# The Philosophy of the Gun



## thunderw21

I hope this will be an interesting discussion.

What is your philosophy on firearms and how do you support your belief? Are guns good or bad? Should they be banned or not?

I'm interested in hearing what everyone has to say.

Cheers!


----------



## a4audi08

I consider myself left of center politically, but I have never supported the gun control wing of our party.


----------



## thunderw21

a4audi08 said:


> I consider myself left of center politically, but I have never supported the gun control wing of our party.


Any specific reason why you break with your party on this issue?


----------



## choirmaestro

Guns are at the core of our national identity. Our society worships the icon of the cowboy. It romanticizes the mobster. The images are endless, but that doesn't make it right.

Guns are a serious issue. I'm not a constitutional scholar, but my humble opinion is that the second ammendment is antiquated. It may very well be that we in the United States do have a few rotten apples spoiling the barrel, but adding more apples doesn't solve the problem.

Now, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics, but this one is worth mentioning. (granted, this one is about five years old, but I doubt it's changed much) If you add the populations of Great Britain, France, Denmark, Spain, Canada, Germany, and Italy - you get a population roughly equal to that of the United States. The US murder rate was more than double the murder rate of all those countries combined. DO you think it's because the people in the US are more homicidal, or because those countries have strict gun control laws?

And I don't buy the whole "for my protection" arguement either. I don't care how good of a marksman you are - your weapon has more of a chance of being used AGAINST you than protecting you. 

If you like to hunt - great. Buy a shotgun. Last time I checked, one didn't need a glock, modified AK 47, or bazooka to hunt deer. 

When our great country was founded, you needed a firearm to survive. We certainly needed them to kick the brits back across the pond. (twice) Before the US Civil War, the country's military was horribly small, making local militias necessary for protection. In the 21st century, our needs are different. In the words of my father-in-law, (a former marine, and captain of the a local police department) "the more people have guns, the more dangerous everybody is."


----------



## brokencycle

There are very few gun control measures I support. Ex-felons should not be allowed to purchase firearms (perhaps ever again). Mentally ill people should also not be allowed to purchase firearms. To own a full automatic weapon, one should have to apply for and get a permit, and those are the only firearms I believe need be registered.

And that's about it.

Also, armor piercing rounds, incdinary rounds, and other nonstandard rounds should be subject to limited access/banned based on the individual states. The Constitution implies the states have the majority of the control here. I do not believe handgun bans are legal (nor does the Supreme Court). That being said, if California wants to require registering your guns, that is their right. If you don't like it, move to a state that doesn't.

I also don't believe firearm manufacturers should be responsible for someone doing something stupid with a gun. If you get up tomorrow, take your gun and kill me with it, that is not the manufacturer's fault. If you get up tomorrow, get drunk and run someone over in your Toyota Prius because they drive a Hummer, they would have no standing sueing Toyota because they built the weapon used.

Guns are far less dangerous than many other things.

Before jack or skysov put down the peace pipe to argue, biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons are not firearms. Nor are missiles, rocket launchers, gernade launchers, gernades, rockets, flamethrowers, or other weapons that are not conventionally firearms.

fire·arm /ˈfaɪərˌɑrm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[*fahyuhr*-ahrm] -noun a small arms weapon, as a rifle or pistol, from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder.


----------



## Howard

I support firearms because I think people need them for just such an emergency.


----------



## eagle2250

A firearm is nothing more than an assemblage of machined (generally) metal parts. It is neither good or bad. For some, firearms are simply a tool used in their work. For others they may be the implement, through which the owner enjoys a hobby. Humans are the catalytic ingredient that bring good or bad into consideration. As for whether they should be banned, doesn't the second amendment say it all?


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr.

*+1 to Eagle2250*

I have no romanticism either way about the tool.

I am libertarian and oppose all encroachments on liberty. For all I care, the Kwik-E-Mart can sell firearms next to donuts. I hope the cashier would not sell to unaccompanied small children, but it's his call.

An armed society is a polite society. Relying on the government (or anyone else, really) to protect your life is an unacceptable risk.

The (US) constitutional reason for personal firearm rights is to ward against rogue governments, like we have now. Unfortunately, the wording is correct and a well-regulated militia is required to fight the government. Individuals cannot do it alone, nor small bands of paramilitary wannabes. In this age of telecommunications, an organized armed citizen militia would have no problem resisting a state-sponsored force when necessary. In fact, it has been done in Iraq for several years now.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr.

choirmaestro said:


> I'm not a constitutional scholar, but my humble opinion is that the second ammendment is antiquated.


Luckily the Supreme Court disagrees.



choirmaestro said:


> DO you think it's because the people in the US are more homicidal, or because those countries have strict gun control laws?


More homicidal. Ignoring the whole homogenous society argument, it says here that "The U.S. has a higher *non-gun* murder rate than many European country's *total* murder rates." Rates, not total numbers.



choirmaestro said:


> Before the US Civil War, the country's military was _horribly_ small, making local militias necessary for protection.


Horribly cheap and effective too. Also friendlier to the general populace because they were the general populace.


----------



## Cruiser

Guns are, like eagle said, nothing but a collection of parts. They are only as dangerous, or safe, as are the people in who's hands they end up. Much like an automobile which can also be a deadly weapon in the hands of the wrong person.

I own a gun along with a permit to carry it, although I will admit that I almost never do. In fact, it hasn't left the house in over a year and then it was just to go to the firing range. I might fire it more often if I didn't hate cleaning the thing so much. :icon_smile_big:

Speaking as a gun owner I am in favor of strict compliance and harsh penalties for those who are negligent or commit crimes with firearms. I say "negligent" because gun ownership is a voluntary act and with it should come heightened responsibility with severe penalties for failing to maintain that level of responsibility.

As for the criminal element, they are going to have guns anyway regardless of whether we take them away from law abiding folks. For example, I believe that Washington D.C. has some of the strictest gun contral laws in the country and just take a look at their homicide rate. Go figure.

Cruiser


----------



## jackmccullough

The Constitution doesn't say anything about "firearms". It talks about the right to keep and bear arms. I have never seen a principled argument that the Constitution provides an individual right to own rifles, shotguns, or pistols, that doesn't apply equally well to machine guns, bazookas, tanks, or nuclear weapons. Furthermore, "shall not be infringed" does not, by its terms leave some kind of regulation open to state governments that is denied to the federal government.


----------



## choirmaestro

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> Luckily the Supreme Court disagrees.
> 
> More homicidal. Ignoring the whole homogenous society argument, it says here that "The U.S. has a higher *non-gun* murder rate than many European country's *total* murder rates." Rates, not total numbers.
> 
> As I stated earlier - lies, damn lies, and statistics. We, and the rest of our allies on the left and right, can skew the numbers any way we want to make our point. None of us are 100% correct in the end.
> 
> I don't think it's realistic to expect our society to ban guns. Again, quoting myself, guns are too entrenched in our national identity to make that plausible. I think that's tragic. I will admit that gun control policy does us no good if our laws are unenforceable - and we can thank congress for that. Not only do we need extenseive background checks and bans on assult weapons, but we need bans on ammunition for such weapons and better human intelligence to combat the worldwide black market for guns.
> 
> But that still doesn't get the heart of it, does it? We still haven't answered the question of: should you or I be allowed to own a gun simply because we want to? I say no. I think it's a dangerous step toward the wild west. If you ask law enforcement (and they are the people we SHOULD be talking to on this issue - any police officiers on the forum?) I think most would say they worry about an armed society.
> 
> Somebody come up with a good way to keep guns out of the hands of ciminals without infringing on the 2nd ammendment, and I'll listen and plan to be wrong. I think all owning a gun does is tempt the owner to use it. Until then, I think we've got to answer this question: what's more important? Our right to own a gun, or the right for us to walk down the street and not worry about who has a gun?
> 
> I respectfully recommend "America Declairs Independence" written by Alan Dershowitz. It's a good read and provides great insight into where our constitutional rights actually come from. Are they inalienable? Well, read it and make your own judgement.


----------



## thunderw21

I'll post this just to stir things up a little more.

----------------------------------

Why The Gun is Civilized

By Major L. Caudill
USMC, Retired

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100 pound woman on equal footing with a 220 pound mugger, a 75 year old retiree on equal footing with a 19 year old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a car load of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a (armed) mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed, either by choice or legislative fiat—it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV. There people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I’m looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation….. And that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." Thomas Jefferson


----------



## choirmaestro

*a little story*

My grandfather (may he rest in peace) was a gun owner - he owned a shotgun. He was very proud of the fact that he was a RESPONSIBLE gun owner - in that he kept the gun unloaded and the ammo stored separately. I'll never foget the thanksgiving day when we were talking about guns, and my grandfather stated, "if any burgler breaks into my house, all I have to do is get my gun." My grandmother said, "really? GO!" Twenty minutes later, he's still searching for the gun & ammo...

An arguement could be made for a lack of my grandfather's sanity - and I'd agree with you! (he was a nutcase!) However, consider this - to be responsible gun owners, we keep our guns unloaded and the ammo stored separately, and hopefully we all have trigger locks. When you hear suspicous sound in the middle of the night, with your heart pounding and palms sweating, can you get to your gun, load it, unlock the trigger, make it downstairs to locate the intruder before he finds you, and actually shoot to kill accurately? If you've ever been in the military or law enforcement, I have no doubt you can. The rest of us? Well... GO!:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Relayer

In the middle of the night my pistol is not unloaded or trigger-locked.


----------



## DukeGrad

*thunder*

My friend,

Thank you for that letter from the Major. And to my marine friends, Semper Fi.
Nice, very nice


----------



## hurling frootmig

I'm a fan of all of the amendments. I don't view the second amendment as specific enough but given the recent supreme court decision we now have a more specific construct to work within. 

I own a gun but I also have a young child and I have decided that the prudent thing to do is to not have any ammo in the house. At the appropriate time we will discuss gun safety and at some point I will take him to a shooting range if he is interested. I believe that owning a gun is a privileged and with that comes certain responsibilities.

I've always made the joke (only partially tongue in cheek) that technically the constitution does not prohibit or define what constitutes "arms" so in my mind people should be able to own cannons, missiles, and even nuclear bombs. Of course these would have to be for the expressed intent of furnishing a state militia should such a situation arise. :icon_smile_big: I believe that the framers would have been more specific if they had any idea of the types of "arms" that the human race would go on to create.

In terms of gun control I believe that a person should show competency in order to receive a gun license. If they are a felon or mentally unstable then they should not be able to own or possess weapons. I also believe that we should have a multi-tiered approach to gun licenses. Something like this:

Class A License: Pass a background check. Allowed to own a combination of weapons including handguns, shot guns, and rifles but not to exceed five weapons.

Class B License: Pass a more stringent background check. Show competency with weapons by attending and passing a gun safety program of 20 hours or more. Basically a Class A license with the ability to own more weapons. Let's say 25.

Class C License: Background Check. Psychological testing. 100 hours of gun safety classes and instruction. Ability to own up to 100 weapons.

Class D License: Background Check. Psychological testing. 200 hours of gun safety classes and instruction. Ability to own guns, shot guns, rifles, and fully automatic rifles. 

Personally I am not a fan of concealed carry and a number of my friends who work in law enforcement have told me that they are not in favor of it either as it makes their jobs harder. I also think it disrupts the line of whatever you are wearing :icon_smile_big:


----------



## mommatook1

The 2nd amendment is the security policy for the rest of the rights, both state and individual, that are protected by the US constitution.

500 years from now we'll be arguing about light sabers and ray guns vice flamethrowers and bazookas, but the intent will remain. It is the basic right of an individual to protect himself and secure his rights from whatever government may be in place, by force if necessary.


----------



## PedanticTurkey

The US murder rate is a big red herring to the gun issue. The homicide rate for white, non-Hispanic Americans is comparable with Europe's, but for black Americans it's almost an order of magnitude higher. That skews the statistics. Yet, whites are more than twice, even three times more likely than blacks to own guns.

Also, since the 1990s the number of guns in this country has increased dramatically, yet the homicide rate for all Americans has fallen dramatically as well. So more guns = less murders?



(note that "white" includes Hispanic for the purposes of this graph)


----------



## M6Classic

Most men who carry concealed firearms and are not sworn public safety officers are compensating for a small penis. That is my opinion.

Buzz


----------



## brokencycle

jackmccullough said:


> The Constitution doesn't say anything about "firearms". It talks about the right to keep and bear arms. I have never seen a principled argument that the Constitution provides an individual right to own rifles, shotguns, or pistols, that doesn't apply equally well to machine guns, bazookas, tanks, or nuclear weapons. Furthermore, "shall not be infringed" does not, by its terms leave some kind of regulation open to state governments that is denied to the federal government.


Fine, you're right.

The 2nd amendment protects your right to own a nuclear warhead. Congress better get on passing an amendment banning it.


----------



## thunderw21

DukeGrad said:


> My friend,
> 
> Thank you for that letter from the Major. And to my marine friends, Semper Fi.
> Nice, very nice


Cheers. Thanks for your service.

And there are more articles where that came from, including one I'm currently working on.


----------



## thunderw21

M6Classic said:


> Most men who carry concealed firearms and are not sworn public safety officers are compensating for a small penis. That is my opinion.
> 
> Buzz


Either my meter is broken or you have no experience with firearms. Or dangerous situations. 

The article below helped me form the foundations of not only my view on firearms but also my views on social responsibility and liberty.
Enjoy.

---------------------------------------

On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs - Dave Grossman
By LTC (RET) Dave Grossman, author of "On Killing."

Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always,even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for? - William J. Bennett - in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me:

"Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another. Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.

Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.

I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful.? For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.

"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed

Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.

But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa."

Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.

Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?

Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.

There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population. There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.

Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.

Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.

There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke

Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.

If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.

For example, many officers carry their weapons in church. They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs. Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.

I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"

Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.

Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have and idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"

It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.

Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.

Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling."

Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level.

And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes. If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself...

"Baa."

This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.

https://mwkworks.com/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html



Also, read Grossman's "On Killing" and "On Combat"


----------



## Scoundrel

I don't believe in guns


----------



## M6Classic

thunderw21 said:


> Either my meter is broken or you have no experience with firearms. Or dangerous situations.


 If those are the choices, then your meter is broken.

As to the tedious story, below; wake me when the Cliff Notes version is available.

Buzz



thunderw21 said:


> article below helped me form the foundations of not only my view on firearms but also my views on social responsibility and liberty.
> Enjoy.
> 
> ---------------------------------------
> 
> On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs - Dave Grossman
> By LTC (RET) Dave Grossman, author of "On Killing."
> 
> Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always,even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for? - William J. Bennett - in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997
> 
> One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me:
> 
> "Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another. Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.
> 
> Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.
> 
> I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful.? For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.
> 
> "Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.
> 
> "Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."
> 
> If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed
> 
> Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.
> 
> But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.
> 
> The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.
> 
> Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa."
> 
> Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.
> 
> The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.
> 
> Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?
> 
> Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.
> 
> Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.
> 
> There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population. There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.
> 
> Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.
> 
> Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.
> 
> There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke
> 
> Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.
> 
> If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.
> 
> For example, many officers carry their weapons in church. They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs. Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.
> 
> I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"
> 
> Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.
> 
> Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have and idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"
> 
> It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.
> 
> Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.
> 
> Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling."
> 
> Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level.
> 
> And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes. If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself...
> 
> "Baa."
> 
> This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.
> 
> https://mwkworks.com/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html
> 
> 
> 
> Also, read Grossman's "On Killing" and "On Combat"


----------



## hurling frootmig

PedanticTurkey said:


> The US murder rate is a big red herring to the gun issue. The homicide rate for white, non-Hispanic Americans is comparable with Europe's, but for black Americans it's almost an order of magnitude higher. That skews the statistics. Yet, whites are more than twice, even three times more likely than blacks to own guns.
> 
> Also, since the 1990s the number of guns in this country has increased dramatically, yet the homicide rate for all Americans has fallen dramatically as well. So more guns = less murders?
> 
> (note that "white" includes Hispanic for the purposes of this graph)


I also find this interesting. You see substantially fewer murders in England due to guns. What you see instead is a lot of stabbings. I believe to a large degree that if you banned guns and knives in England that you would see an increase in the amount of murders committed by arsenic or the like. If you could somehow outlaw all of that stuff you would probably see people running over people with cars. Essentially the worst of human nature occasionally rears its ugly head and people commit murder. They'll use a club, a gun, a knife, or whatever is going to get the job done.


----------



## deandbn

*Guns*

I think that anyone who carries a handgun with the intention of sometime taking it from its holster and pointing at a person to defend themself should first learn to defend themself without the use of a lethal weapon because the act of pointing it at a person is tantamount to telling that person you intend to kill them, and if anybody pointed a gun at me i would definitely do my utmost to remove it from them and use it on them first.

To get a good idea of what i am talking about, get a gun and point it at someone random and watch the reaction. Not only from that person but everyone else in the vicinity too. Better still, try this with a policeman and watch what happens next!

So No I do not think people should carry guns for self defence unless they do not need to, and then why would they anyway. Its practically pointless.


----------



## PedanticTurkey

hurling frootmig said:


> I also find this interesting. You see substantially fewer murders in England due to guns. What you see instead is a lot of stabbings. I believe to a large degree that if you banned guns and knives in England that you would see an increase in the amount of murders committed by arsenic or the like. If you could somehow outlaw all of that stuff you would probably see people running over people with cars. Essentially the worst of human nature occasionally rears its ugly head and people commit murder. They'll use a club, a gun, a knife, or whatever is going to get the job done.


I think that about hits the nail on the head. Another statistic: age 15-18 white males are more than three times as likely to have access to guns compared with black males, but black males the same age are 17 times more likely to be murdered.


----------



## PedanticTurkey

deandbn said:


> I think that anyone who carries a handgun with the intention of sometime taking it from its holster and pointing at a person to defend themself should first learn to defend themself without the use of a lethal weapon because the act of pointing it at a person is tantamount to telling that person you intend to kill them, and if anybody pointed a gun at me i would definitely do my utmost to remove it from them and use it on them first.
> 
> To get a good idea of what i am talking about, get a gun and point it at someone random and watch the reaction. Not only from that person but everyone else in the vicinity too. Better still, try this with a policeman and watch what happens next!
> 
> So No I do not think people should carry guns for self defence unless they do not need to, and then why would they anyway. Its practically pointless.


This is a matter of common sense. That's why there are more than 3 million Americans carrying concealed weapons--private citizens, normal people-- and they have been for years, going back to the late 1980s. And yet your fears are not being realized.


----------



## Liberty Ship

M6Classic said:


> Most men who carry concealed firearms and are not sworn public safety officers are compensating for a small penis. That is my opinion.
> 
> Buzz


How about women who carry?

You might want to read Dr. Sara Thompson's piece, "Raging Against Self Defense." I will provide a link:

https://www.vcdl.org/new/raging.htm


----------



## M6Classic

Liberty Ship said:


> How about women who carry?
> 
> You might want to read Dr. Sara Thompson's piece, "Raging Against Self Defense." I will provide a link:
> 
> https://www.vcdl.org/new/raging.htm


I have only known one woman who carries. She shot a man dead before my very eyes and no longer carries a firearm. Some people on the list think this experience disqualifies me from further comment on the topic.

Buzz


----------



## PedanticTurkey

Well, you just have to learn to separate your personal experience and perception from the greater reality. If you can't do that, you ought to kindly excuse yourself from the discussion, I agree.


----------



## mommatook1

M6Classic said:


> I have only known one woman who carries. She shot a man dead before my very eyes and no longer carries a firearm. Some people on the list think this experience disqualifies me from further comment on the topic.
> 
> Buzz


Sounds relevant to me. Do share.


----------



## M6Classic

Liberty Ship said:


> You might want to read Dr. Sara Thompson's piece, "Raging Against Self Defense." I will provide a link:
> 
> https://www.vcdl.org/new/raging.htm


Uou are, of course entitled to consult anyone you wish. However, I kind of don't think that Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Incorporated, is an independent authority.



PedanticTurkey said:


> Well, you just have to learn to separate your personal experience and perception from the greater reality. If you can't do that, you ought to kindly excuse yourself from the discussion, I agree.


Oh, my God, our dear, dear Turkey is back! Don't you just think he is the wittiest thing alive? I mean it, he is just so whip smart that I faint at the mere idea of his presence. I really do!

Buzz


----------



## PedanticTurkey

I'm glad that this time around you're not going to wait until you lose the argument before resorting to insults. Saves me some time.


----------



## Liberty Ship

M6Classic said:


> I have only known one woman who carries. She shot a man dead before my very eyes and no longer carries a firearm. Some people on the list think this experience disqualifies me from further comment on the topic.
> 
> Buzz


I don't think that the experience disqualifies you from comment at all! However, you comment about men carrying concealed compensating for small penises was rather hackneyed and, in fact, wrong. I carry to compensate for the fact that I'm not 6'6", 280 pounds, and loaded on meth. And there is only one of me.

And you didn't answer my question about what women are compensating for. I would suggest that they, too, are compensating for a disparity of force similar to what I outlined above.

I'm sorry for your experience. Was her shooting justified? If it was, it beat the alternative, right?


----------



## M6Classic

Liberty Ship said:


> I don't think that the experience disqualifies you from comment at all! However, you comment about men carrying concealed compensating for small penises was rather hackneyed and, in fact, wrong. I carry to compensate for the fact that I'm not 6'6", 280 pounds, and loaded on meth. And there is only one of me.
> 
> And you didn't answer my question about what women are compensating for. I would suggest that they, too, are compensating for a disparity of force similar to what I outlined above.
> 
> I'm sorry for your experience. Was her shooting justified? If it was, it beat the alternative, right?


Sorry, I don't know for what women who carry are compensating. Sure it is hackneyed, but it also true, just like _the bigger the tires the smaller the penis._

Was her shooting justified? She was not indicted. She was, however, permanently traumatized by the experience. We were approached on a city street by a very threatening individual. When asked for her wallet, she drew the pistol from her purse and dropped the guy who was wielding a knife, I forget what kind or size of blade. I think in retrospect she would have preferred to give him her wallet and not have watched a man bleed to death about five feet in front of us. He made some awful noises for a few minutes.

Buzz


----------



## PedanticTurkey

With all this "big gun = small penis" nonsense he's spreading, I wonder if Buzz was more traumatized by the experience of having a woman step up and defend herself--and him.


----------



## eagle2250

M6Classic said:


> I have only known one woman who carries. She shot a man dead before my very eyes and no longer carries a firearm. Some people on the list think this experience disqualifies me from further comment on the topic.
> 
> Buzz





PedanticTurkey said:


> With all this "big gun = small penis" nonsense he's spreading, I wonder if Buzz was more traumatized by the experience of having a woman step up and defend herself--and him.


M6: I am sorry you had to experience such trauma and am sad to say, based on personal experience, that incident will be with you and your lady friend for the rest of your lives. Those who haven't been there, will never fully appreciate your feelings. Just as sadly, emotionally retarded individuals such as our "lovable" Mr Turkey, will make cheap jokes at your expense. I for one, think your experience eminently qualifies you to comment on the topic!


----------



## Liberty Ship

M6Classic said:


> Sorry, I don't know for what women who carry are compensating. Sure it is hackneyed, but it also true, just like _the bigger the tires the smaller the penis._
> 
> Was her shooting justified? She was not indicted. She was, however, permanently traumatized by the experience. We were approached on a city street by a very threatening individual. When asked for her wallet, she drew the pistol from her purse and dropped the guy who was wielding a knife, I forget what kind or size of blade. I think in retrospect she would have preferred to give him her wallet and not have watched a man bleed to death about five feet in front of us. He made some awful noises for a few minutes.
> 
> Buzz


From what you say, the shooting was justified. She may have saved your lives. My guess is, however, that she had insufficient training in the law as well as the emotional consequences of using lethal force. Giving up the wallet may or may not have had the desired effect of his leaving you unharmed. If she took a knife wielding guy down from a cold draw within 20 feet, she beat the odds. My guess is that she surprised him with the draw. If either of you had been bleeding out and making noises, he wouldn't have hung around to listen.

Compliance might prevent bodily harm, but does not guarantee it. There are a lot of instances of violent mutilation inflicted on rape victims after they comply. Similarly with robbery victims. Truth is that the guy set the rules of engagement when he pulled the knife, then he lost the game.

I hope your friend got counseling from the right people after the shooting. She did the right thing from what I know.


----------



## PedanticTurkey

Fortunately, I've never had to kill a man. But, I was in a situation very much like this fellow, with one crucial difference. I stepped up and used _my_ gun in a way that privately owned firearms are used every year--to back up a polite request that the gentleman who was threatening me kindly leave. He did, and nobody got hurt.

I can only imagine how I'd feel if some pathetic, effete bystander tried to pull me down with the sort of "support" offered by Buzz. No wonder that poor woman was so traumatized.


----------



## mommatook1

M6Classic said:


> ...
> 
> Was her shooting justified? She was not indicted. She was, however, permanently traumatized by the experience. We were approached on a city street by a very threatening individual. When asked for her wallet, she drew the pistol from her purse and dropped the guy who was wielding a knife, I forget what kind or size of blade. I think in retrospect she would have preferred to give him her wallet and not have watched a man bleed to death about five feet in front of us. He made some awful noises for a few minutes.
> 
> Buzz


It's very unfortunate that individual put her in a position where she had to make that kind of decision. However, the end result was that the knife-wielding assailant was prevented from harming the two innocent citizens. While possible he would have simply left with the wallet, there is no way to know for sure. I assume things happened too fast for her to use the firearm as a deterrent without actually firing... that probably would have been the optimal solution.

Do you share her retrospective sentiments? Or are you thankful that she did what she did?


----------



## PedanticTurkey

Oh, please. He can barely contain his contempt for the poor woman. "Was it justified? She wasn't indicted." She wasn't indicted because it was a good shoot under the law.

Again, it's no wonder that sharing this experience with Buzz here left her traumatized.


----------



## mommatook1

M6Classic said:


> Most men who carry concealed firearms and are not sworn public safety officers are compensating for a small penis. That is my opinion.
> 
> Buzz


I intend to obtain a concealed carry permit when I get back to the states, although I would never actually feel the need or have the desire to carry a firearm on my person regularly. Does this mean I have a medium-sized penis?


----------



## Relayer

So, we apparently have an instance where a citizen used a gun to protect herself, and she was also able to provide protection for another defenseless citizen. 

Bravo for her. I am glad that she was ready and able. I hope she comes to realize that she did what she needed to do and gets over her issues.


----------



## tskrovan

This is a great thread. I am a firm supporter of the 2nd Amendment and the constitutional right of US citizens to keep and bear arms. I should not, and do not expect the police to be personal body guards for my family and I 24/7. I know that I must shoulder that responsibility...and it is a big responsibility not to be taken lightly.


----------



## M6Classic

I appreciate the kind words from the sympathetic among you and I understand the derision and scorn from those who feel challenged by my story. I drew my lesson from these events and so did my companion. Each of us may draw his...perhaps even her...own lesson, I don't expect that my experience will alter the lives of any but the participants'.

Buzz


----------



## Quay

I appreciate the folks who have shared their experiences in this thread, most especially Buzz who witnessed the death of someone right in front of them for the sake of...what? Money, jewels, one's own life? I am around the dying and the dead all the time but at these times I know what is going on and can plan, set my mind and heart for the immensity and finality of an ending. But for such a sudden, unexpected and violent thing to happen...well, it take a lot to work through something like that. I deeply sympathize with you and your friend, Buzz.

I grew up around firearms, it being a part of our culture. Long rifles were a part of my childhood and I learned to respect such things but not to fear them. I enjoyed the whole target practice aspect of shooting but never hunted, eventually preferring archery to firearms because it was much quieter and required a different kind of skill that I appreciated. I could also practice anywhere a bail of hay was to be found and not have to worry about accidents from hot lead. 

I've also had the experience of being around people who have killed another person for reasons of self-defence. Even though in each case it was a "justified shoot," "righteous kill," "self-defense," or "matter of life and death" the fact remained in each instance that the person who did the shooting feels the stain of killing on them for the rest of their lives. It is not something one ever totally gets over. It is my hope that anyone who keeps firearms at the ready has considered, completely, if they are truly ready to kill someone. Moral, religious and spiritual implications aside, such an act can really mess up your life, split your family and friends, and drive you mad. In the US we're pretty much free to make this decision for ourselves and keep whatever guns around we'd like to have. It's a big decision to make and again one I hope no one takes at all lightly.

--A.Q.


----------



## thunderw21

Quay said:


> I appreciate the folks who have shared their experiences in this thread, most especially Buzz who witnessed the death of someone right in front of them for the sake of...what? Money, jewels, one's own life? I am around the dying and the dead all the time but at these times I know what is going on and can plan, set my mind and heart for the immensity and finality of an ending. But for such a sudden, unexpected and violent thing to happen...well, it take a lot to work through something like that. I deeply sympathize with you and your friend, Buzz.
> 
> I grew up around firearms, it being a part of our culture. Long rifles were a part of my childhood and I learned to respect such things but not to fear them. I enjoyed the whole target practice aspect of shooting but never hunted, eventually preferring archery to firearms because it was much quieter and required a different kind of skill that I appreciated. I could also practice anywhere a bail of hay was to be found and not have to worry about accidents from hot lead.
> 
> I've also had the experience of being around people who have killed another person for reasons of self-defence. Even though in each case it was a "justified shoot," "righteous kill," "self-defense," or "matter of life and death" the fact remained in each instance that the person who did the shooting feels the stain of killing on them for the rest of their lives. It is not something one ever totally gets over. It is my hope that anyone who keeps firearms at the ready has considered, completely, if they are truly ready to kill someone. Moral, religious and spiritual implications aside, such an act can really mess up your life, split your family and friends, and drive you mad. In the US we're pretty much free to make this decision for ourselves and keep whatever guns around we'd like to have. It's a big decision to make and again one I hope no one takes at all lightly.
> 
> --A.Q.


Very well put, Quay. 
Gun owners, in order to be safe and lawful, must go through and consider much more than one might think, especially if a gun owner decides to take the big step of carrying.

Recently my mom bought a little snub nose revolver. Not only have we been going out to practice with it, but I have been getting her into the mindset that firearms are serious business. Not to be feared, as you said, Quay, but respected. 'Cause the minute that respect is lost, bad things can happen.


----------



## billt3

Interesting to me that my first post is on this subject vice the McNeils I bought last week but I have to weigh in on this subject. I own several firearms and shoot as a regular part of my week. I find this to be an enjoyable diversion from the strains of life. I also have a concealed carry permit and a collectors license from the BATFE. The effort to obtain both of these has improved my recognition of the risks and responsibilities associated with becoming a firearm owner. In fact I would recommend anyone who intends to own a handgun obtain a concealed carry permit. The required training stresses the responsibilty an individual accepts when he chooses to defend himself as well as ensures an understanding of basic firearm saftey. A permit also reduces the posibility of commiting an inadvertant crime while transporting a firearm. I don't carry on a regular basis, since I can not carry to my office, but I have carried and respect the descion of others who decide carrying is appropriate for them.

While a good part of this thread has discussed potential emotional consequences of an armed encounter, I believe living to deal with the consequences is better than not living. Therefore without reservation I support the right of a citizen to arm themselves in self defense.


----------



## billt3

Interesting to me that my first post is on this subject vice the McNeils I bought last week but I have to weigh in on this subject. I own several firearms and shoot as a regular part of my week. I find this to be an enjoyable diversion from the strains of life. I also have a concealed carry permit and a collectors license from the BATFE. The effort to obtain both of these has improved my recognition of the risks and responsibilities associated with becoming a firearm owner. In fact I would recommend anyone who intends to own a handgun obtain a concealed carry permit. The required training stresses the responsibilty an individual accepts when he chooses to defend himself as well as ensures an understanding of basic firearm saftey. A permit also reduces the posibility of commiting an inadvertant crime while transporting a firearm. I don't carry on a regular basis, since I can not carry to my office, but I have carried and respect the descion of others who decide carrying is appropriate for them.

While a good part of this thread has discussed potential emotional consequences of an armed encounter, I believe living to deal with the consequences is better than not living. Therefore without reservation I support the right of a citizen to arm themselves in self defense.


----------



## 16412

choirmaestro said:


> "the more people have guns, the more dangerous everybody is."


Sounds nice until you realize some people with a lot of guns are not dangerous at all and some people without guns are very dangerous. The mafia kill more people in this country than all the indepent killers who use guns, and the mob rarely uses guns. They hide their murders under the appearance of sucide, accidents (in hospitals, job accidents and many other ways of "accidents"), etc.

Most people who have guns are not dangerous at all, except to dangerously agressive people. There are tens of thousands of felons on the street which most of them have guns. With these people you would think it would be a constant war zone all over, but it is not. Now think of all the people who are not criminals who own guns. There are far more non-criminals who own guns. So, when have you ever felt in danger? Has 2% ever been in danger because somebody has a gun. In your whole entire life have you ever even been, other than in military, even 1 billionth of 1 % in danger? The insane should not be able to get guns. Those that abuse guns should be severely punished. The rest of us should not be treated as criminals. So, no gun laws except to prevent the insane from getting guns.


