|9|0|0|0|
a.|9|9|9|0|0|0|
r.|7|8|9|0|1|2|

So, what happened?

Here's the actual data from that same Commons report for handgun crime from 1972-2002, Table 2. Each point is equal to 500 incidents;

6500|.............................................................|
6000|............................................................*|
5500|............................................................*|
5000|............................................................*|
4500|..........................................*.................*|
4000|........................................*.*...............*.*|
3500|......................................*.*.*...*.*.......*.*.*|
3000|......................................*.*.*.*.*.*.......*.*.*|
2500|....................................*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*|
2000|..................................*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*|
1500|....................*.....*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*|
1000|....................*.....*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*|
.500|..................*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*|
...0|*...*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*.*|
-------------------------------------------------------------------
..Y.|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|1|2|2|2|
..e.|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|0|0|0|
..a.|7|7|7|7|7|7|7|7|8|8|8|8|8|8|8|8|8|8|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|9|0|0|0|
..r.|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|0|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|0|1|2|

There are two spikes; 1993 and - well, not really a spike, since it's the end of the chart - 2002. What happened around 1993 to start the downward trend, only to rocket starting in 2000?

And, again going by the same Commons report, in 1973, England - in the entire country - only had 247 handgun crimes. That number, in 2002, went to 5,871. In 29 years England's handgun crime increased 2,276.92%. Yet, gun restrictions and laws increased radically.

How would you explain this?

I don't own any (certain weapons are allowed with registration, but most are not), and I probably wouldn't elect to own one. However, i'm not necessarily opposed to ownership in principle, as much as I feel people shouldn't have to resort to them.


How would you explain this?

My guess is that with the illegalisation of ownership, possession of a firearm becomes a firearm offence.

However, i'm not necessarily opposed to ownership in principle, as much as I feel people shouldn't have to resort to them.

"Resort to them?"

I have about a dozen firearms. I only "resort" to them;


To punch holes in tin cans, melons and bowling pins,
To invest in hoping for appreciation,
To share in history,
To admire as art.
To admire as technology.


Why shouldn't I "resort" to them?

My guess is that with the illegalisation of ownership, possession of a firearm becomes a firearm offence.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. It's like saying "Oh no! Everyone started drinking loads more during prohibition. Just look at how many alcohol-related crimes there were!"

"Resort to them?"

I have about a dozen firearms. I only "resort" to them;


To punch holes in tin cans, melons and bowling pins,
To invest in hoping for appreciation,
To share in history,
To admire as art.
To admire as technology.


Why shouldn't I "resort" to them?

Most of the arguements fail to consider the utility gun and jump straight to single purpose home defense weapons. Which I consider rather inflated of them.

Over where I live, there is this thing called CWD, simply, it is a disease that is being treated more like a zombie infestation than anything else, as it has its own 'deer eradication zone', which means simply that, it is a free fire zone where any living deer may be legally shot in any manner available, they are then tested, and if positive, they get piled up in stacks of 5 and then incinerated, if tested negative, that hunter gets a free deer and another back tag so he can shoot as many as he wants (as long as it is in season).

And there is no law against killing a deer with your bare hands, if you are inclined to be that crazy... But then it would turn into an arguement to ban bareknuckle hunting...

I have no intention to be dragged into a troll, so how many 'firearms' do I have?
2? 4? 8? or 11?
Is this exclusive to long arms? Semi-auto? Muzzle loaders? Scoped? Full auto? Hunting? Home defense? Handguns? Guns that are serviceable as WMD in a world without guns?

I see nothing wrong with enjoying the practice of shooting in preparation, or taking photo of a neatly grouped 3 shot hole at the range. Shooting just for the sake of shooting and not enjoying it, you might as well have spent the money on illegal fireworks...

American

Rock River Arms Tactical .45
Beretta 92FS w/ Crimson trace grips
Browning Buckmark .22LR
Remington 870 pump action 12ga, synthetic stocks, surefire pump
Working on building up a "black" rifle. After that, gonna get a bolt action, most likely a Remington 700.

Most of the arguements fail to consider the utility gun and jump straight to single purpose home defense weapons. Which I consider rather inflated of them.

Over where I live, there is this thing called CWD, simply, it is a disease that is being treated more like a zombie infestation than anything else, as it has its own 'deer eradication zone', which means simply that, it is a free fire zone where any living deer may be legally shot in any manner available, they are then tested, and if positive, they get piled up in stacks of 5 and then incinerated, if tested negative, that hunter gets a free deer and another back tag so he can shoot as many as he wants (as long as it is in season).

And there is no law against killing a deer with your bare hands, if you are inclined to be that crazy... But then it would turn into an arguement to ban bareknuckle hunting...

I have no intention to be dragged into a troll, so how many 'firearms' do I have?
2? 4? 8? or 11?
Is this exclusive to long arms? Semi-auto? Muzzle loaders? Scoped? Full auto? Hunting? Home defense? Handguns? Guns that are serviceable as WMD in a world without guns?

I see nothing wrong with enjoying the practice of shooting in preparation, or taking photo of a neatly grouped 3 shot hole at the range. Shooting just for the sake of shooting and not enjoying it, you might as well have spent the money on illegal fireworks...



I've been told that 3 shot groups aren't really indicative of a firearm's or a shooter's abilities (5-10 shot groups are recommended). Would you agree or disagree with that statement?

I've been told that 3 shot groups aren't really indicative of a firearm's or a shooter's abilities (5-10 shot groups are recommended). Would you agree or disagree with that statement?

Anyone can get 3/10 into a decent group.

3/3 grouping, 1st try, no wind correction.
2nd group, 3 shots, size of dime/quarter, in the bull.

Using more ammunition tends to shred the target, as after you put 3 holes in such a small space, it becomes a single hole, using more ammo only proves you didn't make the hole any bigger. And if it did get bigger, work on your trigger pull.

Never managed to practice a "10 shot group" since my quiver only holds 6 arrows, and tossing all 6 in a 3" circle gets rather tight, let alone when I start tacking them on a dime... And split arrows get awfully expensive...

Anyone can get 3/10 into a decent group.


Never managed to practice a "10 shot group" since my quiver only holds 6 arrows, and tossing all 6 in a 3" circle gets rather tight, let alone when I start tacking them on a dime... And split arrows get awfully expensive...

Amen to that. The first time you get a "Robinhood" it's great after that it just cost too much.

Amen to that. The first time you get a "Robinhood" it's great after that it just cost too much.

I know of people who can regularily shoot one 'robinhood' every 6 arrows at 45-50 paces (maximum practical range in the northern Wisconsin marshlands [or more accurately, the longest shot available at the local archery range]), as such, he has to limit himself to a single 3 shot group for every target...

Me, I'm 'average', shooting a full quiver into a target at 30 paces, once had every arrow touching at least two arrows from the full quiver of 6 [too bad I didn't have a camera, but I have witnesses], not to meantion 2 split arrows and roughly 25 stripped fletches. (I don't keep track of fletching, I'm guessing).

So does archery and pellet rifle equipment qualify as a 'firearm'?
And does this include illigitamatelly obtained firearms?

I've been told that 3 shot groups aren't really indicative of a firearm's or a shooter's abilities (5-10 shot groups are recommended). Would you agree or disagree with that statement?

I'm sure that a 5-10 might be a better indication of shooter ability, but a two to three shot group is more likely what I would be aiming for in the secondary usage of my firearms. Anything more than that would be over kill.

I'm not going to list everything, that might take a while. This is most of the collection, without the vintage stuff and the few machine-guns I've got in storage...

Beretta M92FS w/ Hogue Grips (9x19mm)
Kimber Stainless II M1911A1 w/ custom 'Wicked Grips' (.45 ACP)
Caspian Recon-Frame M1911A1 Custom Job (.45 ACP)
Browning Hi-Power Mark II (.40 S&W)
Browning Buckmark (.22LR)
SIG P220 w/ Hogue Grips (.45 ACP)
SIG P226 w/ Hogue Grips (.40 S&W)
Springfield Trophy Match w/ factory grips M1911A1 (.45 ACP)
AMT Hardballer M1911A1 with factory grips (.45 ACP)
Glock 19 w/ Hogue 'Glock Condom' universal grip sleeve, trigger connector for lighter pull, and Caspian stainless steel aftermarket slide (9x19mm) (2x)
Glock 17 (Mods same as the Glock 19) (9x19mm)
Glock 21 (Mods same as the Glock 19) (.45 ACP)
Glock 23 (Mods same as Glock 19) (.40 S&W)
Colt Gold Cup Mark IV Stainless (.45 ACP)
Heckler and Koch Mark 23 USP (.45 ACP)
Hecker and Koch HK91 with MP5-length barrel, tele-stock, and Navy trigger (9x19mm)
Bushmaster XM-15 (configured like an M4A2 carbine w/ ACOG combat optic) (5.56x45mm)
Springfield M1A Synthetic (7.62x51mm)
Norinco AK-47 w/ blond wood stock (7.62x39mm)
Colt M16A2 (Civilian-ized Version) (5.56x45mm)
Remington 870 Express Magnum Synthetic w/ pistol-grip stock (12 gague)
Remington 700 SPS w/ Meopta 6-14x44 mil-dot scope and Harris bipod (.300 Remington Ultra Magnum)

I don't think I'd call a bow and arrows a 'firearm', but the pellet-gun might come close. As for illegally-obtained stuff, I'd keep it to yourself. Never know who's reading these forums.

And Imitora, what do you mean 'secondary usage'? I know you didn't just buy that nice Rock River Tactical for IDPA. I'd call the target practice an entertaining diversion from the primary usage.

Most of your editors and article-writers for the major gun magazines will rate accuracy off of five-shot groups, to eliminate human error. That's at least true for handguns. As for rifles, it would depend on the type (bolt-action, gas-operated, etc.).

You modified a 150 year old gun? I sure hope you can put it back the way it was.

I'm thinking maybe the Krag is from the Phillipines, it is a bolt-action, which I don't see existing in the mid-1800s. As for the modifications, all we did was mount a 4x optical scope and removed the original forward sight, which we have kept, and we replaced the rotting leather shoulder strap. The gun was not in the best condition when my grandpa bought it, the stock is cracked, but the action still works fine. I believe we could restore it to its original state in about a couple hours work.


UPDATE: Yup, it was issued in the Philippines, my mistake.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krag-J%C3%B8rgensen

I found this sort of disturbing:
Damn, damn, damn the Filipinos!
Cut throat khaki ladrones!
Underneath the starry flag,
Civilize them with a Krag,
And return us to our beloved home.

I'm just jumping in here without context, but are you saying, then, that crime causes population density? WTF?

No I was referring to how rediculous Cabra West's argument was.

I provided the link to the page with the overall number of crimes. I used that number and the population given in the CIA factbook to proivde a relative number, the number of crimes per 1000 inhabitants.
Is that really too complex to grasp?

It's not hard to grasp at all, it's just wrong. You need to do your research before making random accusations upon which you have no knowledge. The US crime rate is no where near that high. With this source the math is already done for you.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/fsbr/crime.html

If you want to know how England's crime rate is so high, because of their rediculous gun laws, this is how I know. The man who owns the facility in the link below is an Ex-British SBS operator who now runs a gun range in Mingus, Texas (near where I live). He trains law enforcement, civilians, and military including Delta Force, Rangers, etc. I have qualified in numerous classes of his. (Gun owners in Texas, this is an excellent training facility for personal defense, including concealed carry). He is very pessimistic about the UKs gun laws. He has very good reason too, even though it's not posted on the website.
http://www.tacproshootingcenter.com/

No, that wasn't my statement. Read my post again.
I didn't say anything about population density in relation to the number of crime. I said that high population density and liberal gun laws are a very dangerous combination, which is why countries with high population density tend to have stricter gun laws.
To use your example, garbage disposal can be left to the individual in a place with low population density. Everybody can take care of their own garbage without problem. In an area with high population density, such a conecpt would lead to pest infestation and epidemics, garbage removal has to be centrally organised.

Regarding Yakuza, yes, there is illegal gun ownership. But the numbers are small enough to be called non-existent (source) (http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html)

Research again, and next time please reply to things I actually said.

In other words, you did say that population density is related to the crime rate. The part about Yakuza was an aside, yes I am very aware that it is a small percentage. However it does exist. I find it funny how you compare garbage to guns. I was referring to crime. Anyway back to the topic, just about every large metropolitan area in the world with gun bans, and all of that BS, there is a relatively high crime rate (with the exception of Japan of course). You look at australia, UK, phillipines, mexico, Russia, etc. The only reason Japan does not have an issue is because they didn't have firearms to begin with. And what little civillians had, was confiscated during WW2, mostly for good reason. It's obvious no one is going to change your mind anyway, so I'm not going to waste any more of my time with you.

And Imitora, what do you mean 'secondary usage'? I know you didn't just buy that nice Rock River Tactical for IDPA. I'd call the target practice an entertaining diversion from the primary usage.

Actually, your right. The secondary usage is really just fun shooting. To me, great stress relief and just fun is going out to the range and laying waste to those paper terrorist bastards hanging down range. As much as I love knowing I can shoot off a two shot group...its still great fun to empty a bunch of rounds into the target at once. I just love to shoot, regardless of what I'm shooting.

The primary usage for the RRA is self defense, and really, if I need to shoot something with a fairly accurate double tap with a .45 ACP round (specific carry round and holster to be determined this weekend!), and it still doesn't go down, I think I might be just a tad bit under armed. I totally understand why they go for the five shot group, and agree with it over all. But a five shot group in self defense might not be well recieved by a jury pannel. At least not as well received as a two shot, although I know most jurries in our country would love to let a serial rapist go free and convict someone trying to defend themselves. *Sigh*

Oh, and if ya ever wanna get rid of the Browning Buckmark...give me a holler.

In other words, you did say that population density is related to the crime rate. The part about Yakuza was an aside, yes I am very aware that it is a small percentage. However it does exist. I find it funny how you compare garbage to guns. I was referring to crime. Anyway back to the topic, just about every large metropolitan area in the world with gun bans, and all of that BS, there is a relatively high crime rate (with the exception of Japan of course). You look at australia, UK, phillipines, mexico, Russia, etc. The only reason Japan does not have an issue is because they didn't have firearms to begin with. And what little civillians had, was confiscated during WW2, mostly for good reason. It's obvious no one is going to change your mind anyway, so I'm not going to waste any more of my time with you.