----------



## Howard

M6Classic said:


> Most men who carry concealed firearms and are not sworn public safety officers are compensating for a small penis. That is my opinion.
> 
> Buzz


Now how are they doing that?


----------



## a4audi08

thunderw21 said:


> Any specific reason why you break with your party on this issue?


Other than provisions prohibiting convicted felons from owning guns and background checks, I think that what we do as a party is to focus on the supply of guns when it seems like the real problem is the people who are using them.

When my family first came to this country, like many other immigrants, we could only afford to live in one of the worst parts of town. It made me realize later on that the reason Americans die by gun crimes at a disproportionately higher rate than other nations, IMHO, has nothing to do with the fact that we may have more guns. The root causes are social/political/economic. The "war on guns" mentality is as valid and likely to be successful as the war on drugs. The reality is that we can no more stop the flow of guns into this country than cocaine if they were outlawed or even severely curbed.


----------



## Country Irish

This is only an issue depending on your own personal situation or which facet of the matter on which one is focusing.

In regard to the Constitution, the second amendment is not there to protect hunting rights or for target shooting. This is the amendment that protects the remainder of the Constitution. Without the ability to hold the government accountable we are subjects instead of citizens.

As for murder rates and accidental shooting it varies. Some situations are a result of desperation others are a matter of poor education. In fact the desperation would be nearly erased with opportunities to overcome the limitations in life. Education and opportunity would be helpful.

There are an assortment of lesser issues. The armor piercing projectiles or hi capacity magazine complaints are really a non issue. The Constitution does not have limitations on types of weapons or their configuration. On the practical side, a soft point is just as effective as a steel core so the argument is just for show. it has no substance.

Limitations on individuals should not be made on a blanket basis. Felons are not necessarily dangerous or irresponsible. It depends on a specific situation. The mentally ill argument is a non issue for the most part since it is all a matter of opinion. There are very few situations where the limitation is valid. The mental health industry is more of a con than anything. The opinions are seldom valid, seldom lifelong limitations and unlikely to be a matter of scientific fact. Thus we are back to assessing individual situations.

The matter of personal safety is just that, personal. If you want to depend on the police being there to assist you during a crime that is your call. I personally find it is unlikely they could be on the spot at the right time but are just fine for filling out reports afterward.

The Constitution preserves my rights and specifies one manner in which they can be preserved. God gave me the instinct for self preservation. I choose to stand ready to take care of myself, my family and my neighbors if the situation calls for action. However I do recognize your right to be a victim, starve or otherwise come to an unhappy end if you decide not to use a weapon.


----------



## DukeGrad

*ThunderW/LTC Grossman*

ThnderW,

Thank you for LTC Grossmans speech. I have seen this in many military emails. A favorite of mine.
I have been on both sides of the coin on this one. 25 year military. So a strong advocate of the NRA, and love weapons. On the other hand my work is medicine. Have seen stupid things with weapons on the outside. And got hesitant there with what I have seen in the ER.
I am a member of NRA, and am back to normal. Enjoying my shooting at the range. And feeling safe.
Thank you again
Nice day


----------



## 16412

Country Irish said:


> The mentally ill argument is a non issue for the most part since it is all a matter of opinion. There are very few situations where the limitation is valid. The mental health industry is more of a con than anything. The opinions are seldom valid, seldom lifelong limitations and unlikely to be a matter of scientific fact. Thus we are back to assessing individual situations.


You are right about that.


----------



## scubasteve

choirmaestro said:


> And I don't buy the whole "for my protection" arguement either. I don't care how good of a marksman you are - your weapon has more of a chance of being used AGAINST you than protecting you.


Actually that's a misnomer. Its based upon the statistic that the suicide rate in this country is higher than the homocide rate. That fact got manipulated into this "fact" that your weapon is more likely to be "used" against you. It implies that its more likely someone will take your gun from you and shoot you, but that's not accurate at all.


----------



## scubasteve

choirmaestro said:


> Now, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics, but this one is worth mentioning. (granted, this one is about five years old, but I doubt it's changed much) If you add the populations of Great Britain, France, Denmark, Spain, Canada, Germany, and Italy - you get a population roughly equal to that of the United States. The US murder rate was more than double the murder rate of all those countries combined. DO you think it's because the people in the US are more homicidal, or because those countries have strict gun control laws?


Lets look at some European countries (and Canada) with gun ownership rates and homicide rates compared:

homicides per 100,000 people
Greece 0.67 (with 23% gun ownership)
Norway 0.78 (with 32% gun ownership)
Germany 0.98 (30%)
Italy 1.23 (12.1%)
France 1.64 (32%)
Canada 1.85 (31%)
UK 2.03 (5.6%)
Finland 2.78 (32%)
Switzerland 2.94 (46%)
Spain 3.35 (11%)

As you can see, that list is has the homicide rates in ascending order, and the gun ownership rates listed next to them. Now then, noting that the homicide rates are increasing, you tell me, do you REALLY see any corroborating patterns in the gun ownership rates?

btw, that list is the countries you gave, plus a few I added that have relatively high gun ownership rates.

(You didn't cite your data, so I'm not going to bother citing mine, but could if absolutely necessary)


----------



## Country Irish

In the matter of trying to compare the United States with European nations there is much more to the background of the differing statistics than is usually related.
There is currently more repression of handgun ownership in Europe but there is also the old tradition of a gentleman actually training in the use of the weapons he carries. This is a great shortcoming in the USA. We have great training programs available through the NRA but few take advantage of them. In Europe smaller calibers and precise control have been the norm for handguns throughout the modern age. Before that the proper use of the personal weapon of the day was taught. It was not enough to be able to purchase a weapon, the goal was to be able to use it effectively and with proper discretion. THAT is what we need to learn in America.
We can hope that all of you that do advocate guns also advocate proper training (and practice). It is a tradition we need to revive in this country.


----------



## Trenditional

M6Classic said:


> Sorry, I don't know for what women who carry are compensating. Sure it is hackneyed, but it also true, just like _the bigger the tires the smaller the penis._
> 
> Was her shooting justified? She was not indicted. She was, however, permanently traumatized by the experience. We were approached on a city street by a very threatening individual. When asked for her wallet, she drew the pistol from her purse and dropped the guy who was wielding a knife, I forget what kind or size of blade. I think in retrospect she would have preferred to give him her wallet and not have watched a man bleed to death about five feet in front of us. He made some awful noises for a few minutes.
> 
> Buzz


This debate is old, but unfortunately one that I don't think will ever be resolved. For the record here is my background: I am in law enforcement and put a handgun on my waist everyday. Fortunately, all I have ever had to do is point my gun at another person, they did not force me to pull the trigger. I don't believe guns are bad, it is the person operating the gun that can be bad (or good). I own two guns (a Glock 40 for work [I wouldn't need to own this one, but the Smith & Wesson Sigma my company would have provided, left me less than confident] and a Winchester rifle which was my grandfathers - I have never fired it) and will probably never own any others. I don't hunt. I don't understand the fascination with owning guns.

Having been in law enforcement for over 20 years, I have met my share of "Gun nuts" on both sides of the fence (law enforcement types, and civilian [criminal and non criminal] and I have to agree somewhat with the penis reference. There are plenty in law enforcement who are there because of the badge and the gun and for certain they will always have a gun with them. Me, I rarely carry my gun when I'm not working (then again, I don't carry anything that identifies me as a police officer either). Actually carrying a gun is a huge freakin' hassle, especially when you want to keep it concealed.

Removing the times I've had to point a gun at someone in the scope of my profession, I've been able to survive for 40 years on this planet with never having the need for a gun to protect myself or my family. I'd be interested in how many people here have actually had to use a gun to protect them or their family? How many here have been confronted by an armed assailant and fended them off with being able to deploy potential deadly force in return?

I still remember a reenactment video we were shown in the academy. An off-duty officer is going into a supermarket with his daughter. He sees several masked men going into the store with guns. This "knucklehead" puts his daughter near the back of the vehicle and he takes up a position at the front of the vehicle to detain these robbers. They exit the store, he confronts them and the shooting ensues. The flanked him and ultimately killed his daughter. Carrying a gun is great when you're by yourself, but always remember those who are with you just became targets because of their proximity to you.

If you're going to have a gun for protection....why have it unloaded? If there are people in your home that you don't feel are safe to be around a loaded gun, then why have the gun? A gun is a paper weight if it doesn't have bullets. A shotgun with 00 buck is your best home defense. You don't need to aim. You point it in the general direction and you're pretty certain you're going to hit your target.

So...Do I believe the 2nd Amendment is saying we can all own guns, NO. Do I believe there is a need for owning a combination of more than 5 guns, NO. Hell, no one should have guns besides the police. Do I beleive that many (not all) of the gun owners are compensating for their lack of self confidence, YES. If you want guns, give everyone a shotgun and be done with it. Make all other guns illegal.

M6, people might make jokes, but standing face to face with an armed assailant and having to look at them and see them die has to be traumatic.


----------



## Mike Petrik

M6Classic said:


> Most men who carry concealed firearms and are not sworn public safety officers are compensating for a small penis. That is my opinion.
> 
> Buzz


Stupid opinion.


----------



## Mike Petrik

scubasteve said:


> Actually that's a misnomer. Its based upon the statistic that the suicide rate in this country is higher than the homocide rate. That fact got manipulated into this "fact" that your weapon is more likely to be "used" against you. It implies that its more likely someone will take your gun from you and shoot you, but that's not accurate at all.


Actually, used in this context the word "misnomer" is a misnomer. ;-) A more proper word would be "misconception." That said, the thrust of this post is spot on. But let's not let facts get in the way of time-honored and highly-circulated statistics.

For the record, I have no interest in owning a gun, but have even less interest in preventing other law-abiding citizens from owning one (or as many as they wish).

And:

"Fortunately, all I have ever had to do is point my gun at another person, they did not force me to pull the trigger .... If you're going to have a gun for protection....why have it unloaded?"

Huh?


----------



## Relayer

Trenditional:

I appreciate that you have the courage and fortitude to serve as an LEO. 

I'm also glad that you are not a legislator or judge.

M6 helped bring the 'joke' upon himself by his gratuitous insult (which, unfortunately, you chose to repeat) to all non-LEO men to choose to carry a concealed weapon.

Stay safe.


----------



## Trenditional

Mike Petrik said:


> Actually, used in this context the word "misnomer" is a misnomer. ;-) A more proper word would be "misconception." That said, the thrust of this post is spot on. But let's not let facts get in the way of time-honored and highly-circulated statistics.
> 
> For the record, I have no interest in owning a gun, but have even less interest in preventing other law-abiding citizens from owning one (or as many as they wish).
> 
> And:
> 
> *"Fortunately, all I have ever had to do is point my gun at another person, they did not force me to pull the trigger .... If you're going to have a gun for protection....why have it unloaded?"*
> 
> Huh?


These were statements in two different sections of my comment.

1) When pointing a gun at someone, their subsquent actions will dictate whether the finger goes on to the trigger and whether or not the trigger is pulled. So, in my job I have pointed a gun at another person, fortunately their actions didn't dictate I pull the trigger - hence they didn't force me to pull the trigger.

2) The second point is pretty clear. Why have a gun, if you're not going to keep it loaded? I always laugh when a movie or t.v. show, has the character chamber a round before doing their next action. So I say, if you want to have a gun for protection, then have it loaded and within reach at a moments notice. If this is unacceptable because of children or whatever other reason, then don't have the gun. Shooters train so that in a stressful situation muscle memory takes over and they don't have to think. Who has trained at being woken from a sound sleep, gathering their gun and ammunition, putting them together and addressing a threat - quickly? You might think you can do it quickly, but have you tried it? What lighting do you have available to you at 3 a.m.? Do you have a flashlight or will you turn on lights? Just things to think about.


----------



## Trenditional

Relayer said:


> Trenditional:
> 
> I appreciate that you have the courage and fortitude to serve as an LEO.
> 
> I'm also glad that you are not a legislator or judge.
> 
> M6 helped bring the 'joke' upon himself by his gratuitous insult (which, unfortunately, you chose to repeat) to all non-LEO men to choose to carry a concealed weapon.
> 
> Stay safe.


I clarified by saying "not all," but yes I do believe there is a large portion of the population of gun owners/carriers who are trying to compensate. I also equated this to LEOs also. There are many of them who became police officers for the power they get from their position. This same group of LEOs is more often than not the ones who have a gun with them all the time. If that makes me the brunt of jokes, so be it.


----------



## DukeGrad

*Trenditional*

Gentlemen,

My God , 40 cal Glock. The 40 cal went by the wayside, when it came out.And first introduced to the NJ state police.

How about the S&W 50 cal pistol.
LOL,Have a friend who bought this. Why, I have no idea.

Nice day my friend


----------



## M6Classic

M6Classic said:


> "Most men who carry concealed firearms and are not sworn public safety officers are compensating for a small penis. That is my opinion.
> 
> Buzz





Mike Petrik said:


> Stupid opinion.


Good Lord, man, it was a joke which virtually everyone else seems to have understood! Okay, it is an old and lame joke, but it is a joke! I have absolutely no idea about the penis size of gun owners and I am unaware of anyone who has done research on the matter...are you?

Buzz


----------



## Mike Petrik

Trenditional said:


> These were statements in two different sections of my comment.
> 
> 1) When pointing a gun at someone, their subsquent actions will dictate whether the finger goes on to the trigger and whether or not the trigger is pulled. So, in my job I have pointed a gun at another person, fortunately their actions didn't dictate I pull the trigger - hence they didn't force me to pull the trigger.
> 
> 2) The second point is pretty clear. Why have a gun, if you're not going to keep it loaded? I always laugh when a movie or t.v. show, has the character chamber a round before doing their next action. So I say, if you want to have a gun for protection, then have it loaded and within reach at a moments notice. If this is unacceptable because of children or whatever other reason, then don't have the gun. Shooters train so that in a stressful situation muscle memory takes over and they don't have to think. Who has trained at being woken from a sound sleep, gathering their gun and ammunition, putting them together and addressing a threat - quickly? You might think you can do it quickly, but have you tried it? What lighting do you have available to you at 3 a.m.? Do you have a flashlight or will you turn on lights? Just things to think about.


OK, but I still think that the question posed in your second statement is amply answered by the explanation posed in your first.


----------



## Mike Petrik

M6Classic said:


> Good Lord, man, it was a joke which virtually everyone else seems to have understood! Okay, it is an old and lame joke, but it is a joke! I have absolutely no idea about the penis size of gun owners and I am unaware of anyone who has done research on the matter...are you?
> 
> Buzz


Buzz, I agree it is lame. It is just a pathetic attempt to ridicule people who disagree with you.


----------



## 16412

I don't see anywhere in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights that the government has any right to know if you are buying gun/s, have any guns, what they are for, such as hobby, sport, protection or an serious errant government. 

We are not government property. So, government has no right to know. Else, how would we be a free people?


----------



## Howard

> Why have a gun, if you're not going to keep it loaded?


I guess to fool people that there are bullets in the gun but you know there are no bullets at all.


----------



## globetrotter

Trenditional said:


> This debate is old, but unfortunately one that I don't think will ever be resolved. For the record here is my background: I am in law enforcement and put a handgun on my waist everyday. Fortunately, all I have ever had to do is point my gun at another person, they did not force me to pull the trigger. I don't believe guns are bad, it is the person operating the gun that can be bad (or good). I own two guns (a Glock 40 for work [I wouldn't need to own this one, but the Smith & Wesson Sigma my company would have provided, left me less than confident] and a Winchester rifle which was my grandfathers - I have never fired it) and will probably never own any others. I don't hunt. I don't understand the fascination with owning guns.
> 
> Having been in law enforcement for over 20 years, I have met my share of "Gun nuts" on both sides of the fence (law enforcement types, and civilian [criminal and non criminal] and I have to agree somewhat with the penis reference. There are plenty in law enforcement who are there because of the badge and the gun and for certain they will always have a gun with them. Me, I rarely carry my gun when I'm not working (then again, I don't carry anything that identifies me as a police officer either). Actually carrying a gun is a huge freakin' hassle, especially when you want to keep it concealed.
> 
> Removing the times I've had to point a gun at someone in the scope of my profession, I've been able to survive for 40 years on this planet with never having the need for a gun to protect myself or my family. I'd be interested in how many people here have actually had to use a gun to protect them or their family? How many here have been confronted by an armed assailant and fended them off with being able to deploy potential deadly force in return?
> 
> I still remember a reenactment video we were shown in the academy. An off-duty officer is going into a supermarket with his daughter. He sees several masked men going into the store with guns. This "knucklehead" puts his daughter near the back of the vehicle and he takes up a position at the front of the vehicle to detain these robbers. They exit the store, he confronts them and the shooting ensues. The flanked him and ultimately killed his daughter. Carrying a gun is great when you're by yourself, but always remember those who are with you just became targets because of their proximity to you.
> 
> If you're going to have a gun for protection....why have it unloaded? If there are people in your home that you don't feel are safe to be around a loaded gun, then why have the gun? A gun is a paper weight if it doesn't have bullets. A shotgun with 00 buck is your best home defense. You don't need to aim. You point it in the general direction and you're pretty certain you're going to hit your target.
> 
> So...Do I believe the 2nd Amendment is saying we can all own guns, NO. Do I believe there is a need for owning a combination of more than 5 guns, NO. Hell, no one should have guns besides the police. Do I beleive that many (not all) of the gun owners are compensating for their lack of self confidence, YES. If you want guns, give everyone a shotgun and be done with it. Make all other guns illegal.
> 
> M6, people might make jokes, but standing face to face with an armed assailant and having to look at them and see them die has to be traumatic.


I agree with pretty much everything that this Gentlman has said.

I don't think that guns should be outlawed. I would like to see better restrictions, mostly involving training and responsiblity - if your gun is stolen or lost, or used by a member of yoru family in an unlawful way, you should be responsible for it. but aside from that, I wouldn't try to outlaw guns.

I do think that a gentleman would try to self regulate - I think that it is unseemly, in poor taste and irrisponsible to have more guns than you need or can responsibly care for.

I aslo think that the vast majority of american gun owners grossly overestimate their ability to use a firearm to influence a self defence situation. probrably 99% of the stories that you hear about where people used a firearm to defend themselves could have been solved without a firearm. if somebody really wants to kill you, you are probrably going to die. if somebody wants to steal your vcr, you can probrably solve the issue without a gun.


----------



## globetrotter

Country Irish said:


> In regard to the Constitution, the second amendment is not there to protect hunting rights or for target shooting. This is the amendment that protects the remainder of the Constitution. Without the ability to hold the government accountable we are subjects instead of citizens.


excellent point - my question then would be

1. did you serve in the armed forces? it would seem that the 2nd ammendment assumed that the citizens take an active role in the defence of the country.

2. do you really think that the weapons that you have at home will hold the government accountable?

this argument would make more sense to me if people really took part in militias - that is, if they and a group of neighbors, family and friends served in the military, and then kept heavy equipment and arms and trained as a group so that if they ever needed to protect the rights of the citizens against the government they had the ability to. a guy who has a colection of pretty handguns at home has no real leverage at controling the government.



> The matter of personal safety is just that, personal. If you want to depend on the police being there to assist you during a crime that is your call. I personally find it is unlikely they could be on the spot at the right time but are just fine for filling out reports afterward.
> 
> The Constitution preserves my rights and specifies one manner in which they can be preserved. God gave me the instinct for self preservation. I choose to stand ready to take care of myself, my family and my neighbors if the situation calls for action. However I do recognize your right to be a victim, starve or otherwise come to an unhappy end if you decide not to use a weapon.


yes and no - it is a personal issue, but it is one that some people's opinions have more value than others. I've trained a pretty large number of gunmen. I don't believe that your average american gun owner has the ability to use a firearm to influence the outcome of an event that would, if he didn't have a firearm, result in his death. and I would suggest that he is more likley to cause the death of himself or an innocent by having the firearms. that is my opinion. others have other opinions. I would suggest that in the same way you would go to an expert to get an opnion about your car or teeth, you might want to talk to an expert about your guns.


----------



## eagle2250

globetrotter said:


> excellent point - my question then would be
> 
> 1. did you serve in the armed forces? it would seem that the 2nd ammendment assumed that the citizens take an active role in the defence of the country.
> 
> 2. do you really think that the weapons that you have at home will hold the government accountable? ...


In answer to Q1: Yes I did but, they made me give em back all the good stuff when I retired; an F4 Phantom, Minuteman Modernized ICBMs (10), my M16 w/M262 grenade launcher attached, an M60 light machine gun and a couple odd fragmentation grenades.

Q2: Good gosh, I feel so naked!


----------



## Country Irish

"I do think that a gentleman would try to self regulate - I think that it is unseemly, in poor taste and irrisponsible to have more guns than you need or can responsibly care for."

Exactly how many guns would that be in your estimation? I have come across people with hundreds of guns and they seem to have no problem with caring for them. As for me I do have more than one. I have no problems keeping up with multiples of anything.


"it would seem that the 2nd ammendment assumed that the citizens take an active role in the defence of the country. "

Part of it does make that assumption and by convention AND by law a militia exists. This is not the National Guard BTW. Guess what? You are part of it now or at least were if you have reached a more mature state of being.


"a guy who has a colection of pretty handguns at home has no real leverage at controling the government. "

Our founding fathers thought otherwise... and proved it was so.

"I would suggest that in the same way you would go to an expert to get an opnion about your car or teeth, you might want to talk to an expert about your guns."

No comment, oh trainer of "a pretty large number".
No offense but there are several serious bangsters on this board lurking as dandies. Don't let the pocket squares fool you.


----------



## MichaelS

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> Horribly cheap and effective too. Also friendlier to the general populace because they were the general populace.


In regards to the militias being 'effective", there are quite a few pre-civil war contemporaneous descriptions of militias being quite the opposite! They were very often a chance to get together and get VERY drunk, party your but off, then get sick all over each other and everything else. They also often didn't have nearly enough weapons for all of the members and the leaders were picked by popular vote instead of based on military competence.

Granted, some militias might have been very good and some did perform admirably in the civil war (after real training) but a lot were not what I could call effective (unless you count making your enemy laugh so hard they can't shoot straight).

I wonder if there are any verified figures that show that owning a gun actually protects anyone except in the very rare occasion. In Vermont we have basically no gou control laws. You can carry a concealed weapon without any sort of permit/license anywhere except for a few public buildings (such as the court house which does make sense).

We have a low crime rate compared to many other states but I think that has more to do with us being rural than having a lot of guns being carried everywhere.

We do have murders but the great majority of these are some guy killing his girlfriend/ex-girlfriend/wife/ex-wife/female relative. These often occurred at home when the parties were often drunk or otherwise altered and in a heated argument. If the woman had had a gun, she probably wouldn't have had it accessible as she was with someone she knew and even if did not trust, would not expect to shoot her. There are of course those really horrible cases of a random woman off of the street being killed (and often of course sexually assaulted very sadly) but in these cases there is often a lot of evidence that the man first made friends with the woman thus disarming her so to speak. Again, having the gun may not have mattered as it would probably have been in a purse and likely inaccessible.

Although I do own a shotgun and rifle for hunting and have owned handguns for target practice, I have never felt the need to carry one for protection and I have been in some pretty weird places around the country over the years. I have never been seriously threatened and have always been able to talk my way out of any trouble but I may have just been lucky.


----------



## M6Classic

Mike Petrik said:


> Buzz, I agree it is lame. It is just a pathetic attempt to ridicule people who disagree with you.


Many people disagree with me. Only a select few are ridiculous.

Buzz


----------



## Cruiser

M6Classic said:


> Many people disagree with me. Only a select few are ridiculous.


If there is one thing that stands out to me about this clothing forum it is the propensity of a few to seemingly be unable to disagree about something without also attacking the other person's character, integrity, intelligence, whatever. How often do we see folks described in all manner of negative terms simply because they wear this or that item of clothing or because of their position on political, social, or other such issues.

If you ask me it is this negativity and hostility that has gotten Washington into the fix it is in. Neither the left nor the right seem to want to do what's right for the country, only what will look like a "win" for them. There is no compromise, no give and take anymore. It's all about grinding the other side into the ground. In the end we all lose.

Cruiser


----------



## KenR

Cruiser said:


> If there is one thing that stands out to me about this clothing forum it is the propensity of a few to seemingly be unable to disagree about something without also attacking the other person's character, integrity, intelligence, whatever. *How often do we see folks described in all manner of negative terms simply because they wear this or that item of clothing* or because of their position on political, social, or other such issues.
> 
> Cruiser


He's right. Save the vicious personal attacks for the thread about wearing ascots. ic12337:


----------



## Cruiser

KenR said:


> He's right. Save the vicious personal attacks for the thread about wearing ascots.


OK, if someone is wearing an ascot the personal attacks are well deserved. After all if one is just outright asking for it---- :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## globetrotter

Country Irish said:


> "I do think that a gentleman would try to self regulate - I think that it is unseemly, in poor taste and irrisponsible to have more guns than you need or can responsibly care for."
> 
> Exactly how many guns would that be in your estimation? I have come across people with hundreds of guns and they seem to have no problem with caring for them. As for me I do have more than one. I have no problems keeping up with multiples of anything.


that breaks into two very different questions - how many do you need? I would suggest that anybody who is not in the law enforcement or security business, who really needs a gun for self defense should make changes in the way that they live their lives. I would suggest that you can live your whole life pretty well without needing a gun for self defence. now, if you really do need a gun for self defence, I would suggest that the vast majoirty of the US gun owners who have a gun for self defense have the wrong gun or guns.

if you hunt, great, get the guns you need to hunt.

more than that, nobody really needs.

the second question is caring for the guns - the fact is that the vast, vast majoirty of guns in the hands of bad guys in this country left the factory in a perfectly legal manner. somebody bought they legally and then let them be stolen, lost them, or sold them to a bad guy. so, obviously, people aren't being careful enough with their guns.

where I come from, you can have one gun, if you can prove a need and that you will be responsible. if that gun gets lost or stolen, you are responsible. every 10 years or so, a child will get killed by a gun, or a stolen gun will be used in a crime, and it will make the front page of the national newspapers. that is a reasonable situation.



> "it would seem that the 2nd ammendment assumed that the citizens take an active role in the defence of the country. "
> 
> Part of it does make that assumption and by convention AND by law a militia exists. This is not the National Guard BTW. Guess what? You are part of it now or at least were if you have reached a more mature state of being.


well, I hope that I mature enough to agree with you some day. when I was 19 I was leading men into combat. I am guessing you were trying to figure out how to operate a beer bong at about that age.



> "a guy who has a colection of pretty handguns at home has no real leverage at controling the government. "
> 
> Our founding fathers thought otherwise... and proved it was so.


our founding fathers lived in an age when the best government in the world didn't arm or train their army much better than a hunter could arm or train himself. no number of well armed suburban weekend hunters is going to take on a Stryker company.



> "I would suggest that in the same way you would go to an expert to get an opnion about your car or teeth, you might want to talk to an expert about your guns."
> 
> No comment, oh trainer of "a pretty large number".
> No offense but there are several serious bangsters on this board lurking as dandies. Don't let the pocket squares fool you.


of course - we've had this discussion several times on this board, and there are several people here whose opinions I value that I disagree with, and several that I agree with. but I would strongly suggest that the vast majority of american gun owners who keep a gun for personal defense have done less research on how to defend their persons, families and homes than they have on what car to buy. they have purchesed the wrong weapon, they store it the wrong way, and they have an almost magical faith in its ability to defend them.


----------



## 16412

Globetrotter and Micheel S Your arguements sound very nice and logical but they are within a certain box and not all the reasons to have easy access is in that box. Haven't you guys ever gone to the library and read about organize crime? Even reading the local newspaper once in a while I read where the FBI says organize crime completely run small counties. How many Cheif of Police and Sheriff's and Prosecutors are organize crime? Not to mention Judges. And who do they hire? Some times the troubles I've had I think what is the point of calling 911 and telling them what they already know? So, if this myth of good government rules who git a gun, and even how long it take before they say it is ok, if they say ok, good people are going to be dead and are dead because organize crime in uniform and prosecutor and judges will and has put a block on that person who needs a gun. I expect a 7 year old to have blind faith in government but, it is illresponsible thinking for an adult to do that. I also don't want illresponsible people to vote anymore than I want a 7 year old to vote. When government has too much power it often falls into the hands of evil people. Good governments have restrictions on how much power it can have and our fore fathers said gun control is to much power.

Can't hit the broad side of a barn? Organize crimers can tell you story after story after story of there own dieing because, the person who can't hit the broad side of a barn, even with their eyes glued shut and shaking like a leaf in fear, pulled the triger at the right time. Organize crimers never want their opponents to have a chance when they try to get them, being the cowards they are. Even here on these various forums there has been several organize crimers participating and they sound like ordinary people, so rather deceiving but, more common than ordinary people think. Many, but not all, organize crimers want gun control, that way you really can't protect yourself sometimes from them. Being the cons they are they explain so well why ordianry people shouldn't have guns and governmentless access in ways so you don't think of the reasons why you should be free.


----------



## DukeGrad

*GLOBETROTTER*

Gentlemen,

Globetrotter, love it. Beer bong. That is not what we called it back in the day!
Have nice one my friend


----------



## globetrotter

DukeGrad said:


> Gentlemen,
> 
> Globetrotter, love it. Beer bong. That is not what we called it back in the day!
> Have nice one my friend


happy to make you smile, sir.


----------



## MichaelS

WA said:


> Globetrotter and Micheel S Your arguements sound very nice and logical but they are within a certain box and not all the reasons to have easy access is in that box. Haven't you guys ever gone to the library and read about organize crime? Even reading the local newspaper once in a while I read where the FBI says organize crime completely run small counties. How many Cheif of Police and Sheriff's and Prosecutors are organize crime? Not to mention Judges. And who do they hire? Some times the troubles I've had I think what is the point of calling 911 and telling them what they already know? So, if this myth of good government rules who git a gun, and even how long it take before they say it is ok, if they say ok, good people are going to be dead and are dead because organize crime in uniform and prosecutor and judges will and has put a block on that person who needs a gun. I expect a 7 year old to have blind faith in government but, it is illresponsible thinking for an adult to do that. I also don't want illresponsible people to vote anymore than I want a 7 year old to vote. When government has too much power it often falls into the hands of evil people. Good governments have restrictions on how much power it can have and our fore fathers said gun control is to much power.
> 
> Can't hit the broad side of a barn? Organize crimers can tell you story after story after story of there own dieing because, the person who can't hit the broad side of a barn, even with their eyes glued shut and shaking like a leaf in fear, pulled the triger at the right time. Organize crimers never want their opponents to have a chance when they try to get them, being the cowards they are. Even here on these various forums there has been several organize crimers participating and they sound like ordinary people, so rather deceiving but, more common than ordinary people think. Many, but not all, organize crimers want gun control, that way you really can't protect yourself sometimes from them. Being the cons they are they explain so well why ordianry people shouldn't have guns and governmentless access in ways so you don't think of the reasons why you should be free.


I wasn't actually trying to make an argument but rather pose a question about real data. That said, I have to say I think you are off on the amount of influence organized crime really has (other than that on Wall Street, and they don't need guns).

I may have become naive living in rural areas around the US and in VT for the last 20+ years, but in much of the US, there aint enough money for the really big organized crime families such as we see on TV shows. There are ******* gangs making meth in the country and city gangs bringing crack and smack to VT but these guys are crazy and don't hold a lot of attraction to the Mafia (other than being suppliers in the big city). The money isn't there. As to corrupt local governments here, we all know each other too well for any real corrupt flatlanders (any non-native Vermonter) to do any real harm. Now if they try to corner the maple syrup market or water syrup down, the Vermont Militia will kick some organized crime A$$.


----------



## fenway

globetrotter said:


> no number of well armed suburban weekend hunters is going to take on a Stryker company. .


----------



## mommatook1

saw that one coming...


----------



## globetrotter

mommatook1 said:


> saw that one coming...


that's an excellent point - there are no successful insurections running in the world that do not have one (or both) of two elements:

1. support from a well formed, well trained, well armed foreign army

2. a pre-exsting military structure from a military - with hierarchy, logistics, communications and industrially produced weapons.

Iraq has both.

and even in Iraq the insuraction doens't control the country.

I would have a great deal more respect for anybody who claimed to keep weapons in accordance with the framers desire to control the government if he also kept radio equipment or studied organic chemistry and structural engineering so that he knew how to make bombs.

a large collection of silver plated .45's isn't going to stop an army.


----------



## JohnRov

As was pointed out in the Heller decision, the purpose of serving in a militia was simply one reason to protect the right to own firearms, not the sole purpose.