Heh, this makes me think of a couple people who came in to use the pistol range where I work a while back. There was a Japanese-american guy and he had a couple of relatives visiting from Japan, so he decided to take them to do something they could never do back home - shoot pistols. This guy has been in my shop numerous times, and he has a decent collection he brought to let his friends try out, including a big .44 magnum S&W revolver, which seemed to be the favorite of the bunch. Watching them shoot was hilarious, though he had obviously coached them well beforehand as everyone was very careful and safe. Everyone came out of the range with a big grin on their face, I have no idea what they were saying but it seemed to be pretty happy, the big suprise was that the best shooter in the group was a little old lady I assumed to be his grandmother, she couldn't have weighed more than 100 pounds and the guns, especially the .44 really pushed her back, but she was able to shoot pretty well, keeping most of the shots within the black.

Anyways, i suppose there was some kind of point to my rambling... oh yeah, these people, who had been denied gun rights their whole lives, took more joy in shooting than just about anyone else I have ever seen. I don't know what kind of point that is, but there it is.

Actually, your right. The secondary usage is really just fun shooting. To me, great stress relief and just fun is going out to the range and laying waste to those paper terrorist bastards hanging down range. As much as I love knowing I can shoot off a two shot group...its still great fun to empty a bunch of rounds into the target at once. I just love to shoot, regardless of what I'm shooting.

The primary usage for the RRA is self defense, and really, if I need to shoot something with a fairly accurate double tap with a .45 ACP round (specific carry round and holster to be determined this weekend!), and it still doesn't go down, I think I might be just a tad bit under armed. I totally understand why they go for the five shot group, and agree with it over all. But a five shot group in self defense might not be well received by a jury panel. At least not as well received as a two shot, although I know most juries in our country would love to let a serial rapist go free and convict someone trying to defend themselves. *Sigh*

Oh, and if ya ever wanna get rid of the Browning Buckmark...give me a holler.

OOC: Unless you're shooting a nine, or something else of that nature. I don't carry the Glocks anymore, since there have been some rulings in a few courts that the triggers are too light (Bah!), and mine have been lightened even further. My usual is the P220, and I'd like one with the DAK trigger (smooth as silk). I'm looking at the P220 Carry model or the SAS variation. Those things feel like a bar of soap, and shoot just as clean.

The forty-five is an excellent stopper, but it's not 100% reliable. I've read an interesting article in 'Combat Handguns' which was about a cop trying to apprehend a real hoss of a young man who was trying to beat him to death bare-handed. The officer shot him once in the abdomen with his Glock 22 (.40 S&W, a decent stopper when used in a hollow-point), and he kept coming, knocking the officer down. A legally armed citizen with a forty-five ended up shooting the guy four times in the chest with no effect, before shooting him in the head and killing him.

In short, as long as you can justify shooting the guy more than twice, you should be fine. If you do get into trouble, I'd contact Massad Ayoob. Hell, I'd attend his school if I were you. Lethal Force International or something like that. The guy can shoot, let me tell you. Three rounds out of a SIG P220 in under a second, all grouped tightly in the upper chest in one big hole. One handed. That's impressive. He's some sort of self-defense guru, and has provided expert testimony on several cases of that nature. The magazine 'Combat Handguns' is an excellent place to read up on that stuff, as is 'American Handgunner'. The others typically pirate articles from those two. There's also a custom version of 'Combat Handguns' as well. The last one had a nice article on the Caspian Recon kit, and a custom XD45 Tactical.

I don't think I'll ever sell that Buckmark, it's just too damn fun to shoot. I'd like to get a fifty-round magazine for it, but I don't know who makes one, and I don't have any expertise in making magazines, just mods to weapons.

I'll just pass on the advice given by some old combat vets who used the .45 Colt M1911...

Aim for the waist, the bullet will hit bone, transfer maximum KE to the target, and most likely put at least one leg out of action... And a few .45 fragments are bound to hit the femoral artery...

Might be a bit too lethal though...

Still, if that fails, aim for the head...

Shoulder blade/head if he is drawing a gun... Will hit lung, bone, arm, and perhaps the heart...

RZ: I have had the chance/necessity to shoot quite a few hostiles with the .45, in line combat. A bullet ONLY transfers momentum to the target while it is IN the carcass. If you use GI Ball ammo, what happens, unless you hit a bone, is that you get a little exit wound on the backside and the bullet goes happily down range. I have put a 5 or 6 round burst into a running VC and had him fall toward me!!!!
Then I remembered my cavalry sgt grandfather's advice and shot for bone. There's enough bone and sensetive stuff below the belt to bring them down. The old man's exact words were
"Shoot for the joint between man and mount, bound to hit something sensetive. What you want to do is put him out of the soldiering business."

In other words, you did say that population density is related to the crime rate. The part about Yakuza was an aside, yes I am very aware that it is a small percentage. However it does exist. I find it funny how you compare garbage to guns. I was referring to crime. Anyway back to the topic, just about every large metropolitan area in the world with gun bans, and all of that BS, there is a relatively high crime rate (with the exception of Japan of course). You look at australia, UK, phillipines, mexico, Russia, etc. The only reason Japan does not have an issue is because they didn't have firearms to begin with. And what little civillians had, was confiscated during WW2, mostly for good reason. It's obvious no one is going to change your mind anyway, so I'm not going to waste any more of my time with you.

*sigh*
Again, for the alphabetically challenged : No, I did not say that, nor did I imply it in the least.
What I said was that areas with high population density need different strategies in coping with crime than areas with low population density.

You were the one pulling up the comparison between crime and garbage in the first place.

I'm NOT saying that less guns equal less crime, I'm saying it is very much a cultural and social thing. Some societies are better off without guns (see Japan) and others would most likely collapse without guns (see US).

It's not hard to grasp at all, it's just wrong. You need to do your research before making random accusations upon which you have no knowledge. The US crime rate is no where near that high. With this source the math is already done for you.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/fsbr/crime.html

Given that these stats are split out by type of crime, they would require a lot more maths to come up with the overall number of crimes per 1000 people. Can you please point out how that statistics I quoted were wrong?


If you want to know how England's crime rate is so high, because of their rediculous gun laws, this is how I know. The man who owns the facility in the link below is an Ex-British SBS operator who now runs a gun range in Mingus, Texas (near where I live). He trains law enforcement, civilians, and military including Delta Force, Rangers, etc. I have qualified in numerous classes of his. (Gun owners in Texas, this is an excellent training facility for personal defense, including concealed carry). He is very pessimistic about the UKs gun laws. He has very good reason too, even though it's not posted on the website.
http://www.tacproshootingcenter.com/

The UK only banned handguns, a ban that affected less than 1% of the population when it became active. Can you please explain to me how that could possibly cause crime to increase noticably? The UK has by no means the strictest gun laws in Europe, even after this new ban.

I think you'd love to see a direct correlation between guns and crime rate that simply doesn't exist. There is a definite correlation, but it involves a lot more factors than simple numbers of guns.