I am a firm supporter of the 2nd Amendment. I am an NRA pistol instructor and life member.

The rate of criminal conduct of carry permit holders is far less than that of the general population. To depend upon the police to protect you is foolhardy, as much precedence has found that they can't be held liable for not doing so. Police can't be everywhere, it is the person's responsibility to protect themself.

As for the nuclear weapon/tank comments, the writings of the founders make it very clear that arms refers to arms in common use at any given time. So muskets (and actually cannons) back in their era, and all handguns and rifles and shotguns in common use today.


----------



## globetrotter

JohnRov said:


> The rate of criminal conduct of carry permit holders is far less than that of the general population. To depend upon the police to protect you is foolhardy, as much precedence has found that they can't be held liable for not doing so. Police can't be everywhere, it is the person's responsibility to protect themself.


fair enough point, I don't really disagree with you. I do not believe that most american gun owners can operate a firearm well enough to influence the outcome of an event that would otherwise result in their death.



> As for the nuclear weapon/tank comments, the writings of the founders make it very clear that arms refers to arms in common use at any given time. So muskets (and actually cannons) back in their era, and all handguns and rifles and shotguns in common use today.


sorry - can you clarify? my point was that in the founders day

1. the arms that were commonly held in the hands of citizens were just as good as the arms in the hands of the army
2. the training that a typical farmer had in handling firearms was just as good as a typical infantryman
3. the structure of society in small towns and cities provided for communications and logistics that were just as good as those enjoyed by a top notch army

today, the situation is vastly differnt. to say that you are keeping a colleciton of handguns in order to control the government is like saying you keep a barometer at home to control the weather.

I would be pleased as punch if you could show me where I have a wrong agrument above.


----------



## 16412

globetrotter- I believe the law say it is forbidden for the military to be used against the citizenry. So, If the government is using the military against us when it is our legal right to stand up against those in government then they need to be remove because they are not obeying the law. What kind of law is it when criminal are writing "law"? 

Michael S- There is no $ amount asigned to the love of money. So, the rich are not evil because they have lots. Evil are those who love money, whether they have any money or not. When a few dollars, or a lot, are more important than a human life that is evil and a choice. Strong like is love, strange or not. And there are always people around who love money. It would be a rare community if several in it didn't have that vice. And there is much evil out of sight of the general community, which ordinary people don't have a clue happens. You would think small communities would be too transparent, but threats hide many crimes.


----------



## globetrotter

WA said:


> globetrotter- I believe the law say it is forbidden for the military to be used against the citizenry. So, If the government is using the military against us when it is our legal right to stand up against those in government then they need to be remove because they are not obeying the law. What kind of law is it when criminal are writing "law"?
> 
> .


not sure of your point.

I have no argument with the legal right of the citizens of the US to protect themselves against tyrany. that is a great thing. if you think that owning a few pistols protects you from tyrany, you are mistaken.

look, let me go back to the same argument that I stated maybe a couple of years ago on this site, in a similar discussion.

there are 4 reasons for owning a firearm

1. hunting - great, I have nothing against hunting. hunt away

2. self defence - I believe very strongly that everyone should be able to defend themselves and their homes and family. I believe that most American gun owners who 
own a gun to defend themselves don't have the ability to actually use a firearm to successfully influence the outcome of an event.

3. protect against tyrany - I don't think that americna gun owners are in any position to protect against tyrany. and, let me put it this way - for instance the swiss system, or the albanian system, or the israeli system, all are much better at preparing the country to defend against tyrany. a bunch of accountants and truck drivers with pearl handled .45's isn't going to stop a stryker company.

4. because you think its cool to have a lot of guns - this is the main reason that americans have guns. they like to tell you it is because of 2 and 3, but it isn't. I would be perfectly fine with 1, 2 and 3, if people actually put in the effort to really be prepared and rationally position themselves for 2 and 3, but they usually don't. and I don't think that "because its cool" is a good reason to have a gun.


----------



## JohnRov

globetrotter said:


> fair enough point, I don't really disagree with you. I do not believe that most american gun owners can operate a firearm well enough to influence the outcome of an event that would otherwise result in their death.


Maybe, maybe not, but I feel that's my choice to make, not the government's. I wouldn't hesitate to guess that the average person who carries on a daily basis is far more competent with their firearm than the average police officer who is required to qualify once a year. My BIL is a full-time SWAT officer. They run the range during qualification and consider it the most dangerous part of their job. Police trade-ins are considered a very good buy by gun owners because they are generally very lightly used.



globetrotter said:


> sorry - can you clarify? my point was that in the founders day
> 
> 1. the arms that were commonly held in the hands of citizens were just as good as the arms in the hands of the army
> 2. the training that a typical farmer had in handling firearms was just as good as a typical infantryman
> 3. the structure of society in small towns and cities provided for communications and logistics that were just as good as those enjoyed by a top notch army
> 
> today, the situation is vastly differnt. to say that you are keeping a colleciton of handguns in order to control the government is like saying you keep a barometer at home to control the weather.
> 
> I would be pleased as punch if you could show me where I have a wrong agrument above.


There really aren't any points that I disagree with, my point was counter to those who were asking about bigger weapons. Bigger things like tanks, etc. aren't in common use, and therefore not covered by the 2nd Amendment. I wasn't commenting on whether they were sufficient to fight the government.

And handguns just let you fight to get to your rifle. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## JohnRov

globetrotter said:


> not sure of your point.
> 
> 4. because you think its cool to have a lot of guns - this is the main reason that americans have guns. they like to tell you it is because of 2 and 3, but it isn't. I would be perfectly fine with 1, 2 and 3, if people actually put in the effort to really be prepared and rationally position themselves for 2 and 3, but they usually don't. and I don't think that "because its cool" is a good reason to have a gun.


I really disagree with this. Many people own different guns because they are fun. Is that ok? Ruger 10/22s, Moisin-Nagant surplus rifles, AR-15s, etc. People go out and plink at the range and they are done. I don't think people think owning lots of guns makes them cool.

Is that any worse than buying a $150,000 sports car that goes well beyond the legal speed limit and that endangers others by driving that fast?


----------



## Relayer

globetrotter said:


> I believe that most American gun owners who own a gun to defend themselves don't have the ability to actually use a firearm to successfully influence the outcome of an *event*.


I think the accuracy of your statement depends in large part on the nature or type of *event*.

Personally, I follow the line of thinking that says "don't point a firearm at anything/anyone that you are not willing to destroy", but I recognize that destruction isn't necessarily always required for a successful outcome.


----------



## Cruiser

Why do I have a handgun carry permit? Because I like the feel of strapping that .357 Magnum on my hip with the knowledge that it will knock most men to the ground instantly.

Not really. Actually that .357 has been hidden away between the mattress and box springs on my bed for the past year or so, but if I ever do want to strap that puppy on,----all I have to do is find the holster. Now where did I put it? :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## globetrotter

Relayer said:


> I think the accuracy of your statement depends in large part on the nature or type of *event*.
> 
> Personally, I follow the line of thinking that says "don't point a firearm at anything/anyone that you are not willing to destroy", but I recognize that destruction isn't necessarily always required for a successful outcome.


There are only 3 types of events relevant to a firearm discussion

1. Those events that you can successfully influence without a firearm

2. Those events that you could,t influence without a firearm, but could influence with a firearm

3. Those that you couldn't influence either with or without a firearm

I think most people vastly over estimate the second category.


----------



## hurling frootmig

Unless you put in the practice to keep up your shooting skills the odds are against you in actually hitting someone breaking into your house. 

Concealed carry seems unnecessary to me. The wild west went away a long time ago. I'm perfectly content to go to the local shooting range.


----------



## globetrotter

JohnRov said:


> Is that any worse than buying a $150,000 sports car that goes well beyond the legal speed limit and that endangers others by driving that fast?


About the same. But we never have threads about cars...


----------



## Trenditional

globetrotter said:


> About the same. But we never have threads about cars...


This comparison isn't really the same. Yes, a Ferrari can go 160 MPH and yes driving that fast is illegal and could be dangerous, but come on equating it to a gun? A Ferrari can also go 65 next to all of our vehicles and not be dangerous. Like with guns, I will agree that all cars can be instruments of death if operated in a reckless manner. In general though cars have more functional purposes for the average user than guns do. Also, guns don't have levels of operation. Either the bullet comes out our it doesn't. Guns have two basic purposes...shooting at targets and shooting at people. If you're shooting at targets, is there a need for anything more than a 22?


----------



## SlowE30

M6Classic said:


> Sorry, I don't know for what women who carry are compensating. Sure it is hackneyed, but it also true, just like _the bigger the tires the smaller the penis._
> 
> Was her shooting justified? She was not indicted. She was, however, permanently traumatized by the experience. We were approached on a city street by a very threatening individual. When asked for her wallet, she drew the pistol from her purse and dropped the guy who was wielding a knife, I forget what kind or size of blade. I think in retrospect she would have preferred to give him her wallet and not have watched a man bleed to death about five feet in front of us. He made some awful noises for a few minutes.
> 
> Buzz


If she hadn't killed him, he could have killed your mother, or someone else's, the next night. If he had survived, she would have felt better, but he'd just be sucking my (and your) dollars in sitting in jail. He killed himself when he chose to threaten someone's life. Unfortunate and tragic, but good riddance to a drain on society. You can't feel sorry for someone like that. Thank you for sharing the story, and sorry for the discomfort it has caused you and her.

In other news, I don't own a gun, but having just moved into Alaska, I'm going to get myself a 44 Magnum as soon as I can. It's about the smallest thing you can use on a brown bear. When my girlfriend comes to visit, I'm not going to rely on luck to protect her life when we go hiking, and I'm not going to carry a shotgun to go fishing.

When I move to Charleston next year I'll take the gun, but it will never leave my house. When I have kids, it will be locked up even more securely.


----------



## DukeGrad

*SlowE30*

My friend,

Big difference between SC, and Alaska. You can get 44mag at your AC store. It is a common fact up there, that people count on weapons. For protection. Especially the arctic area and Kenai and many other regions.
If in the arctic. Polar bear and your arctic fox are a nuisance. Barrow is an area where you run into problems. You need a powerful rifle, and a good shot.
Or a very potent handgun if you make the big mistake. And that is getting close to polar bear.
Been there, crazy , beautiful place.I think.
Nice day


----------



## Howard

I think cart collectors should carry handguns but they must be put away secretly so that way customers don't get scared of it.If they abuse the carts in some way shape or form they'll get a handful of bullets,courtesy from me!


----------



## mommatook1

JohnRov said:


> I really disagree with this. Many people own different guns because they are fun. Is that ok? ...


Agreed. My favorite long gun and pistol are my .22's. Cheap and fun to shoot. I also love my shotgun for shooting skeet, not because I think one day it will protect my home from a burglary.

That being said, I do strongly agree with globetrotter's observation that the majority of people who claim to own a gun for self-defense have not put much thought into it and have not put forth an adequate level of effort to train themselves properly for such a situation.

Whenever the topic comes up I always hear some bonehead chime in with "yeah, I've been meaning to pick up a [insert large caliber handgun here] to keep at home for self-defense." Hmmm, ok, assuming your house gets robbed at night, how are you going to see well enough to aim at the robber? "Umm, well, I'll get some night sights." Ok, and how do plan to be able to see the robber and positively ID him so that you don't accidentally shoot a family member? "Yeah, I guess I should get one of those tactical flashlights you can mount on the gun." Ok, and what happens when you fire your weapon, miss, and a bullet goes through drywall and injures or kills one of your family members who is sleeping in another room? "Uhhhh......" Have you ever considered a short-barreled shotgun? "That might be cool." No, it's not cool, but it's less likely to penetrate a wall and more importantly you can buy non-lethal shotgun loads, minimizing the chance you would seriously injure or kill one of your family members. "Yeah but I really wanted a handgun." Hmmm, so it sounds like you don't even own a handgun right now, so what makes you think you will magically know how to properly operate one when you buy it? Furthermore, the mere sound of a pump shotgun slide being cycled will probably be enough to deter a robber, hopefully preventing a confrontation in the first place. "Hmm, hadn't really thought about it that way." And on and on and on...

Changing frequencies... the comments about needing a large caliber handgun for the outdoors in AK are valid. Not just for bears either, there are plenty of other animals that will charge your ass if you surprise them accidentally.


----------



## eagle2250

mommatook1 said:


> ...Changing frequencies... the comments about needing a large caliber handgun for the outdoors in AK are valid. Not just for bears either, there are plenty of other animals that will charge your ass if you surprise them accidentally.


You can say that in all caps. A Bull Moose in rut, makes a bear look like a pussy cat! Mean, aggressive and fast...all in the same package.


----------



## JohnRov

Trenditional said:


> This comparison isn't really the same. Yes, a Ferrari can go 160 MPH and yes driving that fast is illegal and could be dangerous, but come on equating it to a gun? A Ferrari can also go 65 next to all of our vehicles and not be dangerous. Like with guns, I will agree that all cars can be instruments of death if operated in a reckless manner. In general though cars have more functional purposes for the average user than guns do. Also, guns don't have levels of operation. Either the bullet comes out our it doesn't. Guns have two basic purposes...shooting at targets and shooting at people. If you're shooting at targets, is there a need for anything more than a 22?


Yes actually. There are a ton of different competitions that require far more than a .22 and a .22's performance falls off rapidly past 100 yards.

Point being, far more guns are fired safely than are fired in a harmful manner each year. Millions of rounds are fired safely each year.

Lastly, as for need, this is America, you aren't limited to possessing what you need.


----------



## globetrotter

JohnRov said:


> Lastly, as for need, this is America, you aren't limited to possessing what you need.


this is where the argument always ends up.

look at it this way - I think that plastics aren't good for the enviroment. they are very comfortable, and I use plastics, eactly as much as I need. I try not to use more, because I think that is the responsible and gentlemanly way. if I knew somebody who collected hundreds of thousands of times as much plastic bags as he needed, I would consider it an afront to the enviroment and would not consider him responsible or a gentleman.

same thing with guns.

sure, you can posses what ever you want, you can do what ever you want. in my opinion, having more guns than you need is not a gentlemanly act. that is one opinion, and there are, I am sure, many others that are very different from that.


----------



## PedanticTurkey

Don't you love it when the lefties start lecturing on what _you_ "need"?

One square is all anyone needs, comrade!


----------



## DukeGrad

*JohnRov*

Gentlemen

JohnRov you bring up a very good point. Far more weapons are fired safely, than fired in a harmful manner.
Look at an individuals military career or that of a police officer. Or anybody in the business. ( FBI, CIA).This is a good indicator, of your point.I want to clarify my position. I am a strong advocate for owning a gun, or 2 or 3. You have that one police officer, who has to have his 9mm. And his 40 cal. And his close gun when all else fails!
If a police type gets in this situation, he has not done his work at the firing range!
As far as me, am a member of the NRA. I own 2. I love to shoot. Go to the range.
In retrospect, do I need them at this moment, or going forward. I would have to say no.
I got a lab, I trust immensely. 
My fears, and I have experienced a robbery years ago in my house. This was the worst feeling, in my life. My whole family felt terrible. I got my lab then.
I feel good, knowing if an idiot tries to harm my kids, wife, or my lab. OR MY GLENLIVET.
I will be prepared to take care of him, or her. After Libby has her meal.
LOL

Nice day my friends, very good point


----------



## hurling frootmig

PedanticTurkey said:


> Don't you love it when the lefties start lecturing on what _you_ "need"?
> 
> One square is all anyone needs, comrade!


I suppose I like it just as much as listening to right wing nut jobs prattle on about the left all the time.

To equate liberals, democrats, or progressives with communists is just as wrong as it would be for me to call you a fascist.

I suspect all of us are more mature than to have to stoop to the level of name calling like second graders.


----------



## JohnRov

globetrotter said:


> this is where the argument always ends up.
> 
> look at it this way - I think that plastics aren't good for the enviroment. they are very comfortable, and I use plastics, eactly as much as I need. I try not to use more, because I think that is the responsible and gentlemanly way. if I knew somebody who collected hundreds of thousands of times as much plastic bags as he needed, I would consider it an afront to the enviroment and would not consider him responsible or a gentleman.
> 
> same thing with guns.
> 
> sure, you can posses what ever you want, you can do what ever you want. in my opinion, having more guns than you need is not a gentlemanly act. that is one opinion, and there are, I am sure, many others that are very different from that.


So you are asserting that someone who owns more guns than you think they should, harming no one, is not a gentleman? I don't see any logic to that conclusion.

Your plastics example doesn't work. How do guns in my safe harm others? You start with the premise that all plastics harm the environment, but cannot make the leap that all guns are harmful and therefore there is no bridge between your example and gun ownership.


----------



## PedanticTurkey

hurling frootmig said:


> I suppose I like it just as much as listening to right wing nut jobs prattle on about the left all the time.
> 
> To equate liberals, democrats, or progressives with communists is just as wrong as it would be for me to call you a fascist.
> 
> I suspect all of us are more mature than to have to stoop to the level of name calling like second graders.


Well, you don't know enough about history or communism (or the modern American left) to understand my comment, and you apparently didn't even read the comment I was replying to--so why am I not surprised by your comment?


----------



## thunderw21

Trenditional said:


> If you're shooting at targets, is there a need for anything more than a 22?


Because, unfortunately, sometimes we are forced to shoot at people. Not by our choice, but by theirs.

And why not have more than a .22? Firearms are only as dangerous as their owners. Shooting a .50 caliber sniper rifle is fun, I tell ya. So is firing a full-auto MG-42. Owning a fast car, a big boat, or an airplane is fun as well. If we stuck to merely owning the essentials of life we would not be having this discussion right now because we'd be living in the Middle Ages. You don't want to devolve the state of our society, do you?

But the main purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to emphasize (the 2nd does not grant anything, for the right was already preexisting) the right of the people to protect themselves through violent means when absolutely necessary. 
If you read it, hunting or the sport usage of firearms are never stated in the 2nd Amend. It does, however, mention the protection of the state by the people: self defense. To say otherwise is to completely overlook one of the very basic rights that humans can obtain: life free from fear of oppression.


----------



## hurling frootmig

PedanticTurkey said:


> Well, you don't know enough about history or communism (or the modern American left) to understand my comment, and you apparently didn't even read the comment I was replying to--so why am I not surprised by your comment?


First, you don't know anything about my educational background so I wouldn't assume anything if I were you. Second, I fully understood your comment and it is exactly why I chose to reply. Third, you should refrain from painting with a broad brush. Finally, I would recommend that you refrain from the name calling as it diminishes your credibility.


----------



## globetrotter

JohnRov said:


> So you are asserting that someone who owns more guns than you think they should, harming no one, is not a gentleman? I don't see any logic to that conclusion.
> 
> Your plastics example doesn't work. How do guns in my safe harm others? You start with the premise that all plastics harm the environment, but cannot make the leap that all guns are harmful and therefore there is no bridge between your example and gun ownership.


guns are harmful. trying to pretend otherwise is dishonest. the fact that they are tools that can provide good is also true, but guns were designed and are made to cause harm. that is a fact. having more guns than you need or can care for harms society - the fact is that there are millions of guns on the market that were first aquired legally and then fell into the wrong hands because of owner neglegence or dishonesty.

yes, I would say that a nice little percentage of gun owners are very careful and resposible with their firearms - and frankly I am not talking about them. but for every one responsible gun owner, there are probrably 100 who do not store their weapons correctly, and probrably 1000 who have more guns than they need.

in the same way that I would not consider a man who makes it a habbit to drive drunk a gentleman, or a person who is sloppy with the enviroment, I would say the same about somebody who is not resposible in his weapon ownership.

again, this is my opinion. obviously, there are people who do not agree with this, and I wish them well.


----------



## thunderw21

globetrotter said:


> guns are harmful. trying to pretend otherwise is dishonest. the fact that they are tools that can provide good is also true, but guns were designed and are made to cause harm. that is a fact. having more guns than you need or can care for harms society - the fact is that there are millions of guns on the market that were first aquired legally and then fell into the wrong hands because of owner neglegence or dishonesty.


Actually, the facts disagree with you.

According to research done by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz**, firearms in the hands of would-be victims are successfully used for self-defense 2.5 million times a year in the U.S. Of that 2.5 million, most attacks are stopped by the would-be victim merely brandishing the firearm. In only 8% of the 2.5 million, or 200,000 cases, does the innocent victim actually shoot or kill the attacker.

2.5 million crimes stopped by the presence of a firearm in the hands of the victim is a conservative number since many of those attacks are never reported (because they were stopped or even prevented). Compare this 2.5 million+ saved from crime to the roughly 50,000 a year killed with firearms (rounded up, half of those are suicides).

As has been said, firearms are only as dangerous as the owner, just like anything else that can be used to harm others. The issue of gun control is not about safety (as I demonstrated above) but rather, it is about control. Control of the citizenry by the government. Control of human rights that belong to the people. Politicians say gun control is for "your safety". When was the last time a politician ever looked out for you?

**Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 _The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology_, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995):164.

Dr. Kleck is a professor in the school of criminology and criminal justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee. He has researched extensively and published several essays on the gun control issue. His book, _Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America_, has become a widely cited source in the gun control debate. In fact, this book earned Dr. Kleck the prestigious American Society of Criminology Michael J. Hindelang award for 1993. This award is given for the book published in the past two to three years that makes the most outstanding contribution to criminology.

Even those who don't like the conclusions Dr. Kleck reaches, cannot argue with his impeccable research and methodology. In "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," Marvin E. Wolfgang writes that, "What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator.... I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence." Wolfgang, "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," _The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology_, at 188. 
Wolfgang says there is no "contrary evidence." Indeed, there are more than a dozen national polls -- one of which was conducted by _The Los Angeles Times_ -- that have found figures comparable to the Kleck-Gertz study. Even the Clinton Justice Department (through the National Institute of Justice) found there were as many as 1.5 million defensive users of firearms every year. See National Institute of Justice, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," _Research in Brief_ (May 1997).

As for Dr. Kleck, readers of his materials may be interested to know that he is a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International USA, and Common Cause. He is not and has never been a member of or contributor to any advocacy group on either side of the gun control debate.


----------



## globetrotter

thunderw21 said:


> Actually, the facts disagree with you.


I don't see how your "facts" disagree with my statement. please clarify.



> According to research done by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz**, firearms in the hands of would-be victims are successfully used for self-defense 2.5 million times a year in the U.S. Of that 2.5 million, most attacks are stopped by the would-be victim merely brandishing the firearm. In only 8% of the 2.5 million, or 200,000 cases, does the innocent victim actually shoot or kill the attacker.


as I said above - there are 3 types of events - those that would be resolved successfully without a firearm, those that could not be resolved even with a firearm, and those that would not be resolved successfully without a firearm but would be successfully resolved with a firearm. when people put together statistics like you quote - they are putting a lot of events on the list that didnt require a firearm for successful resolution.



> As has been said, firearms are only as dangerous as the owner, just like anything else that can be used to harm others. The issue of gun control is not about safety (as I demonstrated above) but rather, it is about control. Control of the citizenry by the government. Control of human rights that belong to the people. Politicians say gun control is for "your safety". When was the last time a politician ever looked out for you?


or self control - the law allows me to smoke 10 packs a day, or to eat 5 pounds of chocolate a day, if I want. the law allows you to find ways to live off of the state and not work. I am not saying "we shouldn't allow you to have guns" I am saying - as a adult and a gentleman, and a resposnible person, you should do the mature thing and not have more firearms than you need. how difficult is that?

now, the argument keeps coming back to the whole issue of "the law can't protect me so I will protect myself, and to do that I need a whole shitload of high powered handguns and assult rifles and other stuff that I can't be bothered to learn how to use, and I dont want to spend money on storing safely". the fact is, you don't need very much to defend yourself and your family, and the vast majoirty of gun owners don't do what they need to correctly protect themselves and their families, anyway.


----------



## 16412

globetrotter your starting to sound like an idiot. The way you are talking is like there mathematically couldn't be millions of guns because you make it sound like 99% of gun are in the hands of killers so 99% of the population wouldn't exist because of death from guns. Shucks, you make it sound like 99% of the population wouldn't even have been born because their parents wouldn't have even been born and their parents wouldn't have been born and so on, because of death by guns.

Your arguement about gentleman holds water like a bucket without a bottom. How many people use snow skiis because they need to? Less than 1% of the ski population? That means about 99% of those skiiers are not ladies and gentleman. I'd have more respect for you if you lived in a cave and cooked with solar power and made clothes out of grass, leaves, bark and grew a garden but, when you live in a house, drive a car, ride in jets here and there, and the list goes on and on, your clearly not a gentleman acording to your own rules and some people think you more than shot yourself in the foot but, commited suicide.

So, if you are illresponsible with your lack of logic isn't it wiser to mind your own business?

It's not wise to try and control people, because they might pull out a gun and rightly shoot you.


----------



## thunderw21

globetrotter said:


> I don't see how your "facts" disagree with my statement. please clarify.


You stated the firearms are destructive and harmful. I shot down that argument by showing you that firearms prove to be more useful in protecting lives than in taking them.



> as I said above - there are 3 types of events - those that would be resolved successfully without a firearm, those that could not be resolved even with a firearm, and those that would not be resolved successfully without a firearm but would be successfully resolved with a firearm. when people put together statistics like you quote - they are putting a lot of events on the list that didnt require a firearm for successful resolution.


As a firearm owner, I was taught to de-escalate a potentially serious situation by backing down, walking away, etc. If someone wants to legally conceal carry they are also taught this. However, situations can get out of hand even when all of the de-escalation techniques have been exhasted: we have no control over the situation. If a bad guy wants to attack you, he will attack you. This is where firearms come in handy.

I was also taught that if you ever point a gun at someone in a serious situation, you cannot turn back: you have made up your mind that if things go south that you are ready to kill someone. Pointing a gun at a person is a serious action and must be treated as such. It is a declaration of intent: you don't point a gun at someone to be their friend. 
Because of this, the 2.5 million times a year a victim points a gun at a criminal leads me to believe that all of the de-escalation tactics and techniques failed to work in those 2.5 million situations. Therefore, as a last resort, the gun was pulled and the crime stopped.

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." 
--Col. Jeff Cooper



> or self control - the law allows me to smoke 10 packs a day, or to eat 5 pounds of chocolate a day, if I want. the law allows you to find ways to live off of the state and not work. I am not saying "we shouldn't allow you to have guns" I am saying - as a adult and a gentleman, and a resposnible person, you should do the mature thing and not have more firearms than you need. how difficult is that?


I know several folks with collections numbering over 20 shootable firearms, yet their guns have killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car. How are they not being mature? How are my 10 firearms harming anyone and how is that not being responsible? How is that not being an adult or a gentleman?

I know several gentlemen in my town who own .50 caliber sniper rifles like the one below. Since you are trying to rid people of their rights, the burden of proof is on you. Why shouldn't they be able to own them and how are they harming anyone?









You need to read the article I posted on page 1 entitled "Why The Gun is Civilized".



> now, the argument keeps coming back to the whole issue of "the law can't protect me so I will protect myself, and to do that I need a whole shitload of high powered handguns and assult rifles and other stuff that I can't be bothered to learn how to use, and I dont want to spend money on storing safely". the fact is, you don't need very much to defend yourself and your family, and the vast majoirty of gun owners don't do what they need to correctly protect themselves and their families, anyway.


Now this sounds like a rant from someone who has never touched a firearm or known a responsible gun owner. Yep, each and every one of us gun owners are hillbillys with 'assault rifles' (true assault rifles are illegal for civilians to own unless they obtain an exceedingly expensive class 3 license after going through a drawn-out "full cavity" background check and other regulations by the BATFE) and has each and every one of them loaded around their red-headed stepkids.  Pick up an issue of "Shotgun News" sometime and you'll have just a peek at the seriousness and professionalism that a majority of gun owners live by.

Until I am able to constantly carry around a police officer, I'll protect myself.

Please come back when you have actual arguments backed up by actual facts instead of blatantly stupid generalizations.


----------



## hurling frootmig

How many of you realize that many of the arguments surrounding the second amendment were decided in the last session of the supreme court? I don't see that ruling being turned over.


----------



## thunderw21

hurling frootmig said:


> How many of you realize that many of the arguments surrounding the second amendment were decided in the last session of the supreme court? I don't see that ruling being turned over.


Amen. Infact, the Heller v. DC decision has been overturning many gun control laws throughout the U.S. The 2nd Amendment is heading back towards what it was originally meant to be.


----------



## SlowE30

DukeGrad said:


> Big difference between SC, and Alaska. You can get 44mag at your AC store. It is a common fact up there, that people count on weapons. For protection. Especially the arctic area and Kenai and many other regions.
> If in the arctic. Polar bear and your arctic fox are a nuisance. Barrow is an area where you run into problems. You need a powerful rifle, and a good shot.
> Or a very potent handgun if you make the big mistake. And that is getting close to polar bear.
> Been there, crazy , beautiful place.I think.
> Nice day


I agree. I looked at 50 caliber handguns at Walmart today.

Alaska's situation is different from most places in the lower 48, but it IS part of the US, and the reality of life in this and many other areas needs to be included in discussion of gun rights, culture, and ethos. Certain aspects of the "wild frontier" culture that shaped this country and its laws, which are easy to forget in urban or suburban areas, are still alive in Alaska.

I live next to a national forest near Anchorage. I work at Prudhoe Bay, and with all the slope regulations I'd almost be better off letting a fox gnaw my arm off than hazing it in any way. In Barrow, though, I reckon I'd blast a fox before I let it get anywhere near me - 90% have rabies.

As for my intentions to get a handgun, a 44 mag is at least some level of protection for bear, and, when loaded with 44 specials, should be more than adequate for recreation and home protection in low-rent areas of downtown Charleston.

Regards,
Evan


----------



## JohnRov

globetrotter said:


> guns are harmful. trying to pretend otherwise is dishonest. the fact that they are tools that can provide good is also true, but guns were designed and are made to cause harm. that is a fact. having more guns than you need or can care for harms society - the fact is that there are millions of guns on the market that were first aquired legally and then fell into the wrong hands because of owner neglegence or dishonesty.
> 
> yes, I would say that a nice little percentage of gun owners are very careful and resposible with their firearms - and frankly I am not talking about them. but for every one responsible gun owner, there are probrably 100 who do not store their weapons correctly, and probrably 1000 who have more guns than they need.
> 
> in the same way that I would not consider a man who makes it a habbit to drive drunk a gentleman, or a person who is sloppy with the enviroment, I would say the same about somebody who is not resposible in his weapon ownership.
> 
> again, this is my opinion. obviously, there are people who do not agree with this, and I wish them well.


Your arguments are predicated on opinion, not fact. Something that has potential to harm but is not used as such is not harmful. "I would say" and "probably" are not convincing arguments. Maybe it's the engineer in me, but I prefer empirical data to assumptions. The facts just don't back your statements.

As shown in Dr. Kleck's research, more firearms are used in self-defense than to harm people by a very large margin.

More shots are fired in sport or target shooting than are fired in anger by a much, much higher margin.

The facts just don't support your claims.

And again, the need statement isn't even worth discussing. You don't really need too much, just a shelter, warmth, and some food, but I would assume you don't live in a shack, keep your house at a more than comfortable temp, and eat more than rice, beans, and chicken everyday.


----------



## globetrotter

thunderw21 said:


> You stated the firearms are destructive and harmful. I shot down that argument by showing you that firearms prove to be more useful in protecting lives than in taking them.


no, I said that guns were tools that were designed and built to cause harm. they are, what, exactly, can you do with a firearm aside from perferating something? paper, a deer or a person. you are right, what you do with it is up to you, but you are being dishonest if you suggest otherwise.



> If a bad guy wants to attack you, he will attack you. This is where firearms come in handy.


if a bad guy wants to kill you, you are dead.

let me eleborate on my position - I don't own a firearm. I have several nightsticks and several large canisters of gas. I have, over the years, been in several confrontations based on somebody wanted to harm me in civillian life or take my stuff. I have been able to get out of each without having to result to using a firearm.

let me tell you a little more from my personal expereince - I have been involved in arresting maybe 300-500 bad guys. in most cases, they were men in the peak of their fitness, peak of health, pretty well trained, with very good reason to be paranoid. they were in bed, in almost every case with a AK-47 or a 9mm handgun in the bed or on the floor next to them. do you know how many of them actually got off a round in the time it took for us to get in their house/apartment and get to their bed? not a one.

see, let me be clear - I am not saying "I think that you should wait for the cops and not defend yourself" I am saying " you think that you cad defend yourself, but you can't - if somebody wants to kill you, he will kill you. you should, in a rational manner think about what your security needs are and prepare for them".


----------



## Liberty Ship

Has anyone referenced Grim's definitive monograph on the relationship between arms and gentlemen on Blackfive, "To be a Gentleman?"

https://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/12/to_be_a_gentlem.html

It is, I believe, particularly germane to posters on this board.