No I was referring to how rediculous Cabra West's argument was.

I never made that argument.
I think I should poit out that you're starting to make yourself look rather inept by now...

"Resort to them?"

I have about a dozen firearms. I only "resort" to them;


To punch holes in tin cans, melons and bowling pins,
To invest in hoping for appreciation,
To share in history,
To admire as art.
To admire as technology.


Why shouldn't I "resort" to them?

Before attempting to jump down my throat, did you read the part where I stated I wasn't opposed to ownership? The most commonly cited arguments for ownership of firearms are self defence related. Put simply, my personal opinion is that something is wrong with a society that requires everyone to take their security into their own hands. If you want your weapon for sport or a penis enhancement or something however, to be honest, I don't really care.

No, unopposed, New Zealand.

<snippy>

Anyways, i suppose there was some kind of point to my rambling... oh yeah, these people, who had been denied gun rights their whole lives, took more joy in shooting than just about anyone else I have ever seen. I don't know what kind of point that is, but there it is.

*lol
I can understand their excitement. It is something out of the ordinary for them, after all.

I would like to point out one little thing, though :
It's not a right they're being denied. If they wanted it, they could lobby for it, and if the majority wanted it in the country, they could grant themselves the right and change legislation. It's called "democratic process".
The fact that there is no right to own guns in most Western democracies is simply due to the fact that no large percentage of the population has requested that right. Legislation is nothing static, it changes with the needs and requirements of society.
Voting ages getting lowered, pot becoming legal, abortions becoming legal, gay marriages becoming legal, advertising for tobacco being outlawed, age of consent laws being introduced, ect. are just examples of how legislation changed in different countries in the past couple years. It will go on changing and reflect what the society in each country wants and needs. The fact that very few countries have liberal gun legislation and are not about to make them any more liberal, on the contrary, reflects what society wants. Nothing more, nothing less.

Of course it might be exciting to be able to shoot a gun when you're abroad in a country that allows that. People do a lot of things on holiday they wouldn't want to be done at home.

So, I've got a question for all the NS'ers that have experience with 1911's. I'm looking to purchase a 1911 style pistol this year, and I'm wondering what would make a good first model for me. I've never shot one, and the only experience I have with pistols is from when I took the NRA pistol course.

So, I've got a question for all the NS'ers that have experience with 1911's. I'm looking to purchase a 1911 style pistol this year, and I'm wondering what would make a good first model for me. I've never shot one, and the only experience I have with pistols is from when I took the NRA pistol course.

Springfield Armory Mil-Spec.

Once you can shoot it well, you can upgrade to one of the finer models.

In all honesty, I'd go for a nice 9mm before moving up to a .45. The classic Browning High-Power is a good learner's gun; it's the one I learned to shoot on.

Before attempting to jump down my throat, did you read the part where I stated I wasn't opposed to ownership?

Yes, I did.

You then obviated that sentiment by your editorial use of the word, "resort."

Put simply, my personal opinion is that something is wrong with a society that requires everyone to take their security into their own hands.

Then, in whose hands should one's security be put?

If you want your weapon for sport or a penis enhancement or something however, to be honest, I don't really care.

What is the fascination with the anti-gun crowd to connect sex to firearms? Some sort of lack?

Bear in mind, sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.

So, I've got a question for all the NS'ers that have experience with 1911's. I'm looking to purchase a 1911 style pistol this year, and I'm wondering what would make a good first model for me. I've never shot one, and the only experience I have with pistols is from when I took the NRA pistol course.

I have carried a Colt 1911 Officers Model, 4 inch barell as my primary carry weapon for the last 20 years. It is a nice quality gun, and can be easily upgraged. However, you can also get a Glock 21 in .45 apc with 13 round magazine. I have had one for 4 years now and I love it.

Whichever you go with, just practice, practice, practice.

Vic

Yes, I did.

You then obviated that sentiment by your editorial use of the word, "resort."

I clarified that I was referring to the ownership of firearms for security purposes. I then said I don't care what else you want them for.

Then, in whose hands should one's security be put?

One would hope in our present reality that it would be the police. Yes, i've heard all of the arguments about police taking time to get there whilst someone ties up your family and does other unspeakable things, which is where I suspect you were trying to trap me...

But see, that isn't my argument anyway. Preferably the society would be such that I can comfortably sleep without a gun under my pillow. Fortunately for me, I currently live in such a society. I understand, however, that some in the US do not feel they have this luxury. Not my concern, unfortunately.

What is the fascination with the anti-gun crowd to connect sex to firearms? Some sort of lack?

Bear in mind, sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.

I said i'm not anti-gun. I said I don't care what you do with your weapons, really. If you want them to mount on the wall as a showpiece, if you're in a rural area and need to protect yourself from wildlife, or to shoot at squirrels and tin cans, I don't care. Really.

Friday I purchased a sig p228, I am deeply in love with it.

"It's not a right they're being denied. If they wanted it, they could lobby for it, and if the majority wanted it in the country, they could grant themselves the right and change legislation. It's called "democratic process"."---Cabra West

not being denied? so the people in english jails for exercising their rights are all make-believe???? the majority has nothing to do with it. even if only one in a thousand people care....it is still their RIGHT....and the other hundreds of people would be wrong to prevent the exercise of that right.

Just out of curiosity, as the mere ownership of firearms is contoversial here in NSG, who owns firearms, of what sort, and, for comparitive purposes, what's your nationality?

In my time, I've owned:


5-10 Rifles (Bolt-Action and not)
5 Pistols (Revolvers and .45s)
One Automatic (If you can truly call an SKS an Automatic....)

Penn and Teller's Bullshit! has a really good episode on Gun Control.

Friday I purchased a sig p228, I am deeply in love with it.

Beautiful weapon. Good Choice.

Friday I purchased a sig p228, I am deeply in love with it.

One of the 9mm pistols I fired during the NRA pistol course I took, was a Sig (can't remember the model number, though). While it didn't feel as nice in my hand as the Beretta 92F, I did better with the Sig (3 hits on the target, versus 2 with the Beretta).

Anyway, I hope it proivides you with years of faithful service. :)

I cannot believe U.S. citizens are opposed to owning guns, it's a completely ridiculous and ignorant stance to have.

Many people who are against guns use arguments that more guns = more crime, which is wrong. Say you are a criminal, and you want to mug someone, you have gotten some guns off a black market, you live in a country where guns are completely outlawed, basically, you can mug or attack anyone you want and get away with it. Now say you are the same criminal, looking to achieve the same ends, but you live in a country where everyone has a handgun... hmm...

But beside that flimsy and irrational argument, the issue is on a completely different scale than that of crime, why do you think that people were given the right to keep and bear arms? When the constitution was formed, no other country on earth trusted their citizens with weapons, because they were afraid of a revolution, so why is it, that 300 years later, some people are against gun ownership?

Simply stated, the amendment that protects the citizen's right to keep and bear arms is one of, if not the most important amendment, as it insures all the others are enforced, because at the end of the day, you only have the rights you are willing to fight for.

"It's not a right they're being denied. If they wanted it, they could lobby for it, and if the majority wanted it in the country, they could grant themselves the right and change legislation. It's called "democratic process"."---Cabra West

not being denied? so the people in english jails for exercising their rights are all make-believe???? the majority has nothing to do with it. even if only one in a thousand people care....it is still their RIGHT....and the other hundreds of people would be wrong to prevent the exercise of that right.

You seriously believe there are people in jail in Britain for legal gun possesion???
And, yes, it is perfectly possible to own a gun legally in Britain.
Only, no, it is not a right. You see, a right is something granted and defended by law. As there is no law in Britain stating a right to own guns, no matter what your history, no matter what your circumstance, no matter what the condition of your mental health, gun ownership is no right there.

You see, German citizens have the right to drive as fast as they like on their highways, you can drive at 200 km/h if you like. It's a right that German citizens demanded and fought for.
Citizens of the USA don't have that right. Are they being denied the right to drive as fast as they like? I wouldn't say so. If they wanted to, they could have their legislation changed and grant themselves that right. Apparently, they don't feel the need to do so.

I think there is one thing people are forgetting, human beings are inherently fragile. It is very easy to bring harm to a person. For thousands of years people have been killing people with out the use of firearms. It’s just as easy to commit murder with a sword or knife, or for that mater more mundane items like a telephone book (Like the Phoenix telephone book witch is three or four volumes and each weighs a good pound) or a roofing hammer. Crime won’t stop because firearms are banned, criminals will seek resources to acquire the tools they need be it the black-market or a hardware store.

So, I've got a question for all the NS'ers that have experience with 1911's. I'm looking to purchase a 1911 style pistol this year, and I'm wondering what would make a good first model for me. I've never shot one, and the only experience I have with pistols is from when I took the NRA pistol course.

If you are really just getting started on 1911s, you have to be careful. You can spend a ton of money on 'em, and if you drop the cash and don't like it, thats always bad java. My first 1911 was a Kimber, but I had shot tons of 1911s before hand to make sure I really liked it. I would recomend that, and if you want to purchase one but stay cheap, head over to gunbroker and pick up one of the Rock Island Armory 1911s, you can get one for low 300s. If you like it, you can get it all smithed up with the match triggers and throated barrels and ambi safty and special goodies, or just sling it back out for just a bit less than you bought it, and pick up another thats a bit more.

I've owned a Kimber and the current RRA. I love the RRA, and the Kimber was nice, but I just like the RRA better, personnel pref and all. I also really like the Springfield numbers, and a good mid price one that has mostof the good stuff already done is Charles Daly. I've also heard good things bout the Taurus and Sig 1911s, but never shot one. However, after shooting a few different Sigs, if its anything like their P line, its a good gun. My next handgun purchase is either gonna be a Springfield XD or a P226, still havent decided on which.

If you are really just getting started on 1911s, you have to be careful. You can spend a ton of money on 'em, and if you drop the cash and don't like it, thats always bad java. My first 1911 was a Kimber, but I had shot tons of 1911s before hand to make sure I really liked it. I would recomend that, and if you want to purchase one but stay cheap, head over to gunbroker and pick up one of the Rock Island Armory 1911s, you can get one for low 300s. If you like it, you can get it all smithed up with the match triggers and throated barrels and ambi safty and special goodies, or just sling it back out for just a bit less than you bought it, and pick up another thats a bit more.

I've owned a Kimber and the current RRA. I love the RRA, and the Kimber was nice, but I just like the RRA better, personnel pref and all. I also really like the Springfield numbers, and a good mid price one that has mostof the good stuff already done is Charles Daly. I've also heard good things bout the Taurus and Sig 1911s, but never shot one. However, after shooting a few different Sigs, if its anything like their P line, its a good gun. My next handgun purchase is either gonna be a Springfield XD or a P226, still havent decided on which.


I considered getting the Rock Island Armory 1911, but I hear that they can have significant QC issues. Have you heard anything like that, in regards to the RIA brand?

Also, if I go through GunBroker, I'll have to pay a transfer fee at my local FFL (IIRC, he charges $20-$30 for a transfer), as I can't get the firearm sent directly to me from the GunBroker site.

I considered getting the Rock Island Armory 1911, but I hear that they can have significant QC issues. Have you heard anything like that, in regards to the RIA brand?

Also, if I go through GunBroker, I'll have to pay a transfer fee at my local FFL (IIRC, he charges $20-$30 for a transfer), as I can't get the firearm sent directly to me from the GunBroker site.

RIA 1911s are crap.

Get a S&W 1911 (They're supposed to be good), Kimber, or Colt.

Or, knowing you, build a 45 cal ar15 pistol.

I'm just gonna say I got a case of greek ammo and a new M1 from the government for a few bucks and some change.

Personaly if you want a 1911 soot one first. If ther is an indoor range near you see if they rent firearms to use on thier range or if you know anybody that owns one ask to go shooting with them so you can try it out. As with any potential firearms perchase know what your buying, if your not confortable with a firearm don't buy it till you know more about it. I have a Springfield 1911A1 and for a wile had a sistema colt. Both are very good 1911's and never take someone elses word when it comes to firearms unless you know them pesonaly. Just becase someone tell you this or that is a good buy dosen't mean it is. I once ad a gun shop try and sell me a 1911 copy from some company I hadn't heard of and clamed it was twice the 1911 of any colt or springfield, and he was right in one respect twice the price. Bottom line buy what you feel confortable with.

One would hope in our present reality that it would be the police. Yes, i've heard all of the arguments about police taking time to get there whilst someone ties up your family and does other unspeakable things, which is where I suspect you were trying to trap me...

Valid points with a basis in fact. But, no.

I will trap you with the additional fact that the police are not bound to protect anyone. They can only respond after the fact, not before.

If your significant other goes off the deep end and says that you will be dead by morning, the cops are not bound to come protect you from the threat.

Cops enforce the law, they do not provide security.

But see, that isn't my argument anyway. Preferably the society would be such that I can comfortably sleep without a gun under my pillow. Fortunately for me, I currently live in such a society.

Then, we live in similar societies.

I own about a dozen firearms and add to them when I can afford to. But, not a one is under my pillow. And, I sleep quite comfortably at night.

I understand, however, that some in the US do not feel they have this luxury. Not my concern, unfortunately.

Neither is it mine.
Neither is it the police's.
Neither is it the government's.

I said i'm not anti-gun.

That may be what you said, but your actual words do not lend such a claim much in the way of support.

I said I don't care what you do with your weapons, really. If you want them to mount on the wall as a showpiece, if you're in a rural area and need to protect yourself from wildlife, or to shoot at squirrels and tin cans, I don't care. Really.

Then, why make such a post? Obviously, you do care at some level, since you took the time to post and to post again in reinforcement.

Only, no, it is not a right.

Yes, it is. In Britain, it is a right denied.

You see, a right is something granted and defended by law.

No, it's not.

As there is no law in Britain stating a right to own guns, no matter what your history, no matter what your circumstance, no matter what the condition of your mental health, gun ownership is no right there.

It is a right denied.

You see, German citizens have the right to drive as fast as they like on their highways, you can drive at 200 km/h if you like. It's a right that German citizens demanded and fought for.

No, it is not a right. It is a privilege granted by the Geman government; the owner of the autobahns.