----------



## Terpoxon

Liberty Ship said:


> It is, I believe, particularly germane to posters on this board.


"The God damn Germans got nothing to do with it."

Sorry, just couldn't resist, one of my favorite Jackie Gleason quotes from Smokey and the Bandit.


----------



## PedanticTurkey

hurling frootmig said:


> First, you don't know anything about my educational background so I wouldn't assume anything if I were you. Second, I fully understood your comment and it is exactly why I chose to reply. Third, you should refrain from painting with a broad brush. Finally, I would recommend that you refrain from the name calling as it diminishes your credibility.


Namecalling--such as...referring to carrying a concealed weapon as the "wild west"? I think referring to someone as a "leftist" pales in comparison.


----------



## thunderw21

globetrotter said:


> if a bad guy wants to kill you, you are dead.
> ...
> see, let me be clear - I am not saying "I think that you should wait for the cops and not defend yourself" I am saying " you think that you cad defend yourself, but you can't - if somebody wants to kill you, he will kill you. you should, in a rational manner think about what your security needs are and prepare for them".


Personal experience is fine, but again, 2.5 million other personal experiences per year disagree with you.


----------



## Howard

> My favorite long gun and pistol are my .22's. Cheap and fun to shoot. I also love my shotgun for shooting skeet, not because I think one day it will protect my home from a burglary.


My favorite gun is just a regular pistol.


----------



## globetrotter

Liberty Ship said:


> Has anyone referenced Grim's definitive monograph on the relationship between arms and gentlemen on Blackfive, "To be a Gentleman?"
> 
> https://www.blackfive.net/main/2006/12/to_be_a_gentlem.html
> 
> It is, I believe, particularly germane to posters on this board.


actually, LS, this is very germane to the whole argument, as was the grossman essay on violence.

being a warrior, bearing arms, is one of the most noble of vocations. one doesn't become a warrior by popping down to walmart and buying a trunk full of guns. bearing arms is about decipline, self sacrifice, teamwork and putting the mission and the good of your comrades ahead of your own good. the whole concept that one can buy a few big guns and become a warrior is part of the american mcdonalds culture.

people here are reading essays like the one above, and puffing up their chest and saying "I am part of the great american warrior tradition", which is a load of ****. there are, of course, several people who post here, both who agree with me and who don't, who have chosen to serve, to act as warriors, to bear arms in the manner that the framers intended. but large numbers of citizens are choosing to avoid that critical element of citizenship because they feel that they can pop down to walmart and become a warrior for 300 bucks.

my ancestors served in the french and indian war, the revolution, the cival war, my great grandfather and one grandfather served in wwi, my other grandfather served in wwii, my father served in korea, and I served in my own wars. I chose to serve in the military, because I believe it is important for citizens to bear arms. I spent a few years working in security related fields, because I thought that it was important for high quality people to be involved in providing security. I served in reserves, because I thought that was an important element of citizenship.

most of my friends are warriors - at my wedding were people who had fought in a dozen or more wars, as light infantryment, infantrymen, pilots, tank and artillary comanders, including a handful of very high ranking officers. these are men and women who are more than willing, at the drop of a hat, to put themselves in harms way to protect their fellow citizens, their families, nieghbors and friends. suggesting that a person can plunk down 300 bucks, get a pearl handled 1911 and poof, he's a warrior is an insult to the whole concept.

gentlemen, pay close attention - I haven't said anywhere in any of my above posts that the government should take away your guns. I have said that I am withholding my respect from people who act in a way that I consider immature and irresponsible. live with it. I would think that your piles of unnessasary assult rifles and pearl handled 1911's would be enough of a consolation prize. (appologies to LS and cruiser and others, who I know do not fall into this grouping).


----------



## PedanticTurkey

Yeah, the founding fathers would be disgusted by the thought that some a-hole off the street could buy a gun and consider himself worthy of wielding it in defense of himself, his home and his country.


----------



## PedanticTurkey

Wait, wait, what about all the stuff they said like this...?



> That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.


----------



## JohnRov

globetrotter said:


> people here are reading essays like the one above, and puffing up their chest and saying "I am part of the great american warrior tradition", which is a load of ****. there are, of course, several people who post here, both who agree with me and who don't, who have chosen to serve, to act as warriors, to bear arms in the manner that the framers intended. but large numbers of citizens are choosing to avoid that critical element of citizenship because they feel that they can pop down to walmart and become a warrior for 300 bucks.


Sorry, but the framers and Blackstone, who the framers held in high regard, never limited the bearing of arms to military duty. The ability to defend oneself and the right to bear arms was recognized well before the Constitution.


----------



## PedanticTurkey

Private gun ownership was not just considered to be "okay" by the founders and the framers-- it was considered to be SUPERIOR to service in professional armies (who, by the way, occasionally severed as professional law enforcement, and today's law enforcement would be a "standing army" by just about any measure).

Read globetrotter's post again and substitute in "fought against Napoleon, helped put down the 1848 revolutions, fought in the wars with Austria and France..." Sounds about right.


----------



## MichaelS

PedanticTurkey said:


> Wait, wait, what about all the stuff they said like this...?


What you are quoting is not the 2nd amendment. (I beleive it is the Virginia Declaration of Rights from the late 1700's).


----------



## PedanticTurkey

MichaelS said:


> What you are quoting is not the 2nd amendment. (I beleive it is the Virginia Declaration of Rights from the late 1700's).


It's from the Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776. Very influential, not just on the revolution but the Constitution as well (as you can no doubt see from comparing it to the second amendment and other provisions).


----------



## PedanticTurkey

MichaelS said:


> What you are quoting is not the 2nd amendment. (I beleive it is the Virginia Declaration of Rights from the late 1700's).


Distinguish between the *founders* (who led the Revolutionary War) and the *framers* of the Constitution. There's some overlap, but they're not all the same people.


----------



## PedanticTurkey

PedanticTurkey said:


> Distinguish between the *founders* (who led the Revolutionary War) and the *framers* of the Constitution. There's some overlap, but they're not all the same people.


And, if I can anticipate globetrotter's next post--Otto von Bismarck isn't one of either group.


----------



## globetrotter

PedanticTurkey said:


> Yeah, the founding fathers would be disgusted by the thought that some a-hole off the street could buy a gun and consider himself worthy of wielding it in defense of himself, his home and his country.


They would be disgusted that so few people who have options choose to participate it the security defense and peace of the nation. Sitting at home watching tv with a huge pistol in your closet does,kt contribute anything to the security, peace or defence of your nation.

There are almost no entry barriers to joining the US military, either the standing or the reserves. The military isn't some kind of elite that tries to keep you out.


----------



## globetrotter

PedanticTurkey said:


> Wait, wait, what about all the stuff they said like this...?


Ok, so where does it say that you should fill your pickup with guns you don't need and refuse to learn how to use?

Let me also point out that none of my friends started and ended their lives as proffetional military. Like myself, they served for a few years in a standing army, and for years in reserves, as needed. Similar options are available in the US.

The framers expected people to contribute to the defence and peace of their nation. Well trained, regulated, etc. Seriously, how does having a collection of pistols do anything towards the defence of the nation?


----------



## mandatory

I don't own a gun, nor have I ever, but I vehemently defend the right to own one.

Our crime rate is increasing and when I see the increasingly senseless violent crimes on the news, I increasingly feel the need to purchase one. 

Unfortunately, my work takes me into a more 'colorful' part of the city where the need to be protected is that much more. (I was just recently shot at when an African-American gentlemen attempted to rob me of my $20 bill -- just the other day another African-American gentlemen shot a pizza parlor Russian-immigrant cashier in the head for $3 from the tip jar -- Welcome to America) I have a dear friend who recently moved to Memphis for school and I am afraid for their safety as well.

Guns may be a blight on gang-ridden inner-city Black neighborhoods but with this kind of behavior increasingly being forced on suburbs, people will need to defend themselves from the violent crime that comes with diversity.


----------



## globetrotter

thunderw21 said:


> Personal experience is fine, but again, 2.5 million other personal experiences per year disagree with you.


No, what that means is that 2.5 million people used guns when they didn't have to.


----------



## mandatory

globetrotter said:


> having more guns than you need or can care for harms society


Not really. The education and make-up of the society determine how having access to weaponry will affect the population.

In Switzerland, millions of people own weapons and they certainly aren't having the same problems which are now affecting cities such as London and Paris.


----------



## mommatook1

globetrotter said:


> actually, LS, this is very germane to the whole argument, as was the grossman essay on violence.
> 
> being a warrior, bearing arms, is one of the most noble of vocations. one doesn't become a warrior by popping down to walmart and buying a trunk full of guns. bearing arms is about decipline, self sacrifice, teamwork and putting the mission and the good of your comrades ahead of your own good. the whole concept that one can buy a few big guns and become a warrior is part of the american mcdonalds culture.
> 
> people here are reading essays like the one above, and puffing up their chest and saying "I am part of the great american warrior tradition", which is a load of ****. there are, of course, several people who post here, both who agree with me and who don't, who have chosen to serve, to act as warriors, to bear arms in the manner that the framers intended. but large numbers of citizens are choosing to avoid that critical element of citizenship because they feel that they can pop down to walmart and become a warrior for 300 bucks.
> 
> ...


There is a very large percentage of American citizens who have never served, and I would bet you that the majority of them are NOT gun owners. And those who are gun owners should have that right, whether they falsely consider themselves "warriors" or not.

I appreciate your frustrations with people who don't have the conscience to serve their country, but that is what our military is protecting... the people's right make that choice, or the choice to own a small armory just for kicks despite how dumb it may seem.

Bottom line is we are protecting freedom, and with freedom comes the people's right to be idiots if they so choose. Without that freedom, why have a military in the first place?


----------



## globetrotter

mandatory said:


> Not really. The education and make-up of the society determine how having access to weaponry will affect the population.
> 
> In Switzerland, millions of people own weapons and they certainly aren't having the same problems which are now affecting cities such as London and Paris.


in switzerland, millions of people have possesion of arms as part of an extremly well regulated militia. I'd love to see that sysem in place in the US.


----------



## globetrotter

mommatook1 said:


> There is a very large percentage of American citizens who have never served, and I would bet you that the majority of them are NOT gun owners. And those who are gun owners should have that right, whether they falsely consider themselves "warriors" or not.
> 
> I appreciate your frustrations with people who don't have the conscience to serve their country, but that is what our military is protecting... the people's right make that choice, or the choice to own a small armory just for kicks despite how dumb it may seem.
> 
> Bottom line is we are protecting freedom, and with freedom comes the people's right to be idiots if they so choose. Without that freedom, why have a military in the first place?


no argument there - people have the right to be jackasses, and I am happy that they have the right to be jackasses. I have the right not to respect jackasses, though. and that is all I said, if you look at my post.


----------



## hurling frootmig

I have seen a couple of historians argue that the 2nd amendment was placed in the constitution as means and method of alleviating the costs associated with raising a military. I'm not sure that I fully buy the argument. I have also seen some historians argue that the 2nd amendment was put in place as a deterrent to other countries. That one strikes me as more plausible.


----------



## PedanticTurkey

The 2nd amendment is one of the few provisions in the Constitution that actually explains why it's in there-- a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. It's echoing the Virginia Declaration--that an armed populace is preferable to a standing army.


----------



## thunderw21

PedanticTurkey said:


> Private gun ownership was not just considered to be "okay" by the founders and the framers-- it was considered to be SUPERIOR to service in professional armies.


Exactly. The Framers considered a large standing army to be one of the most dangerous things for a republic, along with a radical judicial branch and judges.


----------



## 16412

globetrotter said:


> Ok, so where does it say that you should fill your pickup with guns you don't need and refuse to learn how to use?...
> 
> The framers expected people to contribute to the defence and peace of their nation. Well trained, regulated, etc. Seriously, how does having a collection of pistols do anything towards the defence of the nation?


The framers say the government doesn't have a right to know if you have any guns except the ones they require you to have. So, it doen't matter how many guns a person has, being it is your personal freedom to have as many as you wish to pay for.

Many people don't buy guns for protection, anyway. They buy them to collect, plinking, competition, hunting and for whatever other reasons anybody can think of. In the good old days the guns hung safely over the fireplace mantle as they should today. It is amazing how many people preach locking the guns up instead of teaching childern to be responsible. We are the poorer today because the wacks are teaching and preaching the wrong lessons.

Your faith in government is harmful. If it takes longer than 2 hours for the cops to show up will you be alive when they come? If at the other end of 911 you hear "were not going to help you, hang up" what are you to do then? There are people you can not talk them out of killing you, but show a gun and they leave. I've had personal experiences with criminal minds that show you are not qualified to really say anything. War is way different the criminals.


----------



## adrian07

On sporting weapons: I own and use shotguns and rifles for hunting and clays. This is my favorite sport and I do not appreciate the slightest notion that it should be controlled. As for self-defense weapons, I am all for owning and carrying them by law abiding citizens because the scum will still carry guns and use them to harm you regardless of the law. At least by carrying a gun myself I might have a slight chance to protect my family and property instead of just screaming while being robbed/slaughtered.


----------



## JohnRov

globetrotter said:


> No, what that means is that 2.5 million people used guns when they didn't have to.


Again, you seem to feel that your assumptions and opinions carry the weight of fact. It's undermining every argument you make.



globetrotter said:


> Ok, so where does it say that you should fill your pickup with guns you don't need and refuse to learn how to use?


As opposed to arming police who don't know how to use them? I feel so safe now...



globetrotter said:


> The framers expected people to contribute to the defence and peace of their nation. Well trained, regulated, etc. Seriously, how does having a collection of pistols do anything towards the defence of the nation?


This wasn't the framers' sole intent, as has been clearly demonstrated by much scholarly research. Read Heller and the briefs accompanying it to educate yourself on the topic.

You don't have to justify why you buy a firearm.


----------



## eagle2250

PedanticTurkey said:


> The 2nd amendment is one of the few provisions in the Constitution that actually explains why it's in there-- a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. It's echoing the Virginia Declaration--that an armed populace is preferable to a standing army.


Actually, you have touched on one of the issues that complicated the lives of today's law enforcement officers. In taking down an armed perp, it becomes quickly apparent, which have prior military service/training and which do not. Gang members spending a few years in the military to get their individual and small unit tactics training and then leaving the military to employ those skills, for the furtherment of gang objectives, just makes a street cops job that much more dangerous. Turkey, you're starting to worry me!


----------



## thunderw21

*"Why do you carry a gun?"​ 
By John Connor
From the July/August 2005 Issue of American Handgunner
*

If I had a nickel for every time I've been asked that question, I'd have, uh &#8230; as many guns as his firearm-festooned Editorial Immenseness, Roy-Boy. It's been asked of me by all flavors of folks in all slices of society, with attitudes and expressions ranging from angry-arrogant to curtly-contemptuous, to brainless an' befuddled. My answers to it have sorta formed three phases in my professional gun-carrying life. During that first and longest phase, I answered all of 'em sincerely and articulately, often following up with stacks of historic and legal documents. After many years, I concluded only a semi-significant sliver of people even heard what I was sayin'. The rest had already made up their muddled minds.

Finally, I just got sick of it, and moved on to Phase 2. If those asking seemed to have teensy open spaces in their minds, I gave 'em S & A: "Sincere & Articulate." The more harshly-bleating sheep, however, often got exchanges like this:

"So," queried Snidely Snotworth III, lookin' down his un-busted but needed-bustin' nose, "Why do you think you have to carry a gun?"

"Well," bellowed the Brutish Neanderthal (that would be me): _"Because you're not QUALIFIED to carry one. You haven't got the skills, the judgment, the sense of responsibility, or the courage for it."_

This answer often popped out after I'd just returned from some Heart-Of-Darkness where every living soul knew that the difference between slaves and free people is having the means and determination to defend their lives, property and liberties. That meant having guns and guts and God-given rights. Most of those people would quite literally die fighting for the freedoms so many Americans casually give away, and proudly bear social responsibilities those sheeple* won't even recognize.
_ 
*Sheeple: Sheep-like people, many of whom deny the existence of wolves, and vote to pull the teeth of the sheepdogs who protect the flock.
_*

The Voices
*Then I matriculated to Phase 3, where I started having some fun with the Snidely Snotworth types. When they asked the Big Question, I'd go all hunchy-shouldered an' secretive, then lean in close and mutter, "Because of the _voices_, ya know?" "The VOICES?" sniveled the Snidelies, suddenly scaredy-cattish. "Oh, yeah, the voices &#8230; They told me to be, you know, _prepared_ for when the killer clowns come &#8230; " I'd furtively goggle around. "The voices say the killer clowns are comin' &#8230; They're _cannibals_, some of 'em, and &#8230; "

About that time the Snidelies would be skitterin' away like mice on polished marble.

Yeah, I know, the "killer clowns" answer might not have been "helpful," but it did just as much good as giving S&A answers to the sheeple, and it was a lot more fun for me. I know you already know why we carry these cannons. But sometimes, just sometimes, we all need a little reminder. That includes me, and I've got one to share with you. One that got _me_ where I live.

The Connor Clan has been nomadic, and we've lived in a number of places. In one of 'em, we shared a side yard and friendship with a young woman we'll call Miss Maine, and her knee-high daughter, Little Lizzie. Miss Maine quickly bonded with the Memsaab Helena. Clearly, Helena's Amazon-warrior spirit and skill with arms impressed Miss Maine mightily, and much of their time and talk revolved around that fierce self-confidence - and guns.

As for Little Lizzie, the munchkin almost duct-taped herself to the Mem's leg. She followed Helena everywhere, but always, always, kept glancing back to check on her momma, as though she were the worried parent.

There was something guarded, something hurt and defensive about both of them, and that fearfulness extended to me for a while. They got over it, thank God. Then I sorta became a moving bunker for 'em, representing cover and protection. Finally, we learned the story.

Miss Maine had been attacked - brutally and viciously. You don't wanta know the details. As with so many such crimes, it wasn't really about sex. It was about hate and domination, cowardice and cruelty. And an even younger Little Lizzie had witnessed it. I like to think the Memsaab and I helped them to recover emotionally.

Then one day Lizzie came and snuggled into my shadow, visibly disturbed. That morning her kindergarten had put on "Frighten The Munchkins Day." Some schools do a pretty good job of alerting children to predators - don't go with strangers and that kinda thing - but others do more harm than good. All they do is terrify the tots and give 'em no operating options. Lizzie already had twin tears glistening, ready to fall when she grabbed a tiny fistful of my trouser-leg and asked, "Connor-Sir, will you a'ways be here? Wouldja be here &#8230; When the bad mens come?"

My knees cracked on the sidewalk as she slammed into my shoulder, shaking with sobs as the hot tears came, splashing my neck and searing into my soul. " _'Cause I'm a-scared!"_ she choked, and clutched me tighter.
_ 
Oh, GOD!_ Who would not - who _could not _- fight without fear, suffer without sense of sacrifice, and kill or die deliberately, using the most effective means available - to protect life, liberty and a Little Lizzie? For God's sake, _who?_
_ 
Those who would not are no better than the predators.

_Maybe in Phase 4, when somebody pops The Big Question I'll just smile and say, "For life, liberty and Little Lizzie." You guys can fill in the details.


----------



## mommatook1

globetrotter said:


> no argument there - people have the right to be jackasses, and I am happy that they have the right to be jackasses. I have the right not to respect jackasses, though. and that is all I said, if you look at my post.


rgr, fair enough.


----------



## Howard

What's the worse gun that someone has used?


----------



## thunderw21

About That Four-Letter Word
By John Connor
American Handgunner Magazine
July/August 2006​
Over 500 of you wrote in with responses to "Why Do You Carry A Gun?" (July/August 2005). If you missed it, or need a refresher, it's posted on the Web site at www.americanhandgunner.com. We'll wait. Done? _Good._ I carried Little Lizzie and her mom, Miss Maine, around in my head and heart for several years, waiting for the right audience to share them with. I guess I found it.​
Numbers-geeks who study these things tell me that 500 write-ins means your feelings were shared by somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 readers. That article has spread to chat rooms, BLOGS, gun forums, lunchrooms and bulletin boards, with copies scattered in some very unusual places across the country. I was overwhelmed with its impact-and struck with some unsettling themes in your responses. First, the ferocity and determination you expressed were stunning.​
Virtually every one of you spoke of your willingness to kill or die to protect Little Lizzie-_any _"Little Lizzie." Second, so many of you were confused or surprised with the depth of your own reactions, saying you had never really examined - not deep in your guts - this very primal and central dynamic, which drives all of your more intellectual and super-conscious reasons for being armed, for asserting your rights to self-defense, and to intervene to protect the lives of others. Third, those of you who have not been tested under fire wondered-_How would I do? Could I cut it? _- if you had to stand and deliver, at grave risk, as a human barrier between "the bad man" and a Little Lizzie. Folks, we need to talk.​
*So Let's Talk*
These are three same-and-separate issues, as tangled and twisted as human emotions can be. I can only try to answer them in an equally tangled way, using slices of my past.​
When I was a small boy, a great-uncle, a 48-year British Army veteran, told me about our family history, laying out that long, unbroken line of lifelong warriors. "We fight, boy," he growled. "We lose and die sometimes, yes, but we always fight." I asked him, "Why do we fight, sir?" He laughed, harshly, and pointed to the puppies rolling in the yard. "Why do they _hunt_, boy? Why do those dogs _point_? Born to it, bred for it, they are, same's us. And because we will not be trod on." I accepted that explanation for a long time. Later I learned he had it half-right, and nine-tenths wrong.​
There had been some ugly incidents involving other teams. Men, some living and some dead, had been left behind, both due to "combat circumstances," and to _orders_. We could not live with that. Before each mission, my teammates and I began joining hands and swearing that we would never leave each other behind; the mission, pain and fear and wounds be damned, _orders_ be double-damned; if it came down to it, we would all go down together. _Together._​
On a pitchy night in another world, five good men and I violated orders. We ferried nine small children across a murky, shallow river because other men wanted them dead. It took a twelve-eternity hour to cover 100 meters of dark water into darker trees, and we fought for every child and every meter. Two of my mates and one of the kids didn't make it. I remember that night with a piercing sweet sadness - and an immense, soul-filling, self-defining pride. I never knew those children's names, and I never saw them again.​
There is no bloodline so thick with history, so red with ancient battles, as to render anyone into an unfaltering warrior by birthright. There must be something more. There is no acceptance of _duty_; no oaths, no allegiances ever sworn so binding that they have not been thereafter cast aside and forgotten under fire - when men had nothing more to hold them than the memory of those pledges. I've seen it. There must be something more.​
You have not armed and oriented yourself for fighting, in defense of yourself and others, just because you are fearful of attack by predators, have you? No. Because you are blessed with natural bravery and it's just the "right thing to do?" No. There must be something more. And there is.​
*That Four-Letter Word*
It is love. Perhaps not the kind of love that first springs to you mind, but love, yes. None of you ever met Little Lizzie, so you couldn't love her. Why risk death to fight for her? I have served with many men whom I would willingly fight and die with, but in truth, I _loved _only one. When the Memsaab Helena and I first got together, we discussed what I did for a living and how I felt about it; my best and worst times, my motivators and morale busters. I talked about duty and promises. I didn't know I was shotgunning around the center, fooling myself, until she put one dead in the 10-ring.​
"_Bullshit_, Connor," she said, "It's about _love_, ya goof. Admit it; get over it." She was right.​
Unless that gun on your hip or in your nightstand exists only to protect your hairy hide, and if it extends beyond your own mate and offspring, then it's about _love_; another kind of love, but _love_ nonetheless, ya goofs!​
It is about a nameless thing - call it "honor" if you will - that is the finest, purest shred of yourself and all humankind. It's a love you only feel when you face the ultimate self-sacrifice - for the life of another; even a stranger; no, _especially_ a stranger. In a way it is a love of the smallest, least recognized, most rarely exposed slice of yourself.​
We talk about it so little its unbidden emergence surprises many of us. That's because in this weirdly warped "modern society," its presence strangely embarrasses us, and its absence shames us. So we avoid it altogether. That's a pity. Only by bringing it out in the open and _knowing_ _it_ can we lean on it; live by it.​
*90 Percent*
Without knowing what you'll kill or die for, how can you know what you really _live_ for? In the end, it's about love - and in _the end_, love is all you have, and all you ever really had to begin with. And as for whether or not you'll _stand and deliver_ if and when the time comes? Ten percent will depend on how you've trained. Ninety percent will hinge on what you love.​
Now, I'll go back to being the capering clown of the gunwriting circus, and you can forget I ever said these things, okay? Good luck to both of us.​


----------



## thunderw21

Howard said:


> What's the worse gun that someone has used?


By worse you mean...strongest recoil?


----------



## Howard

thunderw21 said:


> By worse you mean...strongest recoil?


yes I suppose.


----------



## thunderw21

Mmmm, I've fired a .50 caliber bolt action sniper rifle before. Recoil wasn't horrible because of the compensator on the muzzle and a good recoil pad. It felt like someone was giving me a good push rather than a kick.

My M48A Yugo Mauser has a pretty good kick to it as does the M44 Mosin Nagant. Not a push like the .50, but a sharp shove. You get use to it, though.

As for handguns, .45 Colt and .357 revolver. Nothing too special.


----------



## globetrotter

thunderw21 said:


> About That Four-Letter Word
> By John Connor
> American Handgunner Magazine
> July/August 2006​
> Over 500 of you wrote in with responses to "Why Do You Carry A Gun?" (July/August 2005). If you missed it, or need a refresher, it's posted on the Web site at
> ........
> 
> .​


again, this is a bunch of yada yada as to why people who refuse to actually serve and protect like to think because they go out and buy some guns that they are too lazy to learn how to use, they are really big men.

yes, this is a great story about why they carry guns. it is a bunch of bullshit. good luck to them.


----------



## mommatook1

long gun: .30'06 or 8mm mauser
shotgun: 3" mag buckshot
handgun: custom .50 1911

Relatively speaking, nothing kicked like the first time I fired a shotgun as a little kid at my grandfather's. I was used to .22's, and even though it was only 20 gauge birdshot it knocked me flat on my ass


----------



## thunderw21

globetrotter said:


> again, this is a bunch of yada yada as to why people who refuse to actually serve and protect like to think because they go out and buy some guns that they are too lazy to learn how to use, they are really big men.
> 
> yes, this is a great story about why they carry guns. it is a bunch of bullshit. good luck to them.


Once again, just more generalizations. Why such anger against gun owners? 
The pieces I've been posting are about the philosophy of the firearm, the same thing this thread is about; not a "bunch of BS", as you put it so 'eloquently'. What was it you were saying about gentlemen?


----------



## globetrotter

thunderw21 said:


> Once again, just more generalizations. Why such anger against gun owners? The pieces I've been posting are about the philosophy of the firearm, the same thing this thread is about.


no anger against gun owners. some of my best friends posses guns. I just like responsible, mature gun owners.


----------



## thunderw21

globetrotter said:


> no anger against gun owners. some of my best friends posses guns. I just like responsible, mature gun owners.


Yet you paint all gun owners with a broad brush if irresponsibility. Why? If all gun owners were as irresponsible as you make them out to be, there would be many more gun-related deaths than there really are (there are over 100 million gun owners in the U.S. with over 250 million guns, yet only around 50,000 gun deaths a year, half of those being suicides).


----------



## Howard

thunderw21 said:


> Mmmm, I've fired a .50 caliber bolt action sniper rifle before. Recoil wasn't horrible because of the compensator on the muzzle and a good recoil pad. It felt like someone was giving me a good push rather than a kick.
> 
> My M48A Yugo Mauser has a pretty good kick to it as does the M44 Mosin Nagant. Not a push like the .50, but a sharp shove. You get use to it, though.
> 
> As for handguns, .45 Colt and .357 revolver. Nothing too special.


what did you use the gun for?


----------



## thunderw21

Howard said:


> what did you use the gun for?


I just do target shooting. Honing the skills, learning more difficult techniques, etc.

The .50 was at a gathering of gun guys. The others I shoot on a regular basis.

Here I am shooting my M1 Garand. Great rifle.


----------



## Howard

That gun must've been loud enough to cause ear pain.


----------



## hurling frootmig

The one thing that keeps me from shooting more often is that my ears have become very sensitive to loud noises. At this point I have to wear ear plugs and the over the ear hearing protection. Otherwise my ears ring for days.

Obviously small caliber guns are less noisy than bigger caliber guns.


----------



## Howard

Does anyone remember The Light Gun back in the 80's when you used to play Duck Hunt?^


----------



## MR MILLER

i personaly have always carried a gun from the time i was 16 untill this very day, then again ive also had guns pulled on me so......damned if i do or dont i suppose


----------



## DocVenture

Howard said:


> Does anyone remember The Light Gun back in the 80's when you used to play Duck Hunt?^


Yes! I used to love that game. A real classic, and the closest thing to a gun I've ever handled.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial

IIRC correctly from my law school and undergrad days, the "well-armed militia being necessary" in the 2nd Amendment was a compromise.

Jefferson distrusted government and wanted the citizens to have arms to protect themselves from any government (US or foreign). Adams distrusted the citizen rabble, and wanted to protect the government from armed overthrow by either foreigners or domestic rebels.

In the end, they just sort of agreed "Well, either way we're gonna need guns." Jefferson walked away thinking he was all slick because the amendment says "the right to bear arms shall not be abridged." Adams walked away happy that he could point to the "well-armed militia being necessary" part to make a case for a standing army/armed police force.

The purposely punted the debate over balancing the power of the US government vs US citizens to us, and we've been struggling with it ever since.

As for gun control, I consider myself more-or-less neutral. It seems to me that the right to bear arms is already clearly abridged and no one would want it any other way. It's a good thing that citizens do not have the ability to obtain and detonate nuclear weapons. On the other hand, there is clearly a level at which everyone would draw the line the other way. No one wants the government taking away kitchen knives or two by fours or fertilizer because they can be considered arms or potential arms.

It seems to me both sides need to acknowledge that there is a line somewhere and work on figuring out where to draw it.


----------



## beherethen

*An Armed Society is a polite society*



Here's an interesting piece of info on the benefits of gun ownership....from the BBC News, of all people:

_....Why is it then that so many Americans - and foreigners who come here - feel that the place is so, well, safe?

I have met incredulous British tourists who have been shocked to the core by the peacefulness of the place_ (the USA)
_A British man I met in Colorado recently told me he used to live in Kent but he moved to the American state of New Jersey and will not go home because it is, as he put it, "a gentler environment for bringing the kids up."
This is New Jersey. Home of the Sopranos.
Brits arriving in New York, hoping to avoid being slaughtered on day one of their shopping mission to Manhattan are, by day two, beginning to wonder what all the fuss was about. By day three they have had had the scales lifted from their eyes.
I have met incredulous British tourists who have been shocked to the core by the peacefulness of the place, the lack of the violent undercurrent so ubiquitous in British cities, even British market towns.
"It seems so nice here," they quaver.
Well, it is! _
_
*Violent paradox*

Ten or 20 years ago, it was a different story, but things have changed.
And this is Manhattan.
Wait till you get to London Texas, or Glasgow Montana, or Oxford Mississippi or Virgin Utah, for that matter, where every household is required by local ordinance to possess a gun.
Folks will have guns in all of these places and if you break into their homes they will probably kill you.
They will occasionally kill each other in anger or by mistake, but you never feel as unsafe as you can feel in south London.
It is a paradox. Along with the guns there is a tranquillity and civility about American life of which most British people can only dream._

I've copied the whole article here, just in case the BBC takes down the original. Worth reading.
Hat Tip to Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit for the post title. 
Posted by The Whited Sepulchre at 10:40 PM


----------



## beherethen

*Side Note*

About all the gun crime that seems to be committed are done by people that are not allowed to even *touch* a gun. This group includes convicted felons, children and people with mental disorders. I'd include Democrats, but I've not been asked. :icon_smile:


----------



## Howard

DocVenture said:


> Yes! I used to love that game. A real classic, and the closest thing to a gun I've ever handled.


and no real bullets.


----------



## camorristi

thunderw21 said:


> I hope this will be an interesting discussion.
> 
> What is your philosophy on firearms and how do you support your belief? Are guns good or bad? Should they be banned or not?
> 
> I'm interested in hearing what everyone has to say.
> 
> Cheers!


Guns should be banned and only the government should have guns period. Yeah not really :icon_smile_big:! Actually I'm not sure what my opinion is on this grayish issue. Unfortunately, gun accedints are as common as car accidents. I think you shouldn't be allowed to walk the streets with a gun until you're 50 years old at least, or mature enough. Anyone below that should carry baseball bats and wear bulletproof vests :icon_smile_big:!


----------



## Apatheticviews

As a law abiding citizen, why shouldn't I be allowed allowed to own anything?

Gun control laws are just that. They say LAW ABIDING CITIZENS are untrustworthy to own Machines (like a car). Machines with a specific purpose, but machines none the less. I'm sorry, but that's not the government's call. The government can however regulate how these guns are made, and ensure they are safe for their intended purpose. 

In the case of Felons, these non-law abiding citizens have proven they are not trustworthy, and it is perfectly reasonable to regulate their right to possess firearms in the future.

I think the main issue with Gun Control is that people are asking the government to make a "moral" call on an issue. Again, that's not the government's job. 

The constitution defined Arms Bearing as a Right. Weapon Ownership is a Right. Not of the Government. Not of the State. But of the People. You don't always have to execute YOUR Rights, but you cannot infringe on other peoples Rights.

Many people view the 2nd amendment as archaic and/or unnecessary, and because of their disagreement with "Guns" feel that no one should have access to it.


----------



## Howard

Would this include water pistols during the summertime?


----------



## ThomasK

I rather doubt gun accidents are as common as car accidents. I think driving is considerably more dangerous. Many people die or are injured every day in car accidents. If gun accidents were really that common, the gun control people would be making great hay of that statistic. 

A gun is a tool. Like any other, it can be used correctly, or misused. I agree with certain restrictions on gun ownership, e.g., convicted felons, etc. But except where someone has done something to lose that right, people should have access to guns for personal protection, hunting, recreation. 

You can't legislate responsibility, but that doesn't mean responsible people should lose their rights. Yes, some bad or stupid people will do bad or stupid things. But they will do that anyway, whether there's a law against it or not. So why sacrifice the rights of others to make it somewhat more difficult to do bad or stupid things? Especially when the right in question may be one of the more effective deterrents...


----------



## Dhaller

choirmaestro said:


> If you like to hunt - great. Buy a shotgun. Last time I checked, one didn't need a glock, modified AK 47, or bazooka to hunt deer.


First, you need a rifle to hunt deer - not a shotgun. Hunting deer with a shotgun would be messy and cruel!

As for guns in general - I think it's a bit fancy to talk about "a philosophy of guns". Guns are weapons, the intent of which (as with all weapons) is personal defense via incapacitation of an assailant. That's about it.

As long as there are assailants, there is a use for guns. I think guns are fine, and I think people should own them.

Are there gun-related deaths? Yes. There are many more car-related deaths, though, so if we're going to follow that logic for banning then we certainly need to ban cars first (they being the far deadlier device) before we even look at guns. We should probably think about banning swimming pools too, while we're at it.

I think the real problem the left have with guns is that they presume the presence of competence, maturity, and individual responsibility among members of the population, something inherently threatening when you're looking for increased legislative control over peoples' lives.

DH


----------



## DocVenture

I don't own a gun and I don't want to own one. As long as people are responsible and exercise caution I'm fine with them owning guns. 

It's upsetting to hear stories of irresponsible gun ownership that end in death or injury, but no more upsetting than the flotilla of stories you see every year where drunk teenagers kill each other in auto accidents.


----------



## Howard

It's the stuff you read in the newspaper every day about gun deaths.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Howard said:


> It's the stuff you read in the newspaper every day about gun deaths.


People die every day from drunk drivers too. We don't ban cars or alcohol (we did once, then overturned it). We regulate both in specific ways as they relate to safety, but we don't tell law abiding citizens they can't have them, even though we KNOW for a fact that alcohol reduces mental capabilities for the duration of its effects. There are just as many articles about drunk driving & cigarettes (probably more) than there are about guns.

The difference is we Tax those, and try to Ban guns.


----------



## beherethen

Howard said:


> It's the stuff you read in the newspaper every day about gun deaths.


Mostly this gun shootings come from felons-junkies-kids and people who are otherwise barred by Federal law from even touching a gun. If a middle class member of the NRA, went on a shooting spree, we would hear about it to no end. There may have been an incident in which some NRA guy went on a drive by shooting, but I've never heard about it and the anti gun people would make national news.


----------



## Howard

beherethen said:


> Mostly this gun shootings come from felons-junkies-kids and people who are otherwise barred by Federal law from even touching a gun. If a middle class member of the NRA, went on a shooting spree, we would hear about it to no end. There may have been an incident in which some NRA guy went on a drive by shooting, but I've never heard about it and the anti gun people would make national news.


and it always seems to happen in Brooklyn and the Bronx.


----------



## flylot74

Actually Dhaller, some states (NJ I think is one) requires shotguns (using slugs) for deer hunting. This is due to the relatively compact nature of the populace and the state. Safety is paramount when you realize that a bullet from a fired.300 Win Mag can travel into the next township and kill someone. This of course is not the case with my state, Texas where we often have miles and miles of nothing but miles and miles.

As a shooting enthusiast, I hunt, (favoring the shotgun for upland birds over anything else) and shoot competitive clay target sports as does my wife. We also have concealed carry permits. I have never killed anyone in my civilian years and have only pointed my carry gun once at two people, thus ending an attempted mugging. Oh, yes, I had every intent on using the weapon at that time, trust me. Carrying a weapon and drawing one is like bacon and eggs: the chicken is involved but the pig is committed!

The only thing I will add to the discussion is that I come from a state that believes that God created man and woman, but it was Samuel Colt that made them equal.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

My view (as an ex-combat unit soldier and ex-police officer)

1. Person pulls trigger of gun
2. Bullet leaves gun
3. Bullet enters human body
4. Human body dies
5. Guns are bad in civilian environments and unnecessary
6. Guns are a necessity in military environments


----------



## hardline_42

Earl of Ormonde said:


> My view (as an ex-combat unit soldier and ex-police officer)
> 
> 1. ...
> 2. ...
> 3. ...
> 4. ...
> 5. Guns are bad in civilian environments and unnecessary
> 6. ...


EoO, first of all, thank you for your service. However, I have to disagree with you on some of your points. Whenever one group tries to take away the rights of another on the basis of morality, they often champion their cause based on their own experiences and life circumstances. This is natural, of course, but it's also why it can be so dangerous.

As an ex-police officer, I can only assume that YOU carried a firearm in a civilian environment. Obviously, this is because guns aren't ALWAYS bad in a civilian environment and under certain circumstances they ARE necessary. The obvious argument is that you were a police officer and the nature of your job required the precaution of a firearm. I would argue that the circumstances of some civilians make firearms just as valuable if not more.

Take, for example, a farmer who lives on a large property in a rural location where the nearest neighbor is a mile away and the nearest police officer is a half-hour ride away. Their needs are different from those of a suburban family in a development with a security system and a dedicated police force.

The same goes for a wheel-chair bound person in an inner city who lives alone. They don't have the ability to run from a potentially deadly confrontation and their condition makes them a target in a crime-ridden area where the police force is probably already stretched pretty thin.


----------



## Chouan

hardline_42 said:


> As an ex-police officer, I can only assume that YOU carried a firearm in a civilian environment. Obviously, this is because guns aren't ALWAYS bad in a civilian environment and under certain circumstances they ARE necessary. The obvious argument is that you were a police officer and the nature of your job required the precaution of a firearm. I would argue that the circumstances of some civilians make firearms just as valuable if not more.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> If the Earl will forgive me for answering for him, or perhaps as well as him, I would suggest that if the Earl was a Policeman in London, which I think he was, then he would *not* have been carrying a firearm in a civilian environment. As a police officer, the nature of his job did *not* require the precaution of a firearm. British police officers do not carry firearms, unless they are of a specially trained police firearms unit, and then only when they have been ordered into action as a firearm unit, because particular circumstances have demanded it, and their role has been authorised.


----------



## Padme

I was raised with guns and even helped my grandfather and husband reload shotgun shells. I've hunted quail and deer, a few rattlesnakes. I've never shot anyone or had any desire to shoot anyone. My grandfather said if anyone ever came through my window, shoot him in the widest part of his body. I've got my own handgun. It used to belong to somebody named White, who played for the Dallas cowboys. My grandfather, who was a college graduate and seminary graduate said God would forgive me. Texas girls have been raised around guns forever, and most Texans are very careful with guns with the exception of maybe a trespasser on a hunting lease or clearly marked land. Having had my pet Angora goats killed by lease trespassers, I do think guns could accidently go off.


----------



## harvey_birdman

I enjoy shooting recreationally. I hunt deer. I have a concealed carry permit, but I generally do not carry. I consider a firearm a tool, and like a hammer or a propane torch or an automobile it can be used in an improper manner which might result in injury or death. I am careful with how I handle these tools. Others are not. I would like everyone to behave in a safe manner with them, but I know that is an unlikely goal. Still, all things considered I would rather have access to these tools than not, even considering all the stupid things people can do with them. I am a grown adult and I object to being treated by the government like a child or an inferior. My options for use of tools should not be restricted because there are idiots out there.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Chouan said:


> hardline_42 said:
> 
> 
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> If the Earl will forgive me for answering for him, or perhaps as well as him, I would suggest that if the Earl was a Policeman in London, which I think he was, then he would *not* have been carrying a firearm in a civilian environment. As a police officer, the nature of his job did *not* require the precaution of a firearm. British police officers do not carry firearms, unless they are of a specially trained police firearms unit, and then only when they have been ordered into action as a firearm unit, because particular circumstances have demanded it, and their role has been authorised.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you Chouan, correct on all points.
Click to expand...


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

hardline_42 said:


> EoO, first of all, thank you for your service. However, I have to disagree with you on some of your points. Whenever one group tries to take away the rights of another on the basis of morality, they often champion their cause based on their own experiences and life circumstances. This is natural, of course, but it's also why it can be so dangerous.


(NOTE: before I start - in UK law a shotgun is a shotgun it is not classed as a firearm or covered by the Firearms Act. So when I write firearm I mean firearm I do not include shotgun.)

Can you provide US examples. The clear UK examples which dismiss your argument, from a UK perspective at least, are that after 2 serious massacres by gun club members using gun club weapons in the 80s and early 90s (Hungerford and Dunblane), the government banned all recreational firearm use and ownership and was no longer prepared to put up with the empty reassurances of safety & security from the gun lobby. The majority wanted that. So the cause was good, regardless of the handful who wanted to retain gun clubs & pistol/rifle shooting as a sport.

Shotguns & certain rifles were retained for working/hunting purposes.



hardline_42 said:


> As an ex-police officer, I can only assume that YOU carried a firearm in a civilian environment.


You assume incorrectly, see Chouan's excellent answer. When I was a Met Police officer in Lodnon, I didn't need a firearm because society larger didn't need or possess firearms. Also my brain & tongue, tact & diplomacy, fists, feet & head served me well for 13 years. Used my truncheon on a person only once!



hardline_42 said:


> Obviously, this is because guns aren't ALWAYS bad in a civilian environment and under certain circumstances they ARE necessary.


Yes they are always bad in a civilian setting. And no, civilians do not need firearms.
Let me say here that all of your points are based on the current situation of a culture and a nation plagued by firearms. My points are based on growing up in (London) and currently living in (Sweden) cultures where firearms are forbidden, hated and not wanted or needed. So we're coming from 2 different worlds. So I understand it is hard for you to imagine a society without firearms.



hardline_42 said:


> Take, for example, a farmer who lives on a large property in a rural location where the nearest neighbor is a mile away and the nearest police officer is a half-hour ride away. Their needs are different from those of a suburban family in a development with a security system and a dedicated police force.


The same situation arises in the UK, but there the lone farmer doesn't have recourse to firearms. And even if he has a shotgun(which believe it or not, not all farmers in the UK do or are even certified for) it is unlikely he/she would turn to it for use as a weapon against another person.



hardline_42 said:


> The same goes for a wheel-chair bound person in an inner city who lives alone. They don't have the ability to run from a potentially deadly confrontation and their condition makes them a target in a crime-ridden area where the police force is probably already stretched pretty thin.


Again the same applies in the UK, but civilians don't own firearms in the UK.

Like I said the US is plagued by firearms.
The bottom line is that in the US almost anyone can legally own a firearm - so they are needed by law abiding citizens to protect themselves from criminals.

In the UK, only the police and military are allowed to handle firarms- there is NO legal private ownership whatsoever of firearms in the UK.

Note: the words legal, private and firearm can never be found together in the UK with reference to firearms.

Don't you wish the founding fathers or at least politicians say in the early 20th century, lets say after WWII had come to their senses and imposed stricter laws or banned firearm possession altogether in the USA? As was the case in the UK, when the first firearms acts came into force?

For the record the US argument of owning a weapon to defend yourself against armed criminals is NOT accepted in the UK.
Because since 1946, self-defence has not been considered a valid reason to own a firearm.


----------



## Chouan

The law states clearly that one can use "reasonable force", not lethal force, to defend one's-self. ie you're allowed to hit an intruder, but not use any kind of weapon. If the intruder uses violence, and is armed, you can respond, but not deliberately to use lethal force. So you can't deliberately stab them, for example.
Morally, I suppose, you would be inflicting capital punishment, without judge or jury, on a criminal, when the crime isn't a capital offence.
Most justification for the private ownership of firearms seems to be along the lines of: "I want a gun, here are my pretexts......"


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Chouan said:


> Most justification for the private ownership of firearms seems to be along the lines of: "I want a gun, here are my pretexts......"


Just to clarify, you mean in the US of course?


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray

Chouan said:


> The law states clearly that one can use "reasonable force", not lethal force, to defend one's-self. ie you're allowed to hit an intruder, but not use any kind of weapon. If the intruder uses violence, and is armed, you can respond, but not deliberately to use lethal force. So you can't deliberately stab them, for example.
> Morally, I suppose, you would be inflicting capital punishment, without judge or jury, on a criminal, when the crime isn't a capital offence.
> Most justification for the private ownership of firearms seems to be along the lines of: "I want a gun, here are my pretexts......"


If they are armed it is justifiable and reasonable to use a weapon. The law in the UK does allow this. (Hint shooting someone in the back when they are fleeing and not calling an ambulance as they bleed to death is neither self defense or reasonable before you bring that case into the debate).


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Douglas Brisbane Gray said:


> If they are armed it is justifiable and reasonable to use a weapon. The law in the UK does allow this.


Yes, the law in the UK permits you to use a weapon in self-defence but that weapon can never be a firearm. For 2 reasons 
1. as I wrote above, self-defence with a firearm was removed as just cause in1946; 2, since the early 90s there is no legal private individual ownership of a firearm.

Qualification on use of weapon 1. it must be readily to hand i.e. not held in preparation and 2. if an everyday object is used it must not be an intended or adapted offensive weapon.

So picking up a kitchen knife or a chair or a bottle or an umbrella or torch etc. in the home - no problem - all readily to hand
But picking up a baseball bat or baton from beside the front door - problem- as that is an *intended offensive weapon*, prepared & placed for that purpose.

An *adapted offensive weapon* is any object that has been altered to improve both its use as a weapon and the injury it can cause.

The third and most serious grade of course is the *prohibited offensive wepaons *e.g. flick knives, sheath knives, daggers, bayonets, knuckle dusters, nunchukas and so on. Not relevant here though in the self-defence/reasonable force discussion because like firearms possession alone is illegal. Use just compounds the offence.

We did this subject to absolute death at Police College, as did I when I was later teaching recruits.


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray

You can legaly own a hunting rifle, a gallery rifle for target shooting, antique firearms, a shotgun for hunting, small bore rifle for vermin controll etc. They are all examples of legal private ownership of firearms. There have been relatively recent cases where a shotgun has been used and the householder not prosecuted as it was reasonable. How and if their license was renewed after I have no idea. The did not however get their licnsce on the grounds of self defence.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Douglas Brisbane Gray said:


> You can legaly own a hunting rifle, a gallery rifle for target shooting, antique firearms, a shotgun for hunting, small bore rifle for vermin controll etc. They are all examples of legal private ownership of firearms. There have been relatively recent cases where a shotgun has been used and the householder not prosecuted as it was reasonable. How and if their license was renewed after I have no idea. The did not however get their licnsce on the grounds of self defence.


1. Most hunting rifles are (or at least used to be, I'm talking mid 90s now, when I worked with licensing matters)registered to companies - either farm or game hunting businesses not to named individuals.
2. gallery rifles are not firearms they are air rifles - and as such are not registered
3. antique firearms to qualify as antiques & to remove the need for a licence have to be decommissioned -hence no longer firearms
4. shotguns are not firearms
5. vermin control rifles & pistols are registered to a local council or vet. surgery and not to private individuals.


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray

I think you are mistaken on 1 at least, my fathers is registered to him.
2  small bore .22 centrefire or rimfire and long barrelled revolver.
3. No - muzzle loading antique black powder and chamber charging firearms do not need to be decommissioned
5. Registered to the vermin control officer not his employer. They are not pool items.

Possibly the law is different in Scotland but I doubt it. This is the current guidelines for applying for a Firearms certificate in England and Wales.
https://homepage.ntlworld.com/steve.davidson1/fac_app.htm#who


----------



## Apatheticviews

Speaking as a former Arms Dealer, who has sold literally 1000's of weapons (on an individual basis).

In the US, you can legally *purchase* a Firearm (Pistol, Revolver, Shotgun, Rifle) assuming the following (federal law, state law has variances). Certain classes of weapons (Fully Automatic Weapons &/or Burst capabilities, and those with larger than .50 caliber aka cannons) have additional requirements & restrictions.

1. You are not a convicted felon, or have been convicted of a crime in which you could serve more than 1 year in prison or pay a $10,000 fine. Certain misdemeanors will preclude gun ownership. A State's Governor may return your RIGHT (as outlined in our constitution) at his/her discretion (unlikely but I have seen it). Each prospective gun owner must complete the federally mandated paperwork & state mandated paperwork. This paperwork is used to begin the Criminal Background Investigation to confirm the above.
2. You are over the age of 18 (Rifles & Shotguns) or 21 (Pistols & Revolvers).
3. In the case of Handguns, you are a legal resident of the state in which you purchase. Each state has different guidelines for establishing residency, however the US Constitution defines a citizen a resident of a state in which they are registered to vote. Long guns do not have the same restriction. Active duty military are treated as both residents of the state in which they are permanently stationed, and of the state in which they maintain their "Home of Record."
4. You purchase it from a valid source. Usually an Federal Firearms Licensed Dealer (FFL), however depending on state there may be "person to person" clause. When executing a person to person sale, a good faith effort must be made to ensure that neither party is a Felon, both are residents (if required), both meet the age requirements.
5. The firearm conforms to FFL manufacture regulations (safety standards). As an example, all rifles & shotguns must have at least 16" long barrels.

Certain states have additional prohibitions & requirements, such as cool down periods (7-10 waiting period), additional forms, and licensing requirements (Gun owner permit, or "safety inspection"), however these are not required by federal law. Examples below.

a. Maryland & California have banned the Semi-Automatic AR15, even though it is classified as a rifle by Federal Law.
b. California has magazine size restrictions (no more than 10 rounds per magazine).
c. Kansas does not have Concealed carry (last I checked) for any private citizen.
d. The District of Columbia does not have any FFL dealers, effectively making gun purchase impossible. They have additional laws which make possession of both guns & ammunition illegal.
e. Michigan requires a "safety inspection" of the firearm, where the serial number of the firearm is recorded for administrative purposes. This is essentially a registration process, but called something else for political purposes. Federal law does not require gun registration excluding special classes of weapons Cannons, Autos, Suppressors, etc).


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

I did cover the rifle/shotgun aspect much earlier on anyway. We're getting into very fine details now & losing track of the discussion methinks. And yes I may well be mistaken on some aspects if the law has changed since 96 (when I resigned), I'm aware of that. 
Also the law in E & W was (in my day anyway) different to the law in S.


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I did cover the rifle/shotgun aspect much earlier on anyway. We're getting into very fine details now & losing track of the discussion methinks. And yes I may well be mistaken on some aspects if the law has changed since 96 (when I resigned), I'm aware of that.
> Also the law in E & W was (in my day anyway) different to the law in S.


I was not intending to cause friction or discord, I hope you will accept I was drifiting into general discussion rather than nit-picking.


----------



## Chouan

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Yes, the law in the UK permits you to use a weapon in self-defence but that weapon can never be a firearm. For 2 reasons
> 1. as I wrote above, self-defence with a firearm was removed as just cause in1946; 2, since the early 90s there is no legal private individual ownership of a firearm.
> 
> Qualification on use of weapon 1. it must be readily to hand i.e. not held in preparation and 2. if an everyday object is used it must not be an intended or adapted offensive weapon.
> 
> So picking up a kitchen knife or a chair or a bottle or an umbrella or torch etc. in the home - no problem - all readily to hand
> But picking up a baseball bat or baton from beside the front door - problem- as that is an *intended offensive weapon*, prepared & placed for that purpose.
> 
> An *adapted offensive weapon* is any object that has been altered to improve both its use as a weapon and the injury it can cause.
> 
> The third and most serious grade of course is the *prohibited offensive wepaons *e.g. flick knives, sheath knives, daggers, bayonets, knuckle dusters, nunchukas and so on. Not relevant here though in the self-defence/reasonable force discussion because like firearms possession alone is illegal. Use just compounds the offence.
> 
> We did this subject to absolute death at Police College, as did I when I was later teaching recruits.


The justification is, I suppose, that if you've a pickaxe handle by your front door in case of intruders, you're already preparing to use unreasonable force. Your use of force is then pre-meditated; whereas if you pick up a bottle in your kitchen when confronted by a villain, it is an immediate and unplanned response to an attack, and is thus a reasonable response, using reasonable force, in the circumstances. Using a sword that you keep in a cupboard, just in case, is clearly not "reasonable force".


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Chouan said:


> The justification is, I suppose, that if you've a pickaxe handle by your front door in case of intruders, you're already preparing to use unreasonable force. Your use of force is then pre-meditated; whereas if you pick up a bottle in your kitchen when confronted by a villain, it is an immediate and unplanned response to an attack, and is thus a reasonable response, using reasonable force, in the circumstances. Using a sword that you keep in a cupboard, just in case, is clearly not "reasonable force".


Exactly right on all points! I would've given you a pass mark on that lesson on my Street Duties course


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Douglas Brisbane Gray said:


> I was not intending to cause friction or discord, I hope you will accept I was drifiting into general discussion rather than nit-picking.


Yea, yea, I know, no probs mate. What vexes me is that legislation in the UK no longer seems to stand still for more than a year or two at a time. So it's hard to keep a jour of updates.


----------



## Apatheticviews

This reminds me of the "must retreat" laws that some states have (specifically New York).

Why should I, as the king of my castle, retreat within the confines of my own home? If I hear someone in my home who does not belong, you can be sure I will call the police immediately, however I will also grab a weapon for the defense of myself and my household. If someone is in MY house, they have already proven they intend to do me harm (financial or physical).

The interloper has already provided *reasonable cause* for arming myself. It doesn't matter whether a weapon is adapted, intended, or not. It is still a weapon. If I kill someone with a rolling pin, or a baseball bat, or a pistol, he is still dead.

Since the intruder has provided reasonable cause, what I provide is reasonable force to stop the threat. Since I do not know what the the intruder's intentions are, how can anyone determine what reasonable force is until the event is over.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Apatheticviews said:


> This reminds me of the "must retreat" laws that some states have (specifically New York).
> 
> Why should I, as the king of my castle, retreat within the confines of my own home? If I hear someone in my home who does not belong, you can be sure I will call the police immediately, however I will also grab a weapon for the defense of myself and my household. If someone is in MY house, they have already proven they intend to do me harm (financial or physical).
> 
> The interloper has already provided *reasonable cause* for arming myself. It doesn't matter whether a weapon is adapted, intended, or not. It is still a weapon. If I kill someone with a rolling pin, or a baseball bat, or a pistol, he is still dead.
> 
> Since the intruder has provided reasonable cause, what I provide is reasonable force to stop the threat. Since I do not know what the the intruder's intentions are, how can anyone determine what reasonable force is until the event is over.


Reasonable force (minimum force required) is laid down in law, in the UK anyway. Guesswork isn't required

1. cessation of attack/threat
2. incapacitation of attacker

Either one means you don't keep firing, kicking or hitting.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Reasonable force (minimum force required) is laid down in law, in the UK anyway. Guesswork isn't required
> 
> 1. cessation of attack/threat
> 2. incapacitation of attacker
> 
> Either one means you don't keep firing, kicking or hitting.


Minimum force required to neutralize the threat is reasonable, however knowing what the minimum required force is during an event is unfeasible.. Additionally, having access to more force than is strictly necessary is not unreasonable. Nor is being prepared for a threat.

Example: I'm in Virginia, and an assailant pulls a knife on me. I respond by pulling a gun to neutralize the threat. I have not fired it at this point, but have used it in a defensive to stop the assailant. If the assailant continues an aggressive approach with the knife (leading me to fear for my life or safety), and I discharge my weapon, I am still merely neutralizing the thread (escalated). If the opponent is downed, you do not keep firing, kicking, or hitting, as the threat is neutralized.

No guesswork required. I merely have access to a higher calibre of tools.


----------



## 16412

Some of the last arguments have a number of flaws with them. 

1) One is, mobs don't make good decisions. Sometimes mobs are groups of good people who react when something bad happened. They're trying to do right.

2) Ethically it is never right to take away other peoples rights based on a few idiots. You have to be idiotic not to understand that.

3) Taking away protection based upon small crimes is a lie, because you are claiming bigger crimes are not happening, therefore leaving people defenceless where daddy government can not be of any help. 

Anyway, that is enough for now. The list can go on and on. 

Also you can not compare categories of American crimes with European crimes because the crimes are categorized different. Some of what Americans call big crimes are not in the big crime categories in Europe. From what I have read in the 80s or early 90s the Europeans are in just as much danger as Americans, but are left defenceless. People shouldn't pull the wool over their eyes. Oh, and there is another problem; not all crimes are recorded, because criminals like to be in position where they don't have to (this problem began in Europe thousands of years ago and came to America hundreds of years ago).


----------



## Apatheticviews

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Don't you wish the founding fathers or at least politicians say in the early 20th century, lets say after WWII had come to their senses and imposed stricter laws or banned firearm possession altogether in the USA? As was the case in the UK, when the first firearms acts came into force?
> 
> For the record the US argument of owning a weapon to defend yourself against armed criminals is NOT accepted in the UK.
> Because since 1946, self-defence has not been considered a valid reason to own a firearm.


Not for one minute.

Our second amendment is in place not only to protect us from criminals but from the government as well. Keep in mind that the Constitution was designed to last about 20 years. Our founding fathers realized the document was far from perfect, and built it to be modified as needed. But they also built in the ability for the People to rebel against the government if needed. The "Checks & Balances" are ever-present within the constitution, not only within our three branches, but also with the People as well. The People retain the Rights. The Government is is merely a representation of the will of the People.

Do I advocate the violent overthrow of the government? No. Do I acknowledge that the Framers specifically built the 2nd amendment to cover that eventuality? (among other things) You betcha.

Without guns, the American people would still be under British rule (I think you refer to it as the American Insurrection, our Revolution). It is part of our heritage. Part of our society. Part of our history.


----------



## eagle2250

Apatheticviews said:


> Not for one minute.
> 
> Our second amendment is in place not only to protect us from criminals but from the government as well. Keep in mind that the Constitution was designed to last about 20 years. Our founding fathers realized the document was far from perfect, and built it to be modified as needed. But they also built in the ability for the People to rebel against the government if needed....


LOL. Indeed, given the obviously flawed nature of our present elective governing bodies one might argue we need more and even bigger guns.  God bless those founding fathers! It seems a good time to re read the book, The Genius of The People!


----------



## Chouan

Apatheticviews said:


> Not for one minute.
> 
> Without guns, the American people would still be under British rule (I think you refer to it as the American Insurrection, our Revolution). It is part of our heritage. Part of our society. Part of our history.


It is a popular argument amongst Americans, but not strictly true (We refer to it as the American War of Independence, actually, whgere we refer to it at all). I would suggest that without the French, more particularly, the French Navy, you'd have lost, at least militarily. The Americans didn't win because of the private ownership of guns, but because the various States were able to purchase firearms, mostly from France and Spain, and train soldiers. The Colonists won no battles, that I'm aware of, without using trained soldiers. I'm not aware of any American victories won by civilians who'd brought their privately owned firearms.
It is part of your myth, not your History. Continental Army, yes, with French help. Minutemen, except as auxiliaries, I'm afraid not.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Chouan said:


> It is a popular argument amongst Americans, but not strictly true (We refer to it as the American War of Independence, actually, whgere we refer to it at all). I would suggest that without the French, more particularly, the French Navy, you'd have lost, at least militarily. The Americans didn't win because of the private ownership of guns, but because the various States were able to purchase firearms, mostly from France and Spain, and train soldiers. The Colonists won no battles, that I'm aware of, without using trained soldiers. I'm not aware of any American victories won by civilians who'd brought their privately owned firearms.
> It is part of your myth, not your History. Continental Army, yes, with French help. Minutemen, except as auxiliaries, I'm afraid not.


Having an ocean between countries is the main reason we won. Having French support was a major factor as well. Logistics wins wars. The old adage is "Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics." But if the American People didn't have guns, we wouldn't have independence at all, regardless of their source.


----------



## IlliniFlyer

Chouan said:


> It is part of your myth, not your History. Continental Army, yes, with French help. Minutemen, except as auxiliaries, I'm afraid not.


Boston, 1776.

And to add fuel, let's not forget that the 2nd Amendment comes from the British right of self-defense (1689).

As for me, I carry a weapon every day. Sometimes I carry both a pistol and a rifle!


----------



## hardline_42

Chouan said:


> If the Earl will forgive me for answering for him, or perhaps as well as him, I would suggest that if the Earl was a Policeman in London, which I think he was, then he would *not* have been carrying a firearm in a civilian environment. As a police officer, the nature of his job did *not* require the precaution of a firearm. British police officers do not carry firearms, unless they are of a specially trained police firearms unit, and then only when they have been ordered into action as a firearm unit, because particular circumstances have demanded it, and their role has been authorised.


My apologies. I was unable to decipher EoO's location and am new to the site.


----------



## Howard

> As for me, I carry a weapon every day. Sometimes I carry both a pistol and a rifle!


What do you use it for?


----------



## IlliniFlyer

Howard said:


> What do you use it for?


Protecting myself against the Taliban or HIG. I'm in Afghanistan currently.


----------



## Chouan

IlliniFlyer said:


> Boston, 1776.
> 
> And to add fuel, let's not forget that the 2nd Amendment comes from the British right of self-defense (1689).
> 
> As for me, I carry a weapon every day. Sometimes I carry both a pistol and a rifle!


Here's an American website which clearly states that Boston, 1776, was won for the Americans by Washington's trained continental army. Clearly won by trained soldiers, not armed civilians.

https://www.patriotresource.com/amerrev/events/bostonevac.html


----------



## Chouan

Apatheticviews said:


> Having an ocean between countries is the main reason we won. Having French support was a major factor as well. Logistics wins wars. The old adage is "Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics." But if the American People didn't have guns, we wouldn't have independence at all, regardless of their source.


Yes, logistics are of course key. An ocean didn't stop Britain beating the French in America in the 7 Years War. French support wasn't *a* major factor, it was _*the*_ factor. Without the French Navy the Continental Army wouldn't have won. Britain couldn't re-supply or reinforce, not because of the Atlantic Ocean, but because the French Navy was able to prevent Britain from doing so. 
To reply to your second point, nobody is arguing that a state shouldn't have an army. It was the Continental Army that won the battles, not individuals with privately owned firearms. So it was the American Army, rather than the "American People", who achieved America's independence.


----------



## Howard

IlliniFlyer said:


> Protecting myself against the Taliban or HIG. I'm in Afghanistan currently.


make sure you get Osama.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Chouan said:


> Yes, logistics are of course key. An ocean didn't stop Britain beating the French in America in the 7 Years War. French support wasn't *a* major factor, it was _*the*_ factor. Without the French Navy the Continental Army wouldn't have won. Britain couldn't re-supply or reinforce, not because of the Atlantic Ocean, but because the French Navy was able to prevent Britain from doing so.
> To reply to your second point, nobody is arguing that a state shouldn't have an army. It was the Continental Army that won the battles, not individuals with privately owned firearms. So it was the American Army, rather than the "American People", who achieved America's independence.


The American Army is ALWAYS a small subset of the American People. Right now there are perhaps 2 million service members. There are 300+ million Americans. Less than a percent. The number of gun owners outweighs the number of military members (25% > 1%), and has since this countries founding.

It is estimated that 1 in 4 Americans own a gun, and the average number of guns owned is 4 (if you include military & law enforcement), making it average to 1 gun per man, woman, and child in the country. The FBI estimates that there are 200,000,000 (yes 200 MILLION) Privately owned firearms in America. Private ownership exceeds military and law enforcement arsenals, and always has, because there has always been more PRIVATE CITIZENS.

The "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" (first half our 2nd amendment) implies as much. The militia is made up of private citizens, providing their own equipment. The continental Marines recruited primarily from rifle owners as they did not have the means to equip them initially.