Citizens of the USA don't have that right.

Certainly, they do. But, we are not allowed by the government to exercise that right at all times on the public roads. Some governments allow it, such as Montana, most others do not.

But, if you are on private property, you can drive as fast as you like. Because it is a right. A right to use one's property as one sees fit.

If they wanted to, they could have their legislation changed and grant themselves that right.

No government can grant rights. A government can protect them or a government can deny them, but it cannot grant them.

Valid points with a basis in fact. But, no.

I will trap you with the additional fact that the police are not bound to protect anyone. They can only respond after the fact, not before.

If your significant other goes off the deep end and says that you will be dead by morning, the cops are not bound to come protect you from the threat.

Cops enforce the law, they do not provide security.


Ok, that must be a specific to the US, then.
Gardai here are bound to protect the population and to enforce the law, they don't have to wait for a crime to be committed before they can act.

Ok, that must be a specific to the US, then.
Gardai here are bound to protect the population and to enforce the law, they don't have to wait for a crime to be committed before they can act.

In the US:

Police cannot protect and are not legally liable for failing to protect individual citizens.

See Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Dept.,444 A.2d 1(D.C. App. 1981), the courts stated: "Courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community"

In this case, women were raped, called for the police, waited, the rapists came back and raped them again, called the police, waited, the rapists came back and raped them again...

Yes, it is. In Britain, it is a right denied.

No, it's not.

It is a right denied.

Ok, then, who, in you opinion, defines what is a right and what isn't?


No, it is not a right. It is a privilege granted by the Geman government; the owner of the autobahns.

Incorrect. They are owned by the German public, not the government.

No government can grant rights. A government can protect them or a government can deny them, but it cannot grant them.

According to that logic, my government denies me the right to kill off anyone I like.... :rolleyes:

Ok, that must be a specific to the US, then.

As Eve Online showed, it is, indeed, specific to the US.

Gardai here are bound to protect the population and to enforce the law, they don't have to wait for a crime to be committed before they can act.

How can they "act" before a crime is committed? Do they arrest based upon potential? Who decides the threshold of that potential?

"I'm sorry, sir, but we think you 'might' commit a crime, so we're arresting you. Oh, you're a critic of the current government? We had no idea - you're under arrest."

In the US:

Police cannot protect and are not legally liable for failing to protect individual citizens.

See Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Dept.,444 A.2d 1(D.C. App. 1981), the courts stated: "Courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community"

In this case, women were raped, called for the police, waited, the rapists came back and raped them again, called the police, waited, the rapists came back and raped them again...

Ok, another point to add to the list of cultural/legal differences. The police in European countries are first and foremost seen as protectors and guardians, as expressed by their Irish name Garda Síochána, guardians of the peace.

How can they "act" before a crime is committed? Do they arrest based upon potential? Who decides the threshold of that potential?

"I'm sorry, sir, but we think you 'might' commit a crime, so we're arresting you. Oh, you're a critic of the current government? We had no idea - you're under arrest."

Is arresting people the only action US police are capable of?
I would think that in the case quoted a simple presence of police would have sufficed as deterrant.

Ok, then, who, in you opinion, defines what is a right and what isn't?

I go with Locke's definition.

Bottomline, God.

Incorrect. They are owned by the German public, not the government.

Semantics.

Still, publically owned.

According to that logic, my government denies me the right to kill off anyone I like....

You do not have that right. So, no, it does not.

Ok, another point to add to the list of cultural/legal differences. The police in European countries are first and foremost seen as protectors and guardians, as expressed by their Irish name Garda Síochána, guardians of the peace.

I'd rather not live in Minority Report, thank you, where there's a bureau of Pre-Crime.

I go with Locke's definition.

Bottomline, God.


So only religious people have rights according to you?


Semantics.

Still, publically owned.

Correct. And I'm part of the public.


You do not have that right. So, no, it does not.

Well, here you don't have the right to own a gun. So no, nobody is denying you anything.

I'd rather not live in Minority Report, thank you, where there's a bureau of Pre-Crime.

Huh???
What does crime prevention have to do with that?
Again, police work here constitutes a lot more than simply arresting and punishing people. That only happens after a crime has been comitted.
I'd rather live in a society that believes that it's better to prevent crime than to punish.

Is arresting people the only action US police are capable of?

Capability does not equate to duty or responsibility.

How else does one enforce the law, aside from arresting? What other acts equate to "enforce?"

I would think that in the case quoted a simple presence of police would have sufficed as deterrant.

Perhaps. But, only until the police left. The South Central LA riots come to mind when the LAPD split.

Cabra, there's a thing called "probable cause" here in the US. If the police don't have "probable cause" that you are involved in something criminal (and the magistrate holds them to a set standard), then the police don't even have the right to ask you your name, let alone arrest you or conduct surveillance (unless you happen to be on public property - then they can watch you).

So, if I'm a careful criminal, it takes quite a bit of time, and some carelessness on my part, to have the police get to a point where they can search my house. Perhaps decades. Perhaps never.

I'm American and own 3 firearms for the time being. I'm planning on getting more though. I own:

Remington model 700 .270WIN (Hunting Rifle)
Mossberg model 4531 .22 Long Rifle (Varmit Rifle)
Springfield 1911 .45 (Pistol)

There are many differences between America and the rest of the world. Which is why gun ownership, or the lack thereof, might work just fine in Ireland or Japan but not over here. Besides the cultural reasons, there is tradition and history as well. My mother and father learned to shoot and hunt from their parents and so on. When I was 8 my dad gave me my first rifle and took my hunting and I plan to continue that tradition.

I think before people, especially those who don't live in the U.S., can judge us some research should be done into just how effective owning a firearm can be as a crime deturent. As I'm guessing that is the overall beef with ownership of a gun, that it will be used in a crime if you let someone have it easily, or have one at all. That arguement though is like saying "Flies cause garbage"

Hopefully firearm ownership becomes something that people do as more of a hobby than an actual need to defend themselves but it's my personal belief that as America has adapted a more liberal stance on society and crime, crime has become more prevalent. Again I assume this because what works in Europe, doesn't promise it will work in Mexico or South Africa or, in this case, America. Just my 2 cents though.

So only religious people have rights according to you?

Did I say that?

Correct. And I'm part of the public.

Yet, you have no ownership claims to any publically held property.

Well, here you don't have the right to own a gun.

Yes, you do have the right.

So no, nobody is denying you anything.

The right to own a piece or property is denied because of the arbitrary decisions of another.

Is your claim that, because your government does not give you the right "X," then you have no right, "X?"

Capability does not equate to duty or responsibility.

How else does one enforce the law, aside from arresting? What other acts equate to "enforce?"


I'm not talking about law enforcement. That happens after a crime has been commited.
I was talking about preventing crime, which does not equate enforcing anything yet. It just means using police to stop crimes from happening in the first place, without infringing on the rights of any citizen.


Perhaps. But, only until the police left. The South Central LA riots come to mind when the LAPD split.