----------



## Chouan

My point was, however, that it was the Army of the Americans, that enabled Independence to be secured, not armed American civilians. Civilians who own muskets and rifled muskets, who then join the Continental Marines have become soldiers; they are no longer private citizens who own firearms.


----------



## Mazderati

Apatheticviews said:


> Speaking as a former Arms Dealer, who has sold literally 1000's of weapons (on an individual basis).
> 
> In the US, you can legally *purchase* a Firearm (Pistol, Revolver, Shotgun, Rifle) assuming the following (federal law, state law has variances)... Certain classes of weapons (Fully Automatic Weapons &/or Burst capabilities, and those with larger than .50 caliber aka cannons) have additional requirements & restrictions.
> 
> 1. You are not a convicted felon, or have been convicted of a crime in which you could serve more than 1 year in prison or pay a $10,000 fine. Certain misdemeanors will preclude gun ownership. A State's Governor may return your RIGHT (as outlined in our constitution) at his/her discretion (unlikely but I have seen it). Each prospective gun owner must complete the federally mandated paperwork & state mandated paperwork. This paperwork is used to begin the Criminal Background Investigation to confirm the above.
> 2. You are over the age of 18 (Rifles & Shotguns) or 21 (Pistols & Revolvers).
> 3. In the case of Handguns, you are a legal resident of the state in which you purchase. Each state has different guidelines for establishing residency, however the US Constitution defines a citizen a resident of a state in which they are registered to vote. Long guns do not have the same restriction. Active duty military are treated as both residents of the state in which they are permanently stationed, and of the state in which they maintain their "Home of Record."
> 4. You purchase it from a valid source. Usually an Federal Firearms Licensed Dealer (FFL), however depending on state there may be "person to person" clause. When executing a person to person sale, a good faith effort must be made to ensure that neither party is a Felon, both are residents (if required), both meet the age requirements.
> 5. The firearm conforms to FFL manufacture regulations (safety standards). As an example, all rifles & shotguns must have at least 16" long barrels.


Too bad about those gun shows.

Seller: "You a felon?"
Felon: "No."
Seller: "Here you go."


----------



## Apatheticviews

Mazderati said:


> Too bad about those gun shows.
> 
> Seller: "You a felon?"
> Felon: "No."
> Seller: "Here you go."


That is an ignorant statement. You have been listening to the media and have picked up the phrase "gun show loophole" which refers to a "person to person transaction" (not a dealer to person)

The same requirements exist at gunshows as in gunstores within VA by FFL licenced dealers. However, even with the "gunshow loophole" good faith effort must be made to confirm the above (not a felon, resident of the state for handguns, and meets the age requirements). Failure to do so places the burden back on the original purchaser of the firearm per federal statute.

Keep in mind that the federal government does have a means of tracking where a gun comes from once it is found, and from there can determine who had it, and in what order (legally). Example.

1) Gun found. S&W SN XXXXX
2) ATF calls S&W
3) S&W has 24 hours to tell ATF the gun was shipped to XXX gun distributor/dealer/FFL holder
4) Repeat 3) as needed
5) FFL holder has 24 hours to tell ATF the gun was sold to XXX person, and FAX paperwork to ATF which contains address of person.
6) ATF contacts person, to confirm possession in case of misidentification (bad serial number) or to find out if weapon was sold/stolen/etc.
7) continues as needed.

If during step 6) the person says "I sold it" and the person is not able to provide any information as to whom they sold it to, the burden is placed solely on them. If they sold it to a felon, they are liable for selling a gun to a felon (a crime in itself).

However this completely discounts the fact that criminals don't acquire guns legally in the first place. They are generally stolen, and have changed hands numerous times. A gun is an identifier, just as much as a driver's license.


----------



## Mazderati

A system where we find out who sells the guns _after_ they've been used to shoot or kill isn't a good system. Here's some more media drivel showing just how well the aforementioned laws work. So much for that good faith thing.


----------



## Howard

Mazderati said:


> A system where we find out who sells the guns _after_ they've been used to shoot or kill isn't a good system. Here's some more media drivel showing just how well the aforementioned laws work. So much for that good faith thing.


How much do they go for?


----------



## Apatheticviews

Mazderati said:


> A system where we find out who sells the guns _after_ they've been used to shoot or kill isn't a good system. Here's some more media drivel showing just how well the aforementioned laws work. So much for that good faith thing.


A system where we assume that people are criminals _before_ a crime is committed is counter to the laws of this nation. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

What you just showed was a person was a person committing an illegal gun purchase. The seller did make a good faith effort to establish residency, and age verification, whereas the purchaser lied committing a felony in the process. Was the seller a moron? Yes. Was the buyer a criminal? Yes. If a crime were committed with the weapon, both would go to jail.

I understand the seller was a victim of the VT shooting.. however, the shooter at VT purchased the guns legally and passed a federal background check in the state of VA, so what you have here is just that "media drivel."


----------



## thunderw21

I'd like to share one of my recent experiences with firearms, violence and death that happened on October 25th of last year.



> Pretty much happened as the article says. The guy was nice enough, just seemed a little odd, especially that week. I worked with him a couple days before and his eyes were empty.
> 
> Gary was off his meds.
> He grabbed a knife from the meat department, started slicing his hands and ran down the isles knocking product off the shelf while yelling "I have HIV, I have HIV!" (turns out he did not). The police cornered him in the dairy section (my section, I'm the dairy manager) and tazered him twice but that did nothing. He kept coming towards the cops with the knife and they fired at least half a dozen rounds.
> 
> Thankfully I was upstairs in the office doing some orders when it happened. I had been in that area 5 minutes before. I heard two bursts of gunfire seperated by 5 to 10 seconds. My first instinct was 'gunfire' but my mind tried to rationalize it as someone pounding nails or working on something (workers were on the roof). It didn't sound like what I thought gunfire would sound like, but then again I was on the second floor.
> 
> Then someone announced over the intercom that everyone needed to evacuate, so I knew by that time something was going down. I just didn't know what for sure (thought it could have been an active shooter) so myself and another employee cautiously made our way down to the first floor. Then we turned the corner to my dairy section and saw the guy face down in the aisle, blood everywhere and pooling from his mouth with cops on top of him holding a tazer and their sidearms. Upon seeing that we were relieved that the cops were there but still beat a hasty retreat to the outside of the building where the cops, paramedics and some firefighters had arrived.
> 
> Suicide by cop. Witnesses said he never went after anyone else and that he had a big smile on his face while he was cutting himself and running down the aisles smashing everything.
> 
> Sad situation to say the least. I had my little .380 handgun in my car but it would not have done any good had the situtation been worse.


A couple observations:
1. If this had been an active shooter (or just been aggressive towards other people) folks would have died. My co-workers did a fine job of getting everyone outside in a short time, though some customers were strangely reluctant to leave (sheeple).

2. Thankfully the first officer to arrive (same officer who shot Gary) was only a couple blocks away when the call went out. Therefore response time was much quicker than usual.

3. While company policy does not allow employees to carry while on the clock, if I had been carrying that day I doubt anything would have happened any differently. Gary did not act aggressive towards employees or customers so (if I had been carrying and aware of his rampage) I doubt I would have used my firearm. Instead I would have helped get customers out and made sure that he didn't go after anyone. 
However, if he had proven to be a deadly threat I would have been justified in the use of deadly force just as the responding officer was.

4. This experience only strengthens my belief that regular folks should not only be allowed to own firearms with few if any restrictions but also carry them. Had Gary been violent and the police arrived later, folks would have died. In such a situation a concealed carrier is the only line of defense before the police arrive.

5. After the shooting I kept hearing people ask "why did they have to kill him? Why didn't they just shoot him in the knee?". Those questions show an obvious ignorance about the use of firearms and techniques under stress. Sadly too many people take what little they know about firearms from TV and movies.

This is not the first time myself and my family have been put into dangerous situations dealing with bad/mentally unstable folks. That is why both my mom and I now have our permits to carry. I hope we never have to draw and use our weapons in 'anger' but if we are put into the position I hope we will be ready. Practice until you can't get it wrong and train your mind.


----------



## Regillus

I'm in favor of gun ownership for purposes of self-defense. I don't understand these people who want to disarm law-abiding citizens; leaving criminals with guns since they ignore the law anyway. Then when someone is attacked by a criminal with a gun they can't use a gun to defend their life so let the innocent person die and the criminal live. People, particularly those who are small, not very strong or infirm due to injuries or disease should be able to defend their lives against a younger stronger attacker by means of a handgun. Remember: God created man but Sam Colt made them equal.


----------



## Howard

What does it mean when a gun has no bullets in it?


----------



## Apatheticviews

Howard said:


> What does it mean when a gun has no bullets in it?


that it's a paperweight.


----------



## Chouan

Regillus said:


> I'm in favor of gun ownership for purposes of self-defense. I don't understand these people who want to disarm law-abiding citizens; leaving criminals with guns since they ignore the law anyway. Then when someone is attacked by a criminal with a gun they can't use a gun to defend their life so let the innocent person die and the criminal live. People, particularly those who are small, not very strong or infirm due to injuries or disease should be able to defend their lives against a younger stronger attacker by means of a handgun. Remember: God created man but Sam Colt made them equal.


America must be an awful place to live.......


----------



## Howard

Apatheticviews said:


> that it's a paperweight.


Isn't it called "shooting blanks"?


----------



## eagle2250

Chouan said:


> America must be an awful place to live.......


Chouan: Your seemingly incessant string of posts bashing and demeaning this Country that so many of us dearly love, and her people, are really getting to be more than just a bit boring. Could you do all of us a big favor and just move on...to a different theme? What in the world could have caused you to develop such a hatred of all things American? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Apatheticviews

eagle2250 said:


> Chouan: Your seemingly incessant string of posts bashing and demeaning this Country that so many of us dearly love, and her people, are really getting to be more than just a bit boring. Could you do all of us a big favor and just move on...to a different theme? What in the world could have caused you to develop such a hatred of all things American? :icon_scratch:


I don't think he hate America, or all things American. I think he uses sarcasm to highlight his opposition to guns. He has a philosophical difference, which I doubt we will be able to overcome with words alone.


----------



## Wildblue

Chouan said:


> America must be an awful place to live.......


And again, the same post we've seen dozens of times here before.

Fine. Don't move to America, or visit if you choose not to, and that's the conclusion you are "forced" to draw about America.

I'm sure the Americans are devastated that you think so.


----------



## eagle2250

^^ +1



Apatheticviews said:


> I don't think he hate America, or all things American. I think he uses sarcasm to highlight his opposition to guns. He has a philosophical difference, which I doubt we will be able to overcome with words alone.


Indeed? Visit Chouan's profile; pull up his postings and read a sampling of them. I suspect you might be struck by the frequency with which he revisits this theme of discontent with the U.S., regardless of the thread subject to which he might be responding....unnecessarily repetitive and to some of us, mildly irritating and decidedly boorish!


----------



## Chouan

eagle2250 said:


> ^^ +1
> 
> Indeed? Visit Chouan's profile; pull up his postings and read a sampling of them. I suspect you might be struck by the frequency with which he revisits this theme of discontent with the U.S., regardless of the thread subject to which he might be responding....unnecessarily repetitive and to some of us, mildly irritating and decidedly boorish!


We get repeated stating of the argument that people in America need guns for self-protection; one can only assume that if guns are necessary for self-protection, then there are serious dangers that guns are the only protection from. This, to me suggests that the US must be a very dangerous country, otherwise guns for self-protection wouldn't be necessary.

As far as being anti-American is concerned, there are many Americans who assume that any crtiticism of America must necessarily be through anti-American sentiment. I sometimes criticise the actions of my elder son. That doesn't mean that I'm anti-elder son. I just don't accept everything he does as being right. There are aspects of America that I like; I highlighted these in a previous post, but there are many aspects of American behaviour and attitudes which I find unpleasant. Expressing my view of these unpleasant aspects of American culture doesn't mean that I'm anti-American. Indeed, the view that a critic of American culture or attitudes is anti-American is one of the views that some Americans have that I find both arrogant and unpleasant.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

No one else going to point it out? On a thread about firearms? Presumably with at least some people interested in firearms?

Okay, I'll say it then as I'm a stickler for detail when it comes to military designation. The assault rifle in that Youtube clip is NOT an AK-47. It is an Egyptian produced Misr, a copy of the AKM.

An Egyptian Misr-AKM and an AK 47 have about as much in common as a US army Browning M1911 .45 ACP from 1911 and the FN Browning HP 9mm I regularly used in 1982 in the RAF Regt. It being the standard British armed forces sidearm of the day.They might look a bit similar, and feel a bit similar, but they don't handle or fire even remotely similarly. 

The AK 47 was replaced by the AKM in the Soviet armed forces in 1959. The AKM made many technical improvements on the AK 47. 
The AK 47 (made in 1947) had a rigid stock, wooden furniture, very basic metal plate, very basic moving parts, and a 7.62 mm calibre and was heavier than the AKM. The AK 47 never had a folding stock.

Then in the late 70s the AK-74 officially replaced the AKM in the Soviet forces.

Here are some more examples to further highlight the misunderstanding of the Kalashnikov family of weapons and misuse of the designation AK 47.
The folding stock 5.45mm version used by the Soviet Paras in the 80s was the AKS-74, plastic furniture. 
The folding stock 7.62mm version used by the Soviet Naval Infantry in the 80s was the AKMS, all black, wooden furniture.
The S on those two designations stands for Skladnoy = folding.

When you hold an AK 47 and a AK 74 side by side, as I've done, you'll see and feel the difference straightaway.
The 47 is larger and heavier with wooden furniture and a rigid stock.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Unfortunately, AK-47 has become a "generic" term (in the US), a lot like M-16 (or the civilian equivalent AR15). It would be more apt to call the weapon an "AK" as a generic term, since it shares the same basic receiver design. Essentially we have a case where people are using a specific weapon to describe a general weapon class.

AK's in general (not the AK-47) have become an inexpensive entry into the "black gun" (military type weapons) shooting. Their manufacture cost is significantly below other rifles in the class (like the AR series). They are essentially the "farm tool" of semi-automatic weapons.


----------



## thunderw21

Chouan said:


> We get repeated stating of the argument that people in America need guns for self-protection; one can only assume that if guns are necessary for self-protection, then there are serious dangers that guns are the only protection from. This, to me suggests that the US must be a very dangerous country, otherwise guns for self-protection wouldn't be necessary.
> 
> ...


You forget that every nation and continent have threats and crimes of their own, some more than others. No place in the world that is inhabited by humans is void of crime. Remember, some of the worst violence throughout history have come from Europe, among other continents. It is not just "America".

A majority of gun owners understand this and that is why it is so important to them.


----------



## Regillus

Chouan said:


> We get repeated stating of the argument that people in America need guns for self-protection; one can only assume that if guns are necessary for self-protection, then there are serious dangers that guns are the only protection from. This, to me suggests that the US must be a very dangerous country, otherwise guns for self-protection wouldn't be necessary.
> 
> As far as being anti-American is concerned, there are many Americans who assume that any crtiticism of America must necessarily be through anti-American sentiment. I sometimes criticise the actions of my elder son. That doesn't mean that I'm anti-elder son. I just don't accept everything he does as being right. There are aspects of America that I like; I highlighted these in a previous post, but there are many aspects of American behaviour and attitudes which I find unpleasant. Expressing my view of these unpleasant aspects of American culture doesn't mean that I'm anti-American. Indeed, the view that a critic of American culture or attitudes is anti-American is one of the views that some Americans have that I find both arrogant and unpleasant.


Anywhere in the world you go there are dangerous people who would bash your head in with a rock or a stick (recall the machetes in Rwanda); not just in America. To say that "the US must be a very dangerous country, otherwise guns for self-protection wouldn't be necessary" implies that other countries are so safe that there's no need for handguns. There is no such country on the face of the earth. In Japan; while admittedly it has a lower murder rate due to no right to bear arms; you can get a handgun by buying it from a criminal. Chouan misunderstands my point. A handgun is a special-purpose tool that you use in only one type of situation: To defend your life or the life of another person. True; this type of situation rarely occurs - but the problem is if it does occur and your life is about to be ended by a murderer; what are you going to do? Just stand there a let them kill you? What's that you say? "Run away?" People with two broken legs and on crutches (like I was once) can't run. A handgun provides the means to shoot and possibly kill your attacker at a safe distance. Don't underestimate the deterrent effect of merely displaying a weapon. If an attacker heads for you and you pull out a gun and point it at him; most attackers will change their minds and go somewhere else. Chouan is just your typical America-hater. I've heard his kind of talk before from Middle-Easterners. What I heard was talk that they wanted America to go into their countries; do the fighting and dying to free it from their dictators; and then immediately leave because they don't like Americans. Chouan: What country are you originally from?


----------



## Chouan

If Americans who want to be able to own guns could be honest and say "I should be allowed to own a gun because I want to.", you'd get no argument from me. It is the hypocritical and dishonest argument that they want guns because they need them, because of armed criminals and freedom etc etc that I find annoying.
The contention that "I need a gun because of dangerous criminals" alongside the view that "America is no more dangerous than anywhere else" when the first assertion is questioned shows the contradiction in the argument. Either America is so dangerous that citizens need to be armed, or it isn't, in which case citizens don't need to be armed. You can't have it both ways.
I urge you to grow up and be honest; I'd respect you more for it.


----------



## Howard

How about a gun quote:

All you need for a movie is a gun and a girl. 
Jean-Luc Godard


----------



## bernoulli

I have absolutely no idea how anyone can think of firing or carrying a gun. I loathe the fact that anybody has any right to carry a gun whatsoever (and not only because my uncle was killed by one - I just have a natural tendency to think guns are stupid). The argument that one needs a gun to protect their family is completely flawed - if nobody had the right nobody would need one to protect their own family. I am American, but not North-American, so maybe this will disqualify me to discuss this topic... Just my two cents.


----------



## nosajwols

I totally see the justification of gun ownership and collecting as a hobby. I do not agree with (or understand) the "I need it" sentiment as an excuse (and a very tired one at that). I have a firearm for a hobby and I have no need to use it to protect my family in any real world or likely first world situation. There is a big cultural issue here, watching American TV on a regular basis violence is the norm in primetime (more times than not gun violence) yet at the same time one little glimpse of a breast and the censors lose their minds. maybe this all helps feed the I need it mentality (I guess to protect ones family against breasts... ???

I think if the gun lobby dropped the "I need it" rhetoric and the anti-gun lobby learned more about the hobby the issues would be solved. Open mindedness and honesty... Maybe the laws should be changed that anyone who wants a gun gets one anyone who "needs" one does not (and gets sent to a basic self defense course to learn how to defend themselves...).


----------



## JohnRov

There's really no need to justify firearm ownership based on need, it's a right. Firearms are used by many each year in self-defense, they did indeed need them.


----------



## Apatheticviews

nosajwols said:


> I do not agree with (or understand) the "I need it" sentiment as an excuse (and a very tired one at that).


You have yours as a hobby. This can easily be defined as a "want."

I used to sell firearms for a living. To support your hobby (among other people's justification). I carried daily at work, because I "needed" to. A worn firearm, is a visible deterrent to armed robbery. There's no simpler way to state that fact. There's a reason why security guards in banks & jewelry stores carry weapons. High value merchandise. Being a gun dealer, I just didn't have to sub-contract the job.

At my home, I do not feel an overwhelming need for defensive weaponry. But I also understand that my personal chances of being robbed/assaulted at home are limited. If I lived 20 miles to the north, my views might shift however.

The problem with the "hobby" aspect however is that it's not accurate. People "need" firearms in the same fashion as they need $4 coffee, and 12mpg cars. They have defined their need, which may or may not agree with your personal opinions.

As an example, Sen. Diane Feinstein (huge Anti-Gun advocate) is noted for carrying a firearm for personal protection. The president has armed bodyguards, for his protection, because he needs it. What makes their lives worth more than the common citizens? The likelihood of being attacked? I'm sorry but that just doesn't fly, as it's impossible accurately determine.

Since need is subjective, and use is irrelevant (collecting, hunting, plinking are all hobbies. Self preservation is a personal hobby of mine.) then it comes to Rights. All people have the Right to defend themselves, and Americans have the Right to own/possess firearms.


----------



## Apatheticviews

bernoulli said:


> I have absolutely no idea how anyone can think of firing or carrying a gun. I loathe the fact that anybody has any right to carry a gun whatsoever (and not only because my uncle was killed by one - I just have a natural tendency to think guns are stupid). The argument that one needs a gun to protect their family is completely flawed - if nobody had the right nobody would need one to protect their own family. I am American, but not North-American, so maybe this will disqualify me to discuss this topic... Just my two cents.


If nobody had the right to carry guns, then the only people carrying them would be criminals. There are too many guns to collect them all.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Apatheticviews said:


> If nobody had the right to carry guns, then the only people carrying them would be criminals. There are too many guns to collect them all.


Nonsense. If we make gun possession illegal then we would no more have people possessing guns than we now have people possessing illegal drugs. Oh, wait ...


----------



## Apatheticviews

Mike Petrik said:


> Nonsense. If we make gun possession illegal then we would no more have people possessing guns than we now have people possessing illegal drugs. Oh, wait ...


Not to mention that the Supreme Court ruled (confirmed) that gun possession is an individual Right. They essentially told Congress that they couldn't outlaw them. Add that to FBI/ATF's statistics on gun ownership (1 in 4 Americans on average), and we're looking at 75 Million guns to collect...


----------



## bernoulli

Apatheticviews said:


> If nobody had the right to carry guns, then the only people carrying them would be criminals. There are too many guns to collect them all.


Right now maybe you are right, but it is a problem that should have been solved many many years ago. Just look at all those countries where owning a gun is not part of the cultural landscape. I was not advocating a complete ban on guns in the US because it is unfeasible. I was just pointing out a philosophical point. However, fizzling out the gun culture and starting a VERY long process of taking guns away from the population might work in THE LONG RUN. I don't see it happening though, it is one part of North-American culture that I really don't like.


----------



## Apatheticviews

bernoulli said:


> Right now maybe you are right, but it is a problem that should have been solved many many years ago. Just look at all those countries where owning a gun is not part of the cultural landscape. I was not advocating a complete ban on guns in the US because it is unfeasible. I was just pointing out a philosophical point. However, fizzling out the gun culture and starting a VERY long process of taking guns away from the population might work in THE LONG RUN. I don't see it happening though, it is one part of North-American culture that I really don't like.


It's ingrained in our founding documents.

The problem is that taking guns away from the populace is the first step in any tyranny. You don't want armed people overthrowing a corrupt government, so you make sure they are underarmed to do so. The founding fathers didn't expect the Constitution to last anywhere near 200+ years, so they built in a check & balance in case things didn't work.

Do I anticipate that happening? No. But having 600 people with the power to change 300 MILLION peoples' Rights in at whim isn't what the fathers expected either.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz

I've only read back two pages, and to preface, I am a gun owner, and believe that every upstanding American should be armed and carry at will (obvious exclusions implied). If I were at a rally in Arizona, carrying as I do when I'm not at work, there is NO WAY someone would have emptied a 31 round clip AND had the opportunity to start reloading. 

That being said, I question this:

When the largest gun owner's rights advocacy organization (NRA) is invited by the President to sit down to discuss gun laws, wouldn't you think that they'd accept the invitation? That is, if they are truly a gun owner's rights organization without a political agenda.......


----------



## thunderw21

Apatheticviews said:


> You have yours as a hobby. This can easily be defined as a "want."
> 
> I used to sell firearms for a living. To support your hobby (among other people's justification). I carried daily at work, because I "needed" to. A worn firearm, is a visible deterrent to armed robbery. There's no simpler way to state that fact. There's a reason why security guards in banks & jewelry stores carry weapons. High value merchandise. Being a gun dealer, I just didn't have to sub-contract the job.
> 
> At my home, I do not feel an overwhelming need for defensive weaponry. But I also understand that my personal chances of being robbed/assaulted at home are limited. If I lived 20 miles to the north, my views might shift however.
> 
> The problem with the "hobby" aspect however is that it's not accurate. People "need" firearms in the same fashion as they need $4 coffee, and 12mpg cars. They have defined their need, which may or may not agree with your personal opinions.
> 
> As an example, Sen. Diane Feinstein (huge Anti-Gun advocate) is noted for carrying a firearm for personal protection. The president has armed bodyguards, for his protection, because he needs it. What makes their lives worth more than the common citizens? The likelihood of being attacked? I'm sorry but that just doesn't fly, as it's impossible accurately determine.
> 
> Since need is subjective, and use is irrelevant (collecting, hunting, plinking are all hobbies. Self preservation is a personal hobby of mine.) then it comes to Rights. All people have the Right to defend themselves, and Americans have the Right to own/possess firearms.


This is very well stated.


----------



## Apatheticviews

TheGreatTwizz said:


> I've only read back two pages, and to preface, I am a gun owner, and believe that every upstanding American should be armed and carry at will (obvious exclusions implied). If I were at a rally in Arizona, carrying as I do when I'm not at work, there is NO WAY someone would have emptied a 31 round clip AND had the opportunity to start reloading.
> 
> That being said, I question this:
> 
> When the largest gun owner's rights advocacy organization (NRA) is invited by the President to sit down to discuss gun laws, wouldn't you think that they'd accept the invitation? That is, if they are truly a gun owner's rights organization without a political agenda.......


The problem with an invitation like that is multifaceted.

a) It's unlikely to lead to relaxed (minimal) gun laws, which is the goal of the NRA (preserving the 2nd Amendment's core concept). The only possible outcome is MORE gun laws, which is in direct opposition to the organizations goal.
b) Sitting down with the President, who by *party* definition is "anti-gun," gives the President the privilege of saying he "discussed" the issue.
c) Preserving the 2nd Amendment is a Political agenda, by definition. The NRA is a political organization by extension. It just isn't tied to our traditional two party system. If we were a coalition government, I'm willing to bet it would be a full fledged party.
d) Unless there is reasonable belief that the president will overturn existing policies (not laws), the NRA has no need to talk to him at all. He isn't the one who controls the issue. It's actually a congressional issue instead.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Chouan said:


> If Americans who want to be able to own guns could be honest and say "I should be allowed to own a gun because I want to.", you'd get no argument from me. It is the hypocritical and dishonest argument that they want guns because they need them, because of armed criminals and freedom etc etc that I find annoying.
> The contention that "I need a gun because of dangerous criminals" alongside the view that "America is no more dangerous than anywhere else" when the first assertion is questioned shows the contradiction in the argument. Either America is so dangerous that citizens need to be armed, or it isn't, in which case citizens don't need to be armed. You can't have it both ways.
> I urge you to grow up and be honest; I'd respect you more for it.


Leaving aside the sophomoric straw man argument, I'm reasonably confident that I speak for most Americans when I say that your respect is not exactly a priority.


----------



## Cruiser

Chouan said:


> The contention that "I need a gun because of dangerous criminals" alongside the view that "America is no more dangerous than anywhere else" when the first assertion is questioned shows the contradiction in the argument. Either America is so dangerous that citizens need to be armed, or it isn't, in which case citizens don't need to be armed. You can't have it both ways.


This isn't true at all. I suspect that you take numerous actions each and every day for reasons of personal safety despite the fact that the odds of you encountering whatever danger it is that you are taking precautions against is slim at best. I don't think that the short drive I take to the office several days a week is dangerous, but I still buckle my seat belt in the car; and I would do so even if it weren't the law.

My hobby is amateur astronomy and I often go to secluded sites alone in the middle of the night to do my observing. The odds of someone accosting me are negligible, but I still feel uncomfortable by myself at 1:00 AM in the middle of nowhere. That's why I have a handgun carry permit for the S&W .357 Magnum that goes with me on these ventures. I don't consider what I'm doing to be dangerous, but should something happen I feel better knowing that I have some means of self protection.



> I urge you to grow up and be honest; I'd respect you more for it.


C'mon now, we don't really need the childish "grow up" comments. At age 62 I'm about as grown up as I'm going to get. Actually I think I'm starting to get smaller as I age.

As for your respect, if I have it fine; but if not, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

Cruiser


----------



## Chouan

Mike Petrik said:


> Leaving aside the sophomoric straw man argument, I'm reasonably confident that I speak for most Americans when I say that your respect is not exactly a priority.


Read the posts to see whether it is a straw man argument. There are several posts on this page alone presenting that argument. (Numbers 251, 257, 261) I'm glad that you speak for most Americans, how reassuring it must be for you.


----------



## nosajwols

To be clear here. Needing a gun for work is one thing. Needing a gun for defense at home is another, I suggest if you need one outside of work you may want to reconsider your "lifestyle" choices or where you live...

Consider this, you "NEED" a gun for defense outside of work (say for home to protect your family, because of where you live or your lifestyle choices). What happens when you are not home but your family is? Is your spouse fully proficient in the use of the home firearm? Even if she/he is, do you only hire armed babysitters to watch your kids when neither of you are home? Is there a firearms proficiency test for your babysitters? Are you arming your teen children for when they are on their own at home, walking to school? If you answer no to any of the above WHY are they not required to need to be armed to defend themselves but you are? If the risk is so high that you must have a gun to defend yourself why is it not for them, are they better capable of defending themselves sans firearm than you are? Or do you keep everyone in the compound with you watching over gun in hand in a state of paranoia?

Do the criminal element only focus on adults or are they more likely to attack when there is no adult around?


----------



## TheGreatTwizz

Apatheticviews said:


> The problem with an invitation like that is multifaceted.
> 
> a) It's unlikely to lead to relaxed (minimal) gun laws, which is the goal of the NRA (preserving the 2nd Amendment's core concept). The only possible outcome is MORE gun laws, which is in direct opposition to the organizations goal.
> b) Sitting down with the President, who by *party* definition is "anti-gun," gives the President the privilege of saying he "discussed" the issue.
> c) Preserving the 2nd Amendment is a Political agenda, by definition. The NRA is a political organization by extension. It just isn't tied to our traditional two party system. If we were a coalition government, I'm willing to bet it would be a full fledged party.
> d) Unless there is reasonable belief that the president will overturn existing policies (not laws), the NRA has no need to talk to him at all. He isn't the one who controls the issue. It's actually a congressional issue instead.


I would think the NRA would be realistic, and understand that gun laws will not be abolished entirely; their only hope is to mitigate the restriction of rights via a positive engagement with policymakers. Yes, of course it gives the President that privilege. It also would give the NRA-endorsed (generally republican) politicians the privilege of saying they, too, sat down with the President. Within my lifetime, I'm willing to bet we end up with relevant multiple parties. I don't see why the President wouldn't be open to a change in policy, specifically once it gets to the '12 cycle. Maybe he's trying to hedge a bit and see if a policy change would help him out. Our President is a bit more of a centrist than most are led to believe.


----------



## Apatheticviews

nosajwols said:


> To be clear here. Needing a gun for work is one thing. Needing a gun for defense at home is another, I suggest if you need one outside of work you may want to reconsider your "lifestyle" choices or where you live...
> 
> Consider this, you "NEED" a gun for defense outside of work (say for home to protect your family, because of where you live or your lifestyle choices). What happens when you are not home but your family is? Is your spouse fully proficient in the use of the home firearm? Even if she/he is, do you only hire armed babysitters to watch your kids when neither of you are home? Is there a firearms proficiency test for your babysitters? Are you arming your teen children for when they are on their own at home, walking to school? If you answer no to any of the above WHY are they not required to need to be armed to defend themselves but you are? If the risk is so high that you must have a gun to defend yourself why is it not for them, are they better capable of defending themselves sans firearm than you are? Or do you keep everyone in the compound with you watching over gun in hand in a state of paranoia?
> 
> Do the criminal element only focus on adults or are they more likely to attack when there is no adult around?


Wife is proficient with Handguns & Long-guns. She has her own firearms, and has her own concealed handgun permit.

As stated, I don't anticipate a home invasion (at my location), therefore armed babysitters is a moot point. However, this is a risk estimate case. If I did anticipate these circumstances, I would adjust my requirements accordingly.

Arming children (unsupervised access) is actually a violation of the law. However ensuring that my son is trained on firearm safety (basic handling) is a responsibility I believe in.

Does my son "need" protection when not accompanied by myself or my wife? Based on risk assessment, negligible. If the risk were higher, I would adjust the situation accordingly.

Interestingly, you use the word "required" which is not what "need" specifically means. I was not required to wear a firearm for work, however I did assess it as a personal need.

Need is a subjective concept, and the major problem you run into is that if need is a requirement, how do you define it? Location, Job, Status? And what happens if the reviewing authority assesses the situation wrong? Do they become liable for what happens to the person they denied?

As a personal choice, and an individual Right, all these administrative issues are moot.


----------



## Apatheticviews

TheGreatTwizz said:


> I would think the NRA would be realistic, and understand that gun laws will not be abolished entirely; their only hope is to mitigate the restriction of rights via a positive engagement with policymakers. Yes, of course it gives the President that privilege. It also would give the NRA-endorsed (generally republican) politicians the privilege of saying they, too, sat down with the President. Within my lifetime, I'm willing to bet we end up with relevant multiple parties. I don't see why the President wouldn't be open to a change in policy, specifically once it gets to the '12 cycle. Maybe he's trying to hedge a bit and see if a policy change would help him out. Our President is a bit more of a centrist than most are led to believe.


With the recent court cases & rulings, the NRA actually has more advantage going through the Judicial side than the Executive.

I doubt the NRA expects the complete removal of gun laws, however they don't believe there should be more laws on the books either. I like many law-abiding Americans believe the current laws are sufficient, and many are ill suited for the intent.

As a lobbyist organization, sitting down with the president who may or may not enact new laws is counter productive to their goal. Any laws signed into power, will essentially be viewed as "failures" by the membership.

I agree the president is a bit more center-minded than his party affiliation would indicate, however legislation is not his responsibility, and if legislation does make it to his desk which enhances gun control, he will tow party lines.

That said, I'm glad to see invitations like the referenced, however I can also understand the refusal.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Some facts:

FACT 1. outlawing firearms will not remove firearm crime - the UK is sufficient proof of that. Since the UK ban firearm crime has increased not decreased as might have been expected
FACT 2. the firearm ban in the UK came after 2 massacres both involving legally registered shooting club guns
FACT 3. before the UK firearm ban, most firearm crime was commited with legally bought & registered weapons usually stolen from lawful owner/club
FACT 4. since the ban, criminals now just use illegal weapons. All that has changed is the focus of where criminals get their weapons from
FACT 5. the firearms ban makes it harder for criminals to get guns. It doesn't stop them from getting guns.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Some facts:
> 
> FACT 1. outlawing firearms will not remove firearm crime - the UK is sufficient proof of that. Since the UK ban firearm crime has increased not decreased as might have been expected
> FACT 2. the firearm ban in the UK came after 2 massacres both involving legally registered shooting club guns
> FACT 3. before the UK firearm ban, most firearm crime was commited with legally bought & registered weapons usually stolen from lawful owner/club
> FACT 4. since the ban, criminals now just use illegal weapons. All that has changed is the focus of where criminals get their weapons from
> FACT 5. the firearms ban makes it harder for criminals to get guns. It doesn't stop them from getting guns.


An alternate, European, case-study would be the Swiss. Thus, this is also folks who don't complain loudly about their 40% taxes (38.5% fiscal rate).

--------------
Apathetic: Your point is quite well taken. I simply disagree with the NRA's refusal. Members will always be members. The NRA needs to make its case to the rest of America, and thus it will get more support for its causes. I view the refusal as having the opposite effect.


----------



## Apatheticviews

TheGreatTwizz said:


> Apathetic: Your point is quite well taken. I simply disagree with the NRA's refusal. Members will always be members. The NRA needs to make its case to the rest of America, and thus it will get more support for its causes. I view the refusal as having the opposite effect.


I didn't say I agree with the choice, merely that I understand it.

It was a political decision, like a great many things that happen in Washington.

The problem with making a case to the rest of America is that some people will always be anti-gun. This is one of the hot button issues that a lot of people will just never see eye to eye on. It's not an issue of logical debate, but of personal morals.

A sub-set of America feels that another sub-set shouldn't have a Right, while the other is literally fighting a war of attrition.

Every additional law *restricts* the Right. It never expands the Right. And those restrictions don't actually accomplish the stated purpose of reducing gun based crime.

So the only other avenue is education. Unfortunately, voluntary education only works for those who are not anti-gun, and forced education isn't feasible. Can you imagine what would happen if someone suggested a Firearms Safety (not use) class in public schools?


----------



## Cruiser

TheGreatTwizz said:


> The NRA needs to make its case to the rest of America, and thus it will get more support for its causes.


I think that the problem the NRA has with the public in general revolve around the often extreme stances it takes on certain issues. The public at large is generally turned off by fringe elements and if it sees the NRA fighting against things that they see as common sense, they are less likely to pay attention to the NRA's position on things that the public might agree with.

The "slippery slope" arguments that the extreme right and left use to justify some of their more extreme positions usually don't resonate with the majority that is in the middle. Even though I am a conservative and a handgun carry permit, I'm not a member of the NRA.

Cruiser


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Cruiser said:


> I think that the problem the NRA has with the public in general revolve around the often extreme stances it takes on certain issues.


Turning the instigators at Ruby Ridge and Waco into folk heroes got me out of the NRA even though I agree with every policy issue they ever penned!!

In America, if the cops serve you with a warrent, you take it and go to court.

Not come out guns-a-blazing.

There's no excuse.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

TheGreatTwizz said:


> An alternate, European, case-study would be the Swiss. Thus, this is also folks who don't complain loudly about their 40% taxes (38.5% fiscal rate).


I don't understand this at all.


----------



## Apatheticviews

WouldaShoulda said:


> Turning the instigators at Ruby Ridge and Waco into folk heroes got me out of the NRA even though I agree with every policy issue they ever penned!!
> 
> In America, if the cops serve you with a warrent, you take it and go to court.
> 
> Not come out guns-a-blazing.
> 
> There's no excuse.


Technically the ATF came IN guns a blazing (in Waco). It was a RAID justified with search warrant, not just serving a search warrant (which was gained under false pretenses). Based on historical documents, there is no clear view on who shot the first round, however the ATF can clearly be said to have started the conflict.

That said, what happened was a travesty, however it was instigated by the abuse of government power, not by the Right to bear Arms.

If the cops knock on my door and issue a search warrant, I would comply. If they broke down my door, I too might dive for my guns. It's an instinctual reaction to defend your home, and your family.


----------



## nosajwols

Apatheticviews said:


> Technically the ATF came IN guns a blazing (in Waco). It was a RAID justified with search warrant, not just serving a search warrant (which was gained under false pretenses). Based on historical documents, there is no clear view on who shot the first round, however the ATF can clearly be said to have started the conflict.
> 
> That said, what happened was a travesty, however it was instigated by the abuse of government power, not by the Right to bear Arms.
> 
> If the cops knock on my door and issue a search warrant, I would comply. If they broke down my door, I too might dive for my guns. It's an instinctual reaction to defend your home, and your family.


OR did the cops come in guns blazing knowing that they were well armed inside?


----------



## Apatheticviews

nosajwols said:


> OR did the cops come in guns blazing knowing that they were well armed inside?


The raid was designed under the premise that they could get in before the residents could get to the guns. All evidence prior to the raid indicated that the weapons were LEGALLY purchased. The ATF worked under the assumption that the weapons were being illegally modified (later confirmed to be true).

I'm not saying the residents didn't commit crimes, however the ATF misrepresented the evidence in order to conduct the raid. Claims of child abuse (secondary justification for the warrant), and using the premise of drug manufacturing (to gain access to military support: training & vehicles).

Using military terms, the raid was an ill-planned clusterf$%^, executed at the last possible minute (expiring warrant), which resulted in numerous deaths. ATF "misused" (it's the best term i can think of to describe it) it's authority, and created a situation it couldn't control.

Waco isn't a good example of the need for more gun control however, since for the most part, all the law breaking is already covered by existing laws.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz

Apatheticviews said:


> Can you imagine what would happen if someone suggested a Firearms Safety (not use) class in public schools?


I can imagine many different scenarios. When I hold a national office, we're going to find out.

If my 9 year old daughter can be taught sex ed in the 5th grade, then they certain teach her classmates about gun safety (I say classmates as she will already understand gun safety).


----------



## TheGreatTwizz

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I don't understand this at all.


Earl, what do you not understand? Did I misspeak about the Swiss not complaining about their tax rates?


----------



## tocqueville

*pro-gun, anti-NRA*



Cruiser said:


> I think that the problem the NRA has with the public in general revolve around the often extreme stances it takes on certain issues. The public at large is generally turned off by fringe elements and if it sees the NRA fighting against things that they see as common sense, they are less likely to pay attention to the NRA's position on things that the public might agree with.
> 
> The "slippery slope" arguments that the extreme right and left use to justify some of their more extreme positions usually don't resonate with the majority that is in the middle. Even though I am a conservative and a handgun carry permit, I'm not a member of the NRA.
> 
> Cruiser


Cruiser has it right. I support gun rights but think that the NRA oversteps its writ. It plays a noxious political role in American politics, among other things, by scaring voters with often fraudulent allegations that this candidate or that was going to take away their guns. I saw an NRA mailer about Obama, for example, that was outrageous and mendacious.


----------



## tocqueville

TheGreatTwizz said:


> I can imagine many different scenarios. When I hold a national office, we're going to find out.
> 
> If my 9 year old daughter can be taught sex ed in the 5th grade, then they certain teach her classmates about gun safety (I say classmates as she will already understand gun safety).


My public middle school in Pennsyvlania had a hunter safety class that obviously included gun safety. We even got to shoot school-owned .22s(!) in the school rifle range. That's all long-gone.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

TheGreatTwizz said:


> Earl, what do you not understand? Did I misspeak about the Swiss not complaining about their tax rates?


No, I simply didn't understand your turn of phrase or the relevance it had to the facts I'd posted.


----------



## eagle2250

tocqueville said:


> Cruiser has it right. I support gun rights but think that the NRA oversteps its writ. It plays a noxious political role in American politics, among other things, by scaring voters with often fraudulent allegations that this candidate or that was going to take away their guns. I saw an NRA mailer about Obama, for example, that was outrageous and mendacious.


I could enthusiastically agree that the NRA could/should just go away...along with the rest of the lobbyists of all ilks, all of whom interfere with the proper operation of our governmental bodies and we would be better for it!


----------



## Apatheticviews

tocqueville said:


> Cruiser has it right. I support gun rights but think that the NRA oversteps its writ. It plays a noxious political role in American politics, among other things, by scaring voters with often fraudulent allegations that this candidate or that was going to take away their guns. I saw an NRA mailer about Obama, for example, that was outrageous and mendacious.


No worse than the various media organizations.

I'm not a media hater anymore than I'm a lobbyist hater, but from my perspective the media misrepresents various candidates more often & to a greater extent. The use of misleading words like automatic (when referencing semi), semi-automatic, and 'assault weapons' to create fear in a populace that doesn't know what those terms actually mean.

As an example, the "assault weapon ban" was a *cosmetic* ban. It banned guns that looked a certain way, or contained "features" which were perfectly legal on other weapons (Magazine wells, bayonet studs, collapsible stocks, etc). The phrase is commonly used, however the average person doesn't know what it means, but it sounds "bad" so it must be.


----------



## Apatheticviews

eagle2250 said:


> I could enthusiastically agree that the NRA could/should just go away...along with the rest of the lobbyists of all ilks, all of whom interfere with the proper operation of our governmental bodies and we would be better for it!


Um... how else are groups of people supposed to express their views to the legislature, especially on Bill of Rights issues? We're talking 300,000,000+ individual people trying to each get the ear of 600~ elected representatives.

Groups like the ACLU & NRA provide an actual way to combat the government in a civil way. If your Rights are being infringed, it would be impossible to mount a 1 person grievance against the federal government. The government has unlimited funds and time, whereas individuals do not.

Both organizations have been instrumental in getting Supreme Court decisions regarding specific issues. Overall I would say they do more good than harm.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Apatheticviews said:


> Technically the ATF came IN guns a blazing (in Waco). It was a RAID justified with search warrant, not just serving a search warrant (which was gained under false pretenses). Based on historical documents, there is no clear view on who shot the first round...


It doesn't matter.

When the cops say "come out we have you surrounded" you come out.

That's how one "protects their family."

Not diving for guns.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz

Earl of Ormonde said:


> No, I simply didn't understand your turn of phrase or the relevance it had to the facts I'd posted.


Your comment had referenced that the gun ban in the UK didn't stop criminals from getting guns, and, I would suspect, that the gun-related crime rate hasn't dropped either. I was looking to make a counterpoint to the UK gun ban. In Switzerland, where everyone is issued a firearm, gun related crime is virtually non-existent. My apologies for being less then clear (probably still am not).


----------



## Apatheticviews

WouldaShoulda said:


> It doesn't matter.
> 
> When the cops say "come out we have you surrounded" you come out.
> 
> That's how one "protects their family."
> 
> Not diving for guns.


The ATF didn't do that though. They "invaded" first, which is what created the entire issue. When they failed, the FBI attempted to do that, with a MUCH better reception, until the two factions of the FBIs infighting broke down the process (Negotiator vs Raid).

There were errors on all side, but this wasn't a "gun issue" past the initial investigation. It was a "failure to execute legal authority properly" issue. it just happened to have guns as the investigative start. But... If you look at the justifications for initiating the raid, it could also be stated it was a "child abuse" or "meth manufacturing" issue. Had the DEA conducted the raid instead, the results likely would have been the same.


----------



## Apatheticviews

TheGreatTwizz said:


> Your comment had referenced that the gun ban in the UK didn't stop criminals from getting guns, and, I would suspect, that the gun-related crime rate hasn't dropped either. I was looking to make a counterpoint to the UK gun ban. In Switzerland, where everyone is issued a firearm, gun related crime is virtually non-existent. My apologies for being less then clear (probably still am not).


For the most part, most reviewing authorities state that gun bans have "negligible" effect on gun crime.


----------



## eagle2250

Apatheticviews said:


> Um... how else are groups of people supposed to express their views to the legislature, especially on Bill of Rights issues? We're talking 300,000,000+ individual people trying to each get the ear of 600~ elected representatives.
> 
> ....


Perhaps the most tragic of developments within this great Republic of ours is that so many of our elected officials have been bought and paid for by so many of those lobbyists that you claim, enable our government to work. It seems to me that our present day Congress is just about as dysfunctional as they could get. Do you actually see it as a problem if our elected officials were once again placed in a position in which they must be responsive to the people who elected them? For our collective good, I do hope you are mistaken in your assessment!


----------



## TheGreatTwizz

Apatheticviews said:


> For the most part, most reviewing authorities state that gun bans have "negligible" effect on gun crime.


Agreed, and the point I was trying to make. The more people that have guns, the more level the playing field. High rates of gun ownership have a deterrent effect on personal crimes (mugging, rape, etc).

I, for one, would rape and rob much less if I had a fear of the mark carrying a gun. Currently, its quite easy to profile who won't be carrying.


----------



## Apatheticviews

TheGreatTwizz said:


> Agreed, and the point I was trying to make. The more people that have guns, the more level the playing field. High rates of gun ownership have a deterrent effect on personal crimes (mugging, rape, etc).
> 
> I, for one, would rape and rob much less if I had a fear of the mark carrying a gun. Currently, its quite easy to profile who won't be carrying.


I actually liked Arizona's old law. Open carry-Must be fully loaded, and visible (no concealed carry)


----------



## TheGreatTwizz

Apatheticviews said:


> I actually liked Arizona's old law. Open carry-Must be fully loaded, and visible (no concealed carry)


I believe Florida and Texas have similar laws.

In Pennsylvania, there isn't a law regarding open carry; while you will never see it in metro areas (you'd probably get harassed), in Pennsyltucky it is commonplace.


----------



## Apatheticviews

eagle2250 said:


> Perhaps the most tragic of developments within this great Republic of ours is that so many of our elected officials have been bought and paid for by so many of those lobbyists that you claim, enable our government to work. It seems to me that our present day Congress is just about as dysfunctional as they could get. Do you actually see it as a problem if our elected officials were once again placed in a position in which they must be responsive to the people who elected them? For our collective good, I do hope you are mistaken in your assessment!


It's not that they enable the government to work, it's that they are the voice of the people regarding specific issues.

The problem we have is that there are just too many people compared to the elected representatives. As an executive authority, 1 man for everyone is the only feasible means. For legislators, they just can't reasonably represent 100,000 people. Even at a simple majority, that means 49,000 people didn't want you to represent them.

Look at all the conflicts that are going on politically now. Health Care, Collective Bargaining, Presidential elections etc. Many of these issues are truly "split down the middle" with only a slight advantage to one side or the other.

I can't blame the lobbyists for this, as they are merely a product of the underlying issue.


----------



## Apatheticviews

TheGreatTwizz said:


> I believe Florida and Texas have similar laws.
> 
> In Pennsylvania, there isn't a law regarding open carry; while you will never see it in metro areas (you'd probably get harassed), in Pennsyltucky it is commonplace.


VA has open carry (no permit required), though somewhat uncommon. Not rare though.


----------



## hardline_42

TheGreatTwizz said:


> I believe Florida and Texas have similar laws.
> 
> In Pennsylvania, there isn't a law regarding open carry; while you will never see it in metro areas (you'd probably get harassed), in Pennsyltucky it is commonplace.


 In Philadelphia and its surrounding boroughs, you'd get more than harassed. Even though open carry is allowed without a permit in the rest of PA, Philadelphia requires a concealed carry permit and does not allow open carry.

It's ironic that I live in a state where, if my wife were to use my gun to defend herself in a home invasion, we would both be arrested for unlawful transfer of a firearm, but a few miles down the road and across the Burlington-Bristol, I can strap the biggest hand-cannon I can carry to my hip and go about my business without so much as a second glance.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz

hardline_42 said:


> In Philadelphia and its surrounding boroughs, you'd get more than harassed. Even though open carry is allowed without a permit in the rest of PA, Philadelphia requires a concealed carry permit and does not allow open carry.
> 
> It's ironic that I live in a state where, if my wife were to use my gun to defend herself in a home invasion, we would both be arrested for unlawful transfer of a firearm, but a few miles down the road and across the Burlington-Bristol, I can strap the biggest hand-cannon I can carry to my hip and go about my business without so much as a second glance.


For the state, open carry isn't permitted, but it isn't banned either, thus leading to de facto permission. Those with enough, umm, confidence to carry openly are also the folks who won't do something stupid with it, so its a non-issue. While Philadelphia got slapped for trying to pass their own gun laws (which were stopped/defeated, as they don't have the authority to do so), their restriction on open carry is filed under 'disturbing the peace' or 'causing public panic'.

The concealed carry permit is not exclusive to Philadelphia. The state procedure for concealed carry is to go to the county sheriff and apply. PA operates under a 'will issue' policy, whereas NJ is a 'don't issue' policy. In Bucks, it's cake and they simply do the same background check then do when you're buying a handgun. For Phila county, its a little more involved, and you have to have personal references, etc. You just have to remember that there are only two 'valid' reasons for obtaining a permit (you have to list the reason on the application): job requirement or personal defense. I watched an application get rejected because this 21 year old kid wrote 'because I want to' in that box.

Ahh, the wonders of Croydon/Bristol....bear in mind that when you cross that bridge, you are but 5 miles or so from the Philadelphia county line. It is nicely *******-ish!!


----------



## Apatheticviews

hardline_42 said:


> In Philadelphia and its surrounding boroughs, you'd get more than harassed. Even though open carry is allowed without a permit in the rest of PA, Philadelphia requires a concealed carry permit and does not allow open carry.
> 
> It's ironic that I live in a state where, if my wife were to use my gun to defend herself in a home invasion, we would both be arrested for unlawful transfer of a firearm, but a few miles down the road and across the Burlington-Bristol, I can strap the biggest hand-cannon I can carry to my hip and go about my business without so much as a second glance.


It's worse in NY where they have must retreat, last recourse laws, even for self defense.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz

Apatheticviews said:


> It's worse in NY where they have must retreat, last recourse laws, even for self defense.


If gun control policy/legislation is federal, so should this. Castle doctrine should prevail.

As opposed to Texas, which operates under old cattle laws....repo men get shot at. Legally.


----------



## Apatheticviews

TheGreatTwizz said:


> For the state, open carry isn't permitted, but it isn't banned either, thus leading to de facto permission. Those with enough, umm, confidence to carry openly are also the folks who won't do something stupid with it, so its a non-issue. While Philadelphia got slapped for trying to pass their own gun laws (which were stopped/defeated, as they don't have the authority to do so), their restriction on open carry is filed under 'disturbing the peace' or 'causing public panic'.
> 
> The concealed carry permit is not exclusive to Philadelphia. The state procedure for concealed carry is to go to the county sheriff and apply. PA operates under a 'will issue' policy, whereas NJ is a 'don't issue' policy. In Bucks, it's cake and they simply do the same background check then do when you're buying a handgun. For Phila county, its a little more involved, and you have to have personal references, etc. You just have to remember that there are only two 'valid' reasons for obtaining a permit (you have to list the reason on the application): job requirement or personal defense. I watched an application get rejected because this 21 year old kid wrote 'because I want to' in that box.
> 
> Ahh, the wonders of Croydon/Bristol....bear in mind that when you cross that bridge, you are but 5 miles or so from the Philadelphia county line. It is nicely *******-ish!!


VA is "shall issue" which means they have no choice but to issue the permit, unless they can provide a reason why you are not legally allowed to have one. The application is 2-3 pages, and takes less than 5 mins to fill out. My permit was issued in like 10 days.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz

Apatheticviews said:


> VA is "shall issue" which means they have no choice but to issue the permit, unless they can provide a reason why you are not legally allowed to have one. The application is 2-3 pages, and takes less than 5 mins to fill out. My permit was issued in like 10 days.


Thank you for terminology correction (seriously!), 'shall issue' is PA's policy as well. PA, on the other hand, will issue on the spot if your BG check is spotless.


----------



## Apatheticviews

TheGreatTwizz said:


> If gun control policy/legislation is federal, so should this. Castle doctrine should prevail.
> 
> As opposed to Texas, which operates under old cattle laws....repo men get shot at. Legally.


Gun Control is both Federal & State. Each state has it's own laws. Using TX, VA, CA, & MD as examples:

Purchase in VA consists of Federal & State forms (pretty much the same thing), and a phone-call to the state police for background check (system is tied to federal). Most approvals are done at the same time, with delays usually because of similar names.

Purchase in TX consists of Federal form (no state form required), and a phone call to the Federal administrator (NICS system). Similar approval rate.

CA has a 10 day "cool down" or waiting period. AR15's are not permitted. Actually, unless a gun is specifically listed as "allowed" (by manufacture & model #), it is illegal. This creates weird cases where two near identical guns may or may not be allowed.

MD requires that fired shell cases (included with purchase of the gun) be submitted to the state police for records.

As for the Castle Doctrine... not all states have it. VA does, being a Commonwealth, but I don't believe MD does, and up until last year DC had a complete restriction on Handguns, as well as a clause that shotguns & other long guns be stored disassembled, and unloaded (negating any defensive value).


----------



## Apatheticviews

TheGreatTwizz said:


> Thank you for terminology correction (seriously!), 'shall issue' is PA's policy as well. PA, on the other hand, will issue on the spot if your BG check is spotless.


No worries. Shall issue, Will issue, and Can Issue are used throughout the states. Wasn't trying to correct, as I don't know PA gun laws as well as VA.


----------



## hardline_42

TheGreatTwizz said:


> For the state, open carry isn't permitted, but it isn't banned either, thus leading to de facto permission. Those with enough, umm, confidence to carry openly are also the folks who won't do something stupid with it, so its a non-issue. While Philadelphia got slapped for trying to pass their own gun laws (which were stopped/defeated, as they don't have the authority to do so), their restriction on open carry is filed under 'disturbing the peace' or 'causing public panic'.
> 
> The concealed carry permit is not exclusive to Philadelphia. The state procedure for concealed carry is to go to the county sheriff and apply. PA operates under a 'will issue' policy, whereas NJ is a 'don't issue' policy. In Bucks, it's cake and they simply do the same background check then do when you're buying a handgun. For Phila county, its a little more involved, and you have to have personal references, etc. You just have to remember that there are only two 'valid' reasons for obtaining a permit (you have to list the reason on the application): job requirement or personal defense. I watched an application get rejected because this 21 year old kid wrote 'because I want to' in that box.
> 
> Ahh, the wonders of Croydon/Bristol....bear in mind that when you cross that bridge, you are but 5 miles or so from the Philadelphia county line. It is nicely *******-ish!!


 Yes, all true. I didn't bother posting the finer points, mostly because I'm jealous. I wish "personal defense" was a good enough reason to get a carry permit in NJ.

Currently, there is a lawsuit against the state of NJ because of a pet-shop owner who was kidnapped in front of his shop, beaten and driven all the way to MO before he escaped, all because of a case of mistaken identity. He subsequently applied for a carry permit because he feared retaliation from family/gang members related to the suspects and because one of the suspects hadn't been caught yet. He was denied the permit because the judge deemed that this wasn't enough to prove "justifiable need" (yes, a judge gets to decide whether or not you are allowed to exercise your rights in NJ). The man appealed the decision and was denied a second time on the same grounds. This is how NJ gets around not allowing citizens to carry while still claiming to be in compliance with the 2nd amendment: It is a "may issue" state so, technically, it allows citizens to carry firearms with "reasonable restrictions." But, in practice, only those who are politically or financially connected have the privilege. Ex-LEO's do as well, but they have to pay some very exorbitant fees to keep their permits current.

As for Bristol, I go to Ready-Aim-Fire since it's the closest range to my house. I avoid Philly as often as I can .


----------



## Apatheticviews

Retired LEO fals under a federal statute, but ex-LEO don't. I don't remember which state it was, but they denied an ex-judge a concealed carry permit, stating he didn't have justifiable need, even though he had put 100's of people in prison.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

TheGreatTwizz said:


> In Switzerland, where everyone is issued a firearm, gun related crime is virtually non-existent. My apologies for being less then clear (probably still am not).


Ok, thanks, now I understand. However, you have misunderstood the Swiss situation entirely & are therefore misrepresenting it, albeit probably unwittingly, to support your arugment that more arms in public make for a safer society.
In Switzerland, members of the homeguard are issued a rifle, which is kept looked in a looker at home. The homeguard IS the military in Switzerland there is no standing army.
Laws for purchase & posession of firearms in public are very strict, just as they are in all other western European countries. People can't and don't walk around armed with pistols in Switzerland, which is what you seem to be implying.


----------



## hardline_42

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Ok, thanks, now I understand. However, you have misunderstood the Swiss situation entirely & are therefore misrepresenting it, albeit probably unwittingly, to support your arugment that more arms in public make for a safer society.
> In Switzerland, members of the homeguard are issued a rifle, which is kept looked in a looker at home. The homeguard IS the military in Switzerland there is no standing army.
> Laws for purchase & posession of firearms in public are very strict, just as they are in all other western European countries. People can't and don't walk around armed with pistols in Switzerland, which is what you seem to be implying.


 I think the point being made by that example is that there is no correlation between increased firearms ownership and an increase in violent crime. IE more guns ≠ more crime.


----------



## Chouan

hardline_42 said:


> I think the point being made by that example is that there is no correlation between increased firearms ownership and an increase in violent crime. IE more guns ≠ more crime.


Except that there is virtually no private ownership of firearms in Switzerland. The firearms held by private citizens are not privately owned.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Chouan said:


> Except that there is virtually no private ownership of firearms in Switzerland. The firearms held by private citizens are not privately owned.


Exactly! Nor are they pistols, they are military assault rifles and as such not the type of weapon you can conceal on your person or in a rucksack. Until about 2 or 3 years ago, many of the homeguard were also issued with military bicycles.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

hardline_42 said:


> I think the point being made by that example is that there is no correlation between increased firearms ownership and an increase in violent crime. IE more guns ≠ more crime.


I've never claimed there was. And if you read my FACTS post from 2 pages ago, you'll see that one of my UK facts actually states that UK gun crime increased AFTER the firearms ban.

However, the point being made about Switzerland is erroneous on all levels. Read my recent reply to The GT on it.

For the record, another country I've been to, South Africa, has one of the most open firearms laws in the world. Anyone can walk around openly with a firearm, and I saw plenty of that when I was there, as well as the very civilized and almost comical scene of all sorts of people handing in their firearms at the doors as they entered casinos and pubs, and then collecitng them again on the way home. 
SA has the highest murder rate in the world. Now, to borrow from Bill Hicks, "you would be a communist and a liar to suggest that there is any connection between having weapons and using them and not having wepaons and not using them." (in that sketch he was comparing the UK and US murder by firearm figures.)


----------



## hardline_42

Chouan said:


> Except that there is virtually no private ownership of firearms in Switzerland. The firearms held by private citizens are not privately owned.


 I see. So the only thing keeping the Swiss from going on killing sprees en masse is the fact that their full-auto Sig SG550s and ammunition, although in their possession and kept at their homes, are not technically owned by them? The Swiss are an honorable bunch indeed!

Regarding private ownership of firearms in Switzerland, can you show me some numbers? It seems odd that a country that issues a firearm to all of its citizen militia (420k rifles in 2001) and then offers them the opportunity to keep it (320k privately owned rifles in 2001) would have "virtually no private ownership of firearms." Not to mention that the provisions under the 1999 Gun Act are not that different from the purchasing process in the States. As of 2004 there were an estimated 3 million guns in private hands in Switzerland. Did all of those guns suddenly disappear in 2008 with the Schengen Treaty?


----------



## TheGreatTwizz

Earl/Hardline:

It is my understanding that you are allowed to posses your firearm (albeit rifle) in transit to and from the range....I may be mistaken, but I recall photos of folks open walking around with their assault rifles slung on their shoulder. Maybe they were just publicity stunts. Either way, after they are excused (probably not the right term) from the militia, they can opt to have their rifles converted from selective fire to semi-auto, and keep them. Either way, I'd feel safer with more armed neighbors than less.


----------



## Cruiser

TheGreatTwizz said:


> Either way, I'd feel safer with more armed neighbors than less.


While it doesn't matter to me one way or the other, I can say that it wouldn't concern me in the least if all of my law abiding neighbors had firearms. As for those who aren't "law abiding," by definition they aren't going to care whether the law says that they can have and/or carry a gun; they are going to do so if they so desire. In other words the laws have little affect on those who are prone to do bad things.

Cruiser


----------



## TheGreatTwizz

Cruiser said:


> I can say that it wouldn't concern me in the least if all of my law abiding neighbors had firearms.


Why is it so hard for the rest of America to adopt this mentality? Did we forget how to be a community and look out for one another?


----------



## Regillus

"Did we forget how to be a community and look out for one another?" Does anyone remember the story of Kitty Genovese? It was in all the papers at the time - 1964. She was murdered by Winston Moseley - who's still alive (although in prison). Thirty-eight people heard or saw the attack take place and no one called police. If she'd had a handgun she'd be alive and Moseley would be dead. That's how it should have turned out. That's why I favor letting people carry handguns so that they; through their own actions; can defend their most precious possession - their lives. You can't count on other people to come to your aid when you really need it. BTW; Moseley was denied parole in 2008 (I think that was it) - but it rankles me that he's alive and Kitty's dead. Should be the other way around.


----------



## Chouan

Regillus said:


> "Did we forget how to be a community and look out for one another?" Does anyone remember the story of Kitty Genovese? It was in all the papers at the time - 1964. She was murdered by Winston Moseley - who's still alive (although in prison). Thirty-eight people heard or saw the attack take place and no one called police. If she'd had a handgun she'd be alive and Moseley would be dead. That's how it should have turned out. That's why I favor letting people carry handguns so that they; through their own actions; can defend their most precious possession - their lives. You can't count on other people to come to your aid when you really need it. BTW; Moseley was denied parole in 2008 (I think that was it) - but it rankles me that he's alive and Kitty's dead. Should be the other way around.


I would suggest that the problem was with the local community ignoring her plight, not with whether or not she owned a gun. Rugged individualism has a lot to answer for.


----------



## hardline_42

Cruiser said:


> While it doesn't matter to me one way or the other, I can say that it wouldn't concern me in the least if all of my law abiding neighbors had firearms. As for those who aren't "law abiding," by definition they aren't going to care whether the law says that they can have and/or carry a gun; they are going to do so if they so desire. In other words the laws have little affect on those who are prone to do bad things.
> 
> Cruiser


 As usual, Cruiser cuts through the BS and gets it right on the nose.


----------



## hardline_42

Chouan said:


> I would suggest that the problem was with the local community ignoring her plight, not with whether or not she owned a gun. Rugged individualism has a lot to answer for.


 Your suggestion would be misinformed. The actual number of neighbors who heard the attack was more like a dozen according to police reports, not 38. And of those, only two of them knew it was an attack. One of them actually yelled at the attacker and got him to leave her alone (unfortunately, he returned to finish the job later), the other called the police.

Regarding the usefulness of a gun in her situation, the entire attack spanned a half an hour. The autopsy showed that she had multiple defensive wounds on her hands, and there was gap of at least ten minutes between the time her attacker was chased away the first time and when he returned later (this time, disguising himself) to continue his attack. Would a gun have guaranteed that she'd still be alive? Who knows? But it certainly would have improved her chances as she had enough time and clear enough justification to use it.