I'm not an expert on police work, but that seems to be rather inefficient.
In the case stated, police in Europe would have reacted to the first phone call by getting to the crime scene, taking evidence and witness accounts, then most likely advising the women in question to not stay at home but either spend the night at a friend's/relative's place, or, if the victim had no friends or relatives living close by, offering assistance in finding a place to stay for the night. If the victim would refuse to leave her house, they would make sure to patrol the area frequently for the night.
They would also provide the victim with contact numbers for several institutions that provide help and assistance for rape vicitms and would in the morning get her in touch with the prosecutor who will take up her case.

I'm not talking about law enforcement. That happens after a crime has been commited.

Here in the States, the police may not be involved until the crime has been committed.

I was talking about preventing crime, which does not equate enforcing anything yet. It just means using police to stop crimes from happening in the first place, without infringing on the rights of any citizen.

And, how is this accomplished? How do the police know a crime is to occur? How do they know who to stop? How can they know these things about Bob, without tromping on the rights of Tom?

I'm not an expert on police work, but that seems to be rather inefficient.
In the case stated, police in Europe would have reacted to the first phone call by getting to the crime scene...

I suggest that you do a search on "LA riots rodney king" to see just what it is I'm talking about. I suspect that you don't know.

Did I say that?

I asked you who defines what a right is. You replied, god. As I don't believe in god, no rights are defined for me that way, ergo I have no rights according to your interpretation.


Yes, you do have the right.

I do not have the right. Please show me any legal document that grants me the undisputed right to own a firearm in Ireland.


The right to own a piece or property is denied because of the arbitrary decisions of another.

Is your claim that, because your government does not give you the right "X," then you have no right, "X?"

No, I have been asking you repeatedly how you define a right if not through legislation.
The law here says I don't have the right to own a firearm.
The law here also says I'm not allowed to kill someone.
So, if you claim I still do have the right to own a gun, I suggest I also have the right to kill whoever I like.

Here in the States, the police may not be involved until the crime has been committed.

I'm on the point of despair now.... did you read any of my previous posts???
I know that police in the US only enforce the law. I know! I was simply pointing out that police in Europe have a more integrated role than that, and are also responisble for protecting people at risk to fall victim to crime.


And, how is this accomplished? How do the police know a crime is to occur? How do they know who to stop? How can they know these things about Bob, without tromping on the rights of Tom?

They don't know. They show presence, and they will react if someone expresses concern that he might become victim. They don't react by arresting anyone, but by providing protection for the potential victim.


I suggest that you do a search on "LA riots rodney king" to see just what it is I'm talking about. I suspect that you don't know.

I don't, that's why I went with the example of a rape that was given earlier on in the thread.

I have three rifles for hunting (Canadian). What kind? The kind that go bang...I'm not in love with my hunting implements.

I own a 30-06 bolt action rifle (Remington 700, if you must know). I would own a couple more, but I'm only 18. ;)

I'm on the point of despair now.... did you read any of my previous posts???

I read them. I was restating my point.

They don't know. They show presence, and they will react if someone expresses concern that he might become victim. They don't react by arresting anyone, but by providing protection for the potential victim.

So, the police are one's personal bodyguard?

I don't, that's why I went with the example of a rape that was given earlier on in the thread.

The police, when confronted with the massive unrest caused by the verdict given the police officers in the Rodney King trial, left South Central Los Angeles to the mob.

South Central burned and the mob looted and assaulted. Try looking up Reginald Denny sometime.

But, some places weren't looted. Mainly the Korean shops where the Korean owners made use of our Second Amendment and armed themselves. The police refused to respond to their calls and they protected their property with their own tools and successfully so.

The police chose to leave South Central to its own demise and left the area. They didn't amswer 911 calls, they didn't provide protection to firemen who did go into South Central to do their duty.

So, the police can't be depended upon at all times.

So, the police are one's personal bodyguard?

If they deem the danger to the potential victim grave enough, yes, they can be.


The police, when confronted with the massive unrest caused by the verdict given the police officers in the Rodney King trial, left South Central Los Angeles to the mob.

South Central burned and the mob looted and assaulted. Try looking up Reginald Denny sometime.

But, some places weren't looted. Mainly the Korean shops where the Korean owners made use of our Second Amendment and armed themselves. The police refused to respond to their calls and they protected their property with their own tools and successfully so.

The police chose to leave South Central to its own demise and left the area. They didn't amswer 911 calls, they didn't provide protection to firemen who did go into South Central to do their duty.

So, the police can't be depended upon at all times.

You gave that example earlier on.
In combination with the rape example quoted earlier, I would say the US police are simply not cut out to protect anyone.

RIA 1911s are crap.

Get a S&W 1911 (They're supposed to be good), Kimber, or Colt.

Or, knowing you, build a 45 cal ar15 pistol.

There's too much hassle in CT to have an AR pistol (it is possible, but the state AWB makes it difficult).

In combination with the rape example quoted earlier, I would say the US police are simply not cut out to protect anyone.

Think of it this way.

It is logistically impossible for the police to provide a bodyguard to everyone.

Given that, someone will be walking alone somewhere, and be vulnerable to attack.

Depending on how many police you have (i.e., do you want a police state), it takes time for police to respond to a call for help. They can't patrol everywhere. Average response time for police in the US is longer than the response time for having a pizza delivered.

So, between the time the criminal allows you to call the police on your cell phone, and the time the police show up, what do you tell the criminal? Hang on, and the police will be right with you?

According to that logic, my government denies me the right to kill off anyone I like.... :rolleyes:

Sorry, but your rights end where another person's rights begin.

Also, Gonzales v. Castle Rock. Ms. Gonzales had a protective order against her ex, who proceeded to kidnap their kids, kill them, and commit suicide by cop. She sued the city for failing to enforce the protective order, and the court ruled the city had no obligation to protect any individual.

Think of it this way.

It is logistically impossible for the police to provide a bodyguard to everyone.

Given that, someone will be walking alone somewhere, and be vulnerable to attack.

Depending on how many police you have (i.e., do you want a police state), it takes time for police to respond to a call for help. They can't patrol everywhere. Average response time for police in the US is longer than the response time for having a pizza delivered.

So, between the time the criminal allows you to call the police on your cell phone, and the time the police show up, what do you tell the criminal? Hang on, and the police will be right with you?

Again, you're talking about US police. I don't know much about US legislation, nor about the role of the police there.
Yes, there will always be crime. There is no way to prevent all crime from happening, unless you put every single human being on the planet in solitary confinment for the rest of their lives.
And I can't give you the perfect explanation why European countries have a drastically lower crime rate than the US. If I had the answer, I'd cash in my Nobel Price for Peace award right now.

All I can do is point out the differences between the societies that might have some influence on the crime statistics.
Personally, I don't think that firearm ownership is a reason for the high crime level in the US, but I do think that the regulations on firearm ownership (weapon owership on the whole, actually), are a reason why crime doesn't escalate in Europe. I know, it sounds contradictory, but bear with me for a sec:
Firearm ownership in the US has a long tradition. Protection is regarded as being up to the individual, and not partly individual with police/government/public services assistance. Criminals on the whole are more likely to be armed, and so are regular citizens. There is, I believe, a sort of balance there that allows for more violence to occur, but that does, on the whole, seem to work and also seems to reflect what the public wants.
Take away the guns from one side and you'll tip the balance.
Correct me if that perception is wrong, please.

Now, if you look at Europe there is no such tradition. Civilians (with the exception of Switzerland) don't own guns. Comparatively few criminals own guns. In some countries, regular police don't carry guns.
If you liberalise the gun laws, what do you think will happen? Which group will be the first to arm itself?
My guess (and that of the majority of Europeans) is that the criminals will be the first to benefit from such laws, as they will be the ones who will most direct benefit from owning guns. Private citizens will, after a period of shock, also start to arm themselves.
After a while, we might end up with the same balance the US has right now - which involves more violence than the balance Europe currently has.
I hope you can understand that this situation doesn't hold much appeal to most Europeans....

Sorry, but your rights end where another person's rights begin.

I know. That's the basis of the law I live under.

Also, Gonzales v. Castle Rock. Ms. Gonzales had a protective order against her ex, who proceeded to kidnap their kids, kill them, and commit suicide by cop. She sued the city for failing to enforce the protective order, and the court ruled the city had no obligation to protect any individual.

Not just that, but that they didn't have a duty to enforce RO's even if the law required them to.

All I can do is point out the differences between the societies that might have some influence on the crime statistics.
Personally, I don't think that firearm ownership is a reason for the high crime level in the US, but I do think that the regulations on firearm ownership (weapon owership on the whole, actually), are a reason why crime doesn't escalate in Europe. I know, it sounds contradictory, but bear with me for a sec:
Firearm ownership in the US has a long tradition. Protection is regarded as being up to the individual, and not partly individual with police/government/public services assistance. Criminals on the whole are more likely to be armed, and so are regular citizens. There is, I believe, a sort of balance there that allows for more violence to occur, but that does, on the whole, seem to work and also seems to reflect what the public wants.
Take away the guns from one side and you'll tip the balance.
Correct me if that perception is wrong, please.

Now, if you look at Europe there is no such tradition. Civilians (with the exception of Switzerland) don't own guns. Comparatively few criminals own guns. In some countries, regular police don't carry guns.
If you liberalise the gun laws, what do you think will happen? Which group will be the first to arm itself?
My guess (and that of the majority of Europeans) is that the criminals will be the first to benefit from such laws, as they will be the ones who will most direct benefit from owning guns. Private citizens will, after a period of shock, also start to arm themselves.
After a while, we might end up with the same balance the US has right now - which involves more violence than the balance Europe currently has.
I hope you can understand that this situation doesn't hold much appeal to most Europeans....

Oh, I'm not arguing with you there. International research has shown NO connection between firearm ownership and rates of violent crime on a consistent basis across nations. There isn't even an association between suicide and firearm ownership across nations.

Cultures and laws differ. People, whether people want to admit it or not, ARE DIFFERENT in different countries.

Here's something else we noticed in the US:

1. Only a handful of fully-automatic weapons (read as "machineguns") that are legally owned in the US (as registered with the ATF) have EVER been used in the commission of a crime.
2. This means that the vast majority of machineguns that have EVER been used in the commission of a crime were either modified from an existing firearm, or illegally imported.
3. Drug smugglers routinely ship tons of drugs into the US without major problems. Drugs costing billions. How much trouble do you think a submachinegun worth a few hundred dollars in Columbia is going to be?

I'm from the United States and I've got...umm...more than six.

I don't own a gun and I don't intend to own a gun, unless decide to commit suicide. I must say, gunshot is still one of the best ways to off yourself.

I heard a very funny stand-up addressing this issue. This guy, he said that his wife wanted them to get a gun. You know, for home protection. He said that there was no way he was getting a gun for the home because there was no way he was not going to get shot with it. Then he thought, maybe if I got two guns, then we could both have one...every fight would end like a Quentin Tarantino movie, both of them pointing guns at each other: "Okay, let's just put the guns down. On three, we'll just put them down. I'll cuddle, I'll listen, whatever, let's just not shoot each other with these guns."

:D

Ok, I own 1 gun, a 30-06 bolt-action rifle. I'm an American.

No comment on the gun control debate.

i didn't before this year.

now i own a shotgun and plan on purchasing a pistol and then get my CHL.

i guess being robbed at gunpoint will do that to you.

i didn't before this year.

now i own a shotgun and plan on purchasing a pistol and then get my CHL.

i guess being robbed at gunpoint will do that to you.

glad to see i'm still a thread killer :D

glad to see i'm still a thread killer :D

You did join in on page 27, be fair. Discussion's mostly exhausted by now, I'd imagine.

You did join in on page 27, be fair. Discussion's mostly exhausted by now, I'd imagine.

only page 10 on my viewing :p and the conversation was pretty lively before i posted.

You did join in on page 27, be fair. Discussion's mostly exhausted by now, I'd imagine.

Oh, you'd be suprised how much life is left in this discussion. :D

You should have made an option for more than ten.

I got thousands of rounds of ammunition for Christmas too. :cool:

For the sake of argument, for those opposed to owning fire arms, what reasons are you opposed? Is it so people cant shoot other people? Well if that so, consider that a good portion of murders commited with a firearm, the shooter has obtained his weapon illegally. If we make owning a firearm illegal, then the honest, law abiding home owner is defenseless against the criminal who has obtained his weapon illegally.

Well thats quite funny actually, becaus dispite the fact that personal firearms according to you stops crime, your country still has one of the highest (i culd've sweared THE highest, if it weren't for Iraq) "death by bullet" rates in the world. Wouldn't that prove your system don't work?

Well thats quite funny actually, becaus dispite the fact that personal firearms according to you stops crime, your country still has one of the highest (i culd've sweared THE highest, if it weren't for Iraq) "death by bullet" rates in the world. Wouldn't that prove your system don't work?

If it were that easy, we wouldn't have these discussions once a month.

If it were that easy, we wouldn't have these discussions once a month.

And going on for months...

Lives in Florida

1x AR-15
1x Dragunov SVD
2x Bolt Action Snipers
6x Assorted pistols
1X Nicaraguan AK-47
1x Nicaraguan Siminov SKS

Not to mention my step-fathers' family usd to own a gun shop and now have a surplus of weaponry. Seriously opposed to people who oppose gun ownership. To anyone who opposes gun ownership - When all guns are banned and burgalors no longer have to fear which house has a gun owner and which doesn't, we can watch the crime rate soar...

Lives in Florida

1x AR-15
1x Dragunov SVD
2x Bolt Action Snipers
6x Assorted pistols
1X Nicaraguan AK-47
1x Nicaraguan Siminov SKS

Not to mention my step-fathers' family usd to own a gun shop and now have a surplus of weaponry. Seriously opposed to people who oppose gun ownership. To anyone who opposes gun ownership - When all guns are banned and burgalors no longer have to fear which house has a gun owner and which doesn't, we can watch the crime rate soar...

For some reason, I imagine a burgalor to be some sort of exotic bird.... :D

American

I own 2 guns(Sort of)
1 .243 used for deer hunting for food. Sure i would like to get a buck but it tastes the same on the planet.
1 12 gauge shotgun. Family hierloom. My great grampa's nieghbor owed him money and he had just gotten a new shotgun, so he gave it to my great grampa to settle his debt. My great grampa gave it tomy Grampa, and my grampa gave it to my dad, and I will get it sometime.