----------



## Chouan

hardline_42 said:


> Your suggestion would be misinformed. The actual number of neighbors who heard the attack was more like a dozen according to police reports, not 38. And of those, only two of them knew it was an attack. One of them actually yelled at the attacker and got him to leave her alone (unfortunately, he returned to finish the job later), the other called the police.
> 
> Regarding the usefulness of a gun in her situation, the entire attack spanned a half an hour. The autopsy showed that she had multiple defensive wounds on her hands, and there was gap of at least ten minutes between the time her attacker was chased away the first time and when he returned later (this time, disguising himself) to continue his attack. Would a gun have guaranteed that she'd still be alive? Who knows? But it certainly would have improved her chances as she had enough time and clear enough justification to use it.


I was replying based on the information that I had. I'd never heard of the case, and used the information in the post indicated.
On the other hand, I'm suire that for every piece of anecdotal evidence of how a gun could have saved somebody, it would be possible to find an example of anecdotal evidence of how somebody died when they otherwise wouldn't have if a gun hadn't been available. 
Would Marvin Gaye have been killed if he father hadn't been carrying a gun at the time of their argument? for example.


----------



## hardline_42

Chouan said:


> I was replying based on the information that I had. I'd never heard of the case, and used the information in the post indicated.


And yet it didn't stop you from making a sweeping generalization about the indifference of the local community and the usefulness of guns.


Chouan said:


> On the other hand, I'm suire that for every piece of anecdotal evidence of how a gun could have saved somebody, it would be possible to find an example of anecdotal evidence of how somebody died when they otherwise wouldn't have if a gun hadn't been available.


It doesn't matter how sure you are, the facts say otherwise:

Every year, people in the United States use guns to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times - more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds. Of these instances, 15.6% of the people using firearms defensively stated that they "almost certainly" saved their lives by doing so. _(Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1995)_

Assuming we're going to use the often quoted number of 30,000 gun deaths a year (of which 54% are suicides according to the _National Center for Health Statistics_), and assuming my feeble math skills are correct, that means guns are used 83 times more often to protect lives than to take them. So, there you go.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz

hardline_42 said:


> Assuming we're going to use the often quoted number of 30,000 gun deaths a year (of which 54% are suicides according to the _National Center for Health Statistics_), and assuming my feeble math skills are correct, that means guns are used 83 times more often to protect lives than to take them. So, there you go.


By my (also feeble) math: 16,200 gun deaths that aren't suicides. That makes (at 307M US population), a death rate of 1 per 18,950. (that's in line with stats from 1999 of 5.7 per 100k).

Switzerland, where gun ownership is considered quite high, is 1.32 per 100k in 1994; current stats (06-07) have that number at around 1 per 250k.

I vote that we maintain a standing militia and start issuing firearms........


----------



## hardline_42

TheGreatTwizz said:


> By my (also feeble) math: 16,200 gun deaths that aren't suicides. That makes (at 307M US population), a death rate of 1 per 18,950. (that's in line with stats from 1999 of 5.7 per 100k).
> 
> Switzerland, where gun ownership is considered quite high, is 1.32 per 100k in 1994; current stats (06-07) have that number at around 1 per 250k.
> 
> I vote that we maintain a standing militia and start issuing firearms........


 Not criticizing your math, GT, but keep in mind that 30,000 "gun deaths" includes suicides as already mentioned, but also justified shootings by civilians AND police as well as gang-on-gang violence etc. It's hard to get a definitive number to compare rates without keeping those kinds of details in mind.

The actual number of accidental or wrongful deaths on the part of legal permit holders is ridiculously low, but my math was worst-case-scenario to address Chouan's concerns.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

TheGreatTwizz said:


> I vote that we maintain a standing militia and start issuing firearms........


Correct me if I'm wrong, but you had that from the 1780s onwards didn't you?

Everyone with firearms just means that more psychos and more criminals will be in possession of legal firearms. This requires a
lot more thought.

Everyone with an issued weapon doesn't make everyone safe. It makes criminals and psychos happier and more dangerous and puts even more law abiding citizens in the situation where they might have to kill one of thses psychos or criminals.

Psychos and criminals do not play by the same M.A.D rules that everyone else plays be. In other words they don't care if you're armed, they're going to come into your house and rob and murder you anyway, before you can even get to your gun.
And even if you do reach your gun in time you'll be standing there examining your conscience before pulling the trigger, but they've already shot you because they have no conscience and they've done this before & they know how easy it is.


----------



## hardline_42

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but you had that from the 1780s onwards didn't you?
> 
> Everyone with firearms just means that more psychos and more criminals will be in possession of legal firearms. This requires a
> lot more thought.
> 
> Everyone with an issued weapon doesn't make everyone safe. It makes criminals and psychos happier and more dangerous and puts even more law abiding citizens in the situation where they might have to kill one of thses psychos or criminals.
> 
> Psychos and criminals do not play by the same M.A.D rules that everyone else plays be. In other words they don't care if you're armed, they're going to come into your house and rob and murder you anyway, before you can even get to your gun.
> And even if you do reach your gun in time you'll be standing there examining your conscience before pulling the trigger, but they've already shot you because they have no conscience and they've done this before & they know how easy it is.


 I wonder, do you have access to the mental health records of the Swiss? Because it seems like it'd make more sense to look at real facts (ie, the example of an entire country that already has that system in place with a measure of success would be a better case study than some cockamamie hypothetical where every gunowner would flinch and get blown away by psychos who wouldn't be in the militia in the first place).


----------



## hardline_42

Earl of Ormonde said:


> The facts posted here about the Swiss are incorrect.


 Could you kindly post the correct info? I thought I had some pretty good numbers in post 309 but if you have a source that says otherwise, I'd really like to see it.


----------



## Apatheticviews

hardline_42 said:


> I wonder, do you have access to the mental health records of the Swiss? Because it seems like it'd make more sense to look at real facts (ie, the example of an entire country that already has that system in place with a measure of success would be a better case study than some cockamamie hypothetical where every gunowner would flinch and get blown away by psychos who wouldn't be in the militia in the first place).


It wouldn't necessarily have to be the Swiss. Any country with mandatory military service clauses would probably work. Even if it is just historical data from those periods where service was mandatory.


----------



## Gurdon

Earl of Ormonde somewhat mischaracterized the Swiss situation. Military weapons there are generally not locked up, but rather stored in the attic or a closet. Shooting sports are popular and I understand private firearms ownership in Switzerland is legal and fairly common. A permit is required.

The Swiss are apparently comfortable with the situation. A recent referendum to require military arms to be kept in central armories failed by a considerable margin. 

As a native of the western US, I have lived most of my life in communities where firearms ownership is the norm. Like Cruiser, I am comfortable with my law-abiding neighbors possessing firearms if they wish to do so.

I was struck by earlier references in this thread that in the UK it is OK to defend yourself with a weapon-like item, a kitchen knife, for instance, but only if it wasn't situated in one's home for the purpose of self-defense. And, moreover, that keeping a weapon, say a bat, by the door in case of defensive need is against the law. I find it absurd that one is violating the law by being purposefully prepared for self-defense.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Mr. Mac

I own a few shotguns and a couple of handguns. I shoot trap, skeet, and 5-Stand Sporting Clays at a local gun club once a month, and take my revolver to the range a few times a year. I have a CCW permit, but almost never carry.

I like to have my revolver with me when camping, hiking, or on road trips. I got the CCW mainly so that I wouldn't have to leave the gun unattended in the car on road trips.

I am a concerned citizen, and feel it best to avoid conflict at all costs but have the mindset to end them decisively if they become unavoidable.


----------



## Chouan

Gurdon said:


> Earl of Ormonde somewhat mischaracterized the Swiss situation. Military weapons there are generally not locked up, but rather stored in the attic or a closet. Shooting sports are popular and I understand private firearms ownership in Switzerland is legal and fairly common. A permit is required.
> 
> The Swiss are apparently comfortable with the situation. A recent referendum to require military arms to be kept in central armories failed by a considerable margin.
> 
> As a native of the western US, I have lived most of my life in communities where firearms ownership is the norm. Like Cruiser, I am comfortable with my law-abiding neighbors possessing firearms if they wish to do so.
> 
> I was struck by earlier references in this thread that in the UK it is OK to defend yourself with a weapon-like item, a kitchen knife, for instance, but only if it wasn't situated in one's home for the purpose of self-defense. And, moreover, that keeping a weapon, say a bat, by the door in case of defensive need is against the law. I find it absurd that one is violating the law by being purposefully prepared for self-defense.
> 
> Regards,
> Gurdon


The point is that you are preparing yourself with a lethal weapon, so you are clearly prepared to kill, which is not, in British law, an comensurate or reasonable response.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Chouan said:


> The point is that you are preparing yourself with a lethal weapon, so you are clearly prepared to kill, which is not, in British law, an comensurate or reasonable response.


That's the difference in US law (most states). Defense of one's self, and one's castle (including family) allows killing as a reasonable response. As an example. If I hear a noise in my house, and I grab a bat from a closet (where it is normally stored) and use it to beat an intruder, it would be no different than if I grab it from under the bed (where it is normally stored), or next to the door (where it is normally stored).

I have the right to own the item. I have the right to store the item safely, within my own home as I please. I have the right not to answer why I choose to store that item in a particular location.

The issue/problem with British law is that someone else has already violated the homeowners rights. They are already a victim, and forced to take defensive measures. It really doesn't matter what they "planned" before that point, because no one plans to actually become a victim. They plan to minimize how much of a victim they are.

I keep knives in my kitchen (which is by the front door) to deal with intruders would be a violation of British law, in a technical sense.

I understand the reasoning behind the law, just don't agree with it.


----------



## Howard

If you had to own a gun where in your house would you store it?


----------



## mommatook1

From a 2007 article: Results of a recent survey suggest that almost a third of householders in the UK keep items such as golf clubs and cricket bats under the bed ready to fight intruders.

Link - https://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/columnists/article2581201.ece

Sounds like there is still a desire for British citizens to properly defend themselves, even if they lack access to suitable self-defense weapons. While I couldn't bring any of my firearms over, I did bring a Louisville Slugger... guess I just need to make sure I store it with my other sports equipment and not in the front closet.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Howard said:


> If you had to own a gun where in your house would you store it?


Gun safe, bedroom closet.


----------



## Gurdon

Chouan said:


> The point is that you are preparing yourself with a lethal weapon, so you are clearly prepared to kill, which is not, in British law, an comensurate or reasonable response.


I can read and I got the point. My point is that it is absurd for it to be illegal to defend one's self in one's own home. Moreover, the distinctions described between a lawfully used weapon and one unlawfully used are not only silly but impossible to enforce.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Chouan

mommatook1 said:


> From a 2007 article: Results of a recent survey suggest that almost a third of householders in the UK keep items such as golf clubs and cricket bats under the bed ready to fight intruders.
> 
> Link - https://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/columnists/article2581201.ece
> 
> Sounds like there is still a desire for British citizens to properly defend themselves, even if they lack access to suitable self-defense weapons. While I couldn't bring any of my firearms over, I did bring a Louisville Slugger... guess I just need to make sure I store it with my other sports equipment and not in the front closet.


Possibly the statistics of the survey are true. The keeping of a cricket bat under your bed isn't of itself illegal. Arming yourself with it to confront an intruder isn't illegal either, but using it to batter an intruder is, as you have shown by keeping an object that you intend using as weapon, that you are going to use premeditated lethal force.


----------



## Chouan

Gurdon said:


> I can read and I got the point. My point is that it is absurd for it to be illegal to defend one's self in one's own home. Moreover, the distinctions described between a lawfully used weapon and one unlawfully used are not only silly but impossible to enforce.
> 
> Regards,
> Gurdon


On the contrary, it is quite easy to enforce. If an intruder pulls a knife on you and attacks you, or you believe yourself to be being attacked, and you pick up a carpet sweeper and batter him with it, and he dies from his injuries, it is his fault. There is no case for a premeditated assault on your part. If however, he is armed with a knife and he doesn't use it, except to keep you away whilst he escapes, and you attack him with the carpet sweeper as he flees, it is your fault, as it isn't self-defence.
Deliberately using lethal force is murder, so stabbing an intruder with an old bayonet that you keep under your bed is murder. Stabbing a knife armed intruder, who you think is attacking you, with a carving knife that you've just picked up to defend yourself with, isn't.
It is quite lawful to defend yourself in your own home, it is a question of "reasonable force", and whether you are defending yourself, which is reasonable, or simply attacking an intruder, which is not. Bearing in mind that there effectively isn't a death penalty in the UK, carrying out an action that can cause death will be likely to lead to a Manslaughter case at least, doing it deliberately, knowing that the action can cause death will lead to a Murder case.


----------



## Howard

Apatheticviews said:


> Gun safe, bedroom closet.


The basement would be safer.


----------



## hardline_42

Chouan said:


> On the contrary, it is quite easy to enforce. If an intruder pulls a knife on you and attacks you, or you believe yourself to be being attacked, and you pick up a carpet sweeper and batter him with it, and he dies from his injuries, it is his fault. There is no case for a premeditated assault on your part. If however, he is armed with a knife and he doesn't use it, except to keep you away whilst he escapes, and you attack him with the carpet sweeper as he flees, it is your fault, as it isn't self-defence.


I understand your reasoning so far. I don't consider it OK to attack an intruder while he tries to escape, nor do I consider it self-defense.

My issue is this: you mentioned that if you "believe yourself to be being attacked" it's OK to use force to defend yourself. Later, you mention that if the intruder is "armed with a knife and he doesn't use it," and you use force, it isn't self defense. What would constitute a plausible basis for a belief that you are being attacked?

In the US, the common indicators of when self defense is legally justified are _*Ability*, *Opportunity*_ and *Jeopardy*. In the case of an intruder wielding a knife in front of me in my own home, the reasoning for legal use of lethal force in self-defense might go like this:

*Ability* means the person has the power to kill or cripple me. A knife has the ability to do both in the hands of an able-bodied person.

*Opportunity* means that the circumstances are such that the other person would be able to use his ability against me. If he's standing right in front of me with a knife (not running away through my backyard and over my fence) he has the opportunity to kill or cripple me.

_*Jeopardy*_ means that the other person's actions or words provide me with a reasonably-perceived belief that he intends to kill me or cripple me. If his knife is sheathed at his side and his hands are in the air, I'm not in jeopardy. If he's waving it around threateningly, _regardless of whether or not he intends to use it to attack me_, I have a reasonably-perceived belief that he intends to do me harm.



Chouan said:


> *Deliberately using lethal force is murder*, so stabbing an intruder with an old bayonet that you keep under your bed is murder. *Stabbing a knife armed intruder*, who you think is attacking you, with a carving knife that you've just picked up to defend yourself with, *isn't*.


You're contradicting yourself. Both scenarios you describe end in the potential victim "deliberately using lethal force" to defend themselves.



Chouan said:


> It is quite lawful to defend yourself in your own home, it is a question of "reasonable force", and whether you are defending yourself, which is reasonable, or simply attacking an intruder, which is not.


I agree with you in principle (except for the "reasonable force" part). I personally don't agree with attacking an intruder unless he is a direct threat to me and mine, and I've tailored my home defense plan to reflect that. I would never attempt to clear my house with a gun or "slice the pie." I hole up in my bedroom with my wife and dogs behind a locked door, keep my rifle trained at the door, have my wife dial 911 and in a loud and clear voice make it known to the intruder that he can have whatever is on the other side of the bedroom door, but what's on this side I will defend with lethal force.

I don't agree with the "reasonable force" clause. That's like telling me I can't use a fire extinguisher to put out a fire unless the flames are a minimum of 18" high; anything smaller and I have to use water, and the size of the container has to be commensurate with the size of the fire. I don't want a "fair fight" with an intruder. I want the most effective, efficient tool to neutralize a threat. Currently, in 2011, that tool happens to be a firearm.


----------



## mommatook1

Chouan said:


> Possibly the statistics of the survey are true. The keeping of a cricket bat under your bed isn't of itself illegal. Arming yourself with it to confront an intruder isn't illegal either, but using it to batter an intruder is, as you have shown by keeping an object that you intend using as weapon, that you are going to use premeditated lethal force.


So by this logic, it is legal to keep the cricket bat under the bed and legal to confront an intruder with it. But if the intruder is not deterred by the sight of the cricket bat and decides to attack you anyways, you cannot use the cricket bat to counter-attack the intruder. But as long as you grab a random household object to counter-attack the intruder (which you never intended to be used as a weapon before that instant), it is legal. Am I understanding this correctly? Sounds more than a little absurd and very difficult to enforce.

Just curious, how do the UK laws interpret a household dog attacking an intruder?


----------



## Apatheticviews

Howard said:


> The basement would be safer.


I sleep in the bedroom though. Keeping a gun, for defensive purposes, 3 floors away from me is contrary to the intent of the tool. It's like having the spare tire to your car in stored in your tool shed.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Chouan said:


> On the contrary, it is quite easy to enforce. If an intruder pulls a knife on you and attacks you, or you believe yourself to be being attacked, and you pick up a carpet sweeper and batter him with it, and he dies from his injuries, it is his fault. There is no case for a premeditated assault on your part. If however, he is armed with a knife and he doesn't use it, except to keep you away whilst he escapes, and you attack him with the carpet sweeper as he flees, it is your fault, as it isn't self-defence.
> Deliberately using lethal force is murder, so stabbing an intruder with an old bayonet that you keep under your bed is murder. Stabbing a knife armed intruder, who you think is attacking you, with a carving knife that you've just picked up to defend yourself with, isn't.
> It is quite lawful to defend yourself in your own home, it is a question of "reasonable force", and whether you are defending yourself, which is reasonable, or simply attacking an intruder, which is not. Bearing in mind that there effectively isn't a death penalty in the UK, carrying out an action that can cause death will be likely to lead to a Manslaughter case at least, doing it deliberately, knowing that the action can cause death will lead to a Murder case.


An armed intruder has already assaulted you. He has already committed a premeditated attack on your home, and by extension your person. Anything you do to him after that is self defense.

It isn't murder. It's killing. There is a difference. I didn't plan to assault person X at such & such time. He however did plan to come into my home at a specified time. During the course of HIS actions, my reaction resulted in grievous harm to his person. It was his intent and his actions which caused the entire situation to unfold.


----------



## Apatheticviews

hardline_42 said:


> I agree with you in principle (except for the "reasonable force" part). I personally don't agree with attacking an intruder unless he is a direct threat to me and mine, and I've tailored my home defense plan to reflect that. I would never attempt to clear my house with a gun or "slice the pie." I hole up in my bedroom with my wife and dogs behind a locked door, keep my rifle trained at the door, have my wife dial 911 and in a loud and clear voice make it known to the intruder that he can have whatever is on the other side of the bedroom door, but what's on this side I will defend with lethal force.


My home defense plan is very similar.

1) grab wife & kid.
2) grab gun.
3) call 911
4) announce in loud voice that I have gun & have called cops. Anyone coming through door next will not be happy.

I'm not going to go looking for a threat, but if one invades my house, I will use the castle laws to defend it.


----------



## Mr. Mac

Howard said:


> If you had to own a gun where in your house would you store it?


My shotguns live, unloaded, in silicon impregnated gun cases on the top shelf of my closet. I store ammunition in an ammo can in my closet. My revolver lives in the top drawer of my dresser, unloaded, with a couple of loaded speedloaders in the next drawer down.


----------



## Mr. Mac

Chouan said:


> On the contrary, it is quite easy to enforce. If an intruder pulls a knife on you and attacks you, or you believe yourself to be being attacked, and you pick up a carpet sweeper and batter him with it, and he dies from his injuries, it is his fault. There is no case for a premeditated assault on your part. If however, he is armed with a knife and he doesn't use it, except to keep you away whilst he escapes, and you attack him with the carpet sweeper as he flees, it is your fault, as it isn't self-defence.
> Deliberately using lethal force is murder, so stabbing an intruder with an old bayonet that you keep under your bed is murder. Stabbing a knife armed intruder, who you think is attacking you, with a carving knife that you've just picked up to defend yourself with, isn't.
> It is quite lawful to defend yourself in your own home, it is a question of "reasonable force", and whether you are defending yourself, which is reasonable, or simply attacking an intruder, which is not. Bearing in mind that there effectively isn't a death penalty in the UK, carrying out an action that can cause death will be likely to lead to a Manslaughter case at least, doing it deliberately, knowing that the action can cause death will lead to a Murder case.


This? From the empire that gave us Nelson, Wellington, and Napier? My how the mighty have been ninified.


----------



## edhillpr

Choir Maestro,
Your earlier story of your grandfather's inability to find his shotgun shows a lack of understanding of how a firearm is actually used. At night my handgun is kept loaded, and close at hand. When carried concealed it is loaded, with one in the chamber.

I practice at the range on a regular basis and I can put several rounds into a heart sized space at 10 yards. I used to compete at least once a year but don't have time for competition any more.

In college I opposed weapons. Then as a TV news photographer I covered a story in Tallahassee Florida where a man severely beat and attempted to kidnap his ex-wife at gun point. As he beat her and dragged her into the car to drive off she pulled a hidden .32 caliber pistol. She put one bullet in his neck and one in his head, killig her abuser instantly.

She saved her self from probable death and forever changed my opinion about armed self defense.

You are welcome to your opinion about guns. Thank God you have no power to infringe our rights as gun owners.


----------



## Gurdon

Chouan said:


> Except that there is virtually no private ownership of firearms in Switzerland. The firearms held by private citizens are not privately owned.


You are incorrect. Private ownership of firearms in Switzerland is not only lawful it is quite common.
Gurdon


----------



## kakinuma-kun

*Fundamental Right*

The right of individuals to keep and bear arms has been affirmed as fundamental by the US Supreme Court.

It is easy enough to give up a right when its need is not immediate.

The rates of violent crime have been falling each year (for a number of factors which are beyond the need to mention here), the result being that Americans are safer today than at anytime in my lifetime.

Because so many Americans today living in safe, comfortable circumstances can actually carry a cell phone and assume that its threat of use will somehow protect them almost anything, there may be a tendency to give up their right for self defense with a firearm.

But for other Americans not lucky enough, for economic, social, and other reasons, to feel the luxury of such safety, the need for self defense is immediate and real.

How easy it is for those who feel safe to remove the right of those in danger to protect themselves.

And how amazing it is that our Forefathers had such incredible insight into the nature of men and the importance of certain rights that they made the right to keep and bear arms the second one to be put forth in the Bill of Rights.


----------



## Chouan

Apatheticviews said:


> An armed intruder has already assaulted you. He has already committed a premeditated attack on your home, and by extension your person. Anything you do to him after that is self defense.
> 
> It isn't murder. It's killing. There is a difference. I didn't plan to assault person X at such & such time. He however did plan to come into my home at a specified time. During the course of HIS actions, my reaction resulted in grievous harm to his person. It was his intent and his actions which caused the entire situation to unfold.


The intruder hasn't assaulted the householder, there is a distinct difference between property and person. You can use lethal violence to protect person, but not to protect property.


----------



## Chouan

Gurdon said:


> You are incorrect. Private ownership of firearms in Switzerland is not only lawful it is quite common.
> Gurdon


Yes, that's already been established elsewhere in this thread.


----------



## Chouan

Mr. Mac said:


> This? From the empire that gave us Nelson, Wellington, and Napier? My how the mighty have been ninified.


But it gave us Paul Henry, 2nd Engineer, Sir Galahad, Ian McKay, Johnson Beharry, and Bryan Budd, as well as Olaf Schmid, Kim Hughes, Matthew Croucher, and Mark Wright. 
I don't think that these people have been ninified. Neither do I believe that the SBS or SAS have been ninified, or the Royal Marines, who I had the honour to train alongside during my time at BRNC Dartmouth.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Chouan said:


> The intruder hasn't assaulted the householder, there is a distinct difference between property and person. You can use lethal violence to protect person, but not to protect property.


A household is not just "property." It is an extension of your person. That is (in part) where the castle laws come from. Should you use lethal force to protect your car in the driveway? No. Should you use lethal force to protect your car, while you are in it? Most definitely. It is an extension of you.

The government authorizes lethal force to protect property all the time. It is both common in ROE's and in the general orders for sentries:

"I will take charge of this post and all government property in view"


----------



## eagle2250

+1. Should an intruder invade my home during a period in which my family and I are ensconced therein, They will die in the effort. No second guessing, no second chance...the bottom line is they will have just broken into their last house. Such decisions must be made in advance, as things get pretty busy when the fight's on! :teacha:


----------



## Howard

Apatheticviews said:


> I sleep in the bedroom though. Keeping a gun, for defensive purposes, 3 floors away from me is contrary to the intent of the tool. It's like having the spare tire to your car in stored in your tool shed.


But wouldn't you be afraid of it going off by accident?


----------



## Chouan

Clearly there are different views on property and person in different countries, which have different laws. 
There is no death penalty in Britain, so a person breaking into my house can't deserve to die for an offence that isn't capital. 
If an intruder entered my house when my family were there, would I confront them? Yes. Would I seek to kill them? No. Would I seek to make them leave? Yes. Would I defend myself if attacked? Yes. In doing so would I seek to kill them? No. 
Do burglars habitually carry guns/knives in Britain? No. Why not? Because the householder is unlikely to try to kill them. 
Burglars/intruders in Britain very rarely attack the householder/occupants, almost invariably, if disturbed, they run. The few cases of violence of intruders towards occupants are deliberately targeted attacks on people, not on property.
In any event, I'd wish to use the law rather than vigilante-ism to deal with the offence, and the offenders. I'd rather lose some (insured) property, than attack and perhaps kill some desperate loser.
Different cultures, I suppose. However, the difference doesn't, I think, demonstrate ninieism.


----------



## hardline_42

Howard said:


> But wouldn't you be afraid of it going off by accident?


 I can't tell if this is serious or not.


----------



## edhillpr

Howard said:


> But wouldn't you be afraid of it going off by accident?


Hi Howard,
The modern weapons that I am familiar with do not go off unless the trigger is depressed. This includes AR-15, AK-74, DR-200 and bolt action type rifles. Also pistols such as Glock type designs, .45 caliber 1911 self-loading designs and revolvers do not go off unless intended. If you study the mechanism, they are built not to fire even when dropped. My personal experience verifies that guns do not fire themselves, nor do they go off when dropped.

This leads to the most important two rules of firearms safety:
1) Never point the gun at something unless you mean to destroy or kill that thing.
2) Never put finger in the trigger unless you are ready to fire.

This follows the decision to stop a threat that shows opportunity, intent and means to harm you, plus removing the gun from a quick release safety lock.

Firing the gun to stop a threat should follow a lengthy mental and physical training. Armed self defense should only be taken up after considering the moral and legal responsibilities that will follow. It sounds complicated, but you should decide all these things before the need arises, so that you are properly prepared. Violent situations happen very quickly. As a TV news photographer, seeing numerous dead crime victims and learning their stories, led me to appreciate the fragility of the mortal human body.

If you wish to learn more about all the considerations involved, please read "In the Gravest Extreme" by US lawyer Massad Ayoob.


----------



## Jovan

hardline_42 said:


> I can't tell if this is serious or not.


Never can with him.


----------



## Gurdon

*Which of your assertions do you understand to be factual?*

Chouan, you wrote: 
"Except that there is virtually no private ownership of firearms in Switzerland. The firearms held by private citizens are not privately owned."

I replied: 
"You are incorrect. Private ownership of firearms in Switzerland is not only lawful it is quite common."

You then wrote:


Chouan said:


> Yes, that's already been established elsewhere in this thread.[/QUOTE
> 
> Aside from my post, would you please point out where in this thread my statement was "established?" You appear to be making things up to support your opinions.
> 
> Regards,
> Gurdon


----------



## hardline_42

Gurdon said:


> Chouan, you wrote:
> "Except that there is virtually no private ownership of firearms in Switzerland. The firearms held by private citizens are not privately owned."
> 
> I replied:
> "You are incorrect. Private ownership of firearms in Switzerland is not only lawful it is quite common."
> 
> You then wrote:
> "Yes, that's already been established elsewhere in this thread."
> 
> Aside from my post, would you please point out where in this thread my statement was "established?" You appear to be making things up to support your opinions.
> 
> Regards,
> Gurdon


I know this was meant for Chouan, but my impression is that he conceded defeat to the fact that the Swiss privately own plenty of firearms somewhere around post #309. At least, that's the last I remember reading about that particular point.


----------



## Gurdon

hardline_42 said:


> I know this was meant for Chouan, but my impression is that he conceded defeat to the fact that the Swiss privately own plenty of firearms somewhere around post #309. At least, that's the last I remember reading about that particular point.


Hardline,

Thanks for your contribution. After I read your post I went back a couple of pages before #309 and read forward.

I didn't find anything, beyond my initial post suggesting that E of O had mischaracterized the situation in Switzerland, to indicate that it had been "established" that firearms ownership is lawful and commonplace in that country. Nor did I find anything suggesting that Chouan had conceeded that point.

I'm still waiting from a response from Chouan clarify his citations.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Jovan

An interesting discussion on Western vs. Eastern perceptions of guns (with some video game talk, if you don't mind that kind of stuff):


----------



## Apatheticviews

Howard said:


> But wouldn't you be afraid of it going off by accident?


Guns don't go off by "accident." They go off when you pull the trigger. They are a tool designed to do a specific thing. They shoot bullets. I have never fired a round by accident. It has never "just gone off."

Those of us in the gun industry have heard of "Accidental Discharges" and we generally refer to them as "Negligent Discharges." It took an act of will, or an act of stupidity for the discharge to occur. In other words, operator error. A gun without a person, is a paperweight, regardless of what room it is stored.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Chouan said:


> Clearly there are different views on property and person in different countries, which have different laws.
> There is no death penalty in Britain, so a person breaking into my house can't deserve to die for an offence that isn't capital.
> If an intruder entered my house when my family were there, would I confront them? Yes. Would I seek to kill them? No. Would I seek to make them leave? Yes. Would I defend myself if attacked? Yes. In doing so would I seek to kill them? No.
> Do burglars habitually carry guns/knives in Britain? No. Why not? Because the householder is unlikely to try to kill them.
> Burglars/intruders in Britain very rarely attack the householder/occupants, almost invariably, if disturbed, they run. The few cases of violence of intruders towards occupants are deliberately targeted attacks on people, not on property.
> In any event, I'd wish to use the law rather than vigilante-ism to deal with the offence, and the offenders. I'd rather lose some (insured) property, than attack and perhaps kill some desperate loser.
> Different cultures, I suppose. However, the difference doesn't, I think, demonstrate ninieism.


That's the major difference. Your invader is unlikely to cause physical harm. Ours are extremely likely to. The escalation of violence between cultures especially among the criminal elements is so different that you cannot compare the viewpoints of law abiding citizens.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz

I cannot believe I'm back in this tread....so much for re-election when I'm outed for my username.



Chouan said:


> The intruder hasn't assaulted the householder, there is a distinct difference between property and person. You can use lethal violence to protect person, but not to protect property.


As stated by other members, this is UK law, not US Law. The 'Castle Doctrine', of which you may not be familiar, implies in part that the home is an extension of person, and therefore can be protected as such. For most states (including the one in which I live), once the intruder is in my home, lethal force is authorized. In states like Texas, which, I believe, still rely on old cattle laws, you shoot an intruder 1000 yds away if you believe him to be a thief. Repo men get shot quite frequently, and without consequence for the shooter as it is their legal right to protect their property with force.

Again, thus is the difference between UK and US law.



Howard said:


> But wouldn't you be afraid of it going off by accident?


I'm fairly certain we'll all accept this as tongue in cheek. Otherwise, I'm sorry Howard.

----------------------------------
Either Hardline or Apathetic stated that at home, their gun is always loaded, and when carried, loaded with one in the chamber. This is *how it should be*. When do I drop the clip and clear the chamber? When I'm handing it to someone else. A gun in a holster without one in the chamber is about as worthless as a belt buckle; ditto for the one at home that is stored with the clip in one place and bullets in another.

Do you fear your children will have an accident? We all have that fear, but if you keep it out of sight/reach, by the time they have the mental capacity to reach it, they have the capacity to understand it. It then becomes the parent's job to teach their child; that is part of responsible gun ownership.

When my daughter was six years old she saw me exchange a small case with a friend, and asked what it was. I told her it was a gun and asked if she knew what it was. She said yes. I asked if she'd like to see it, she said yes. When we got home, we sat outside, and I asked her if she knew what it did, and she told me it shoots things and kills people. I told her she was right. I took the gun out of its case and went over all the parts (it was a .357 revolver), loaded and unloaded it, show her how the hammer and trigger work, etc. Then I asked if she wanted to shoot it. She said no, they're loud. When I asked her if she knew how loud, she said she just could tell it was loud on TV. I slid a blank into the chamber, and told her it was this loud BANG! She started crying. After she calmed down, we talked for a little longer, and she told me that noise was the loudest thing she ever heard and it scared her. Once I was confident that she understood the difference between tv/movies make believe, and that a gun will kill someone if you shoot them (she understand death). I asked her if she wanted to hold it, she said 'no, I'm never touching that, it scared me and I don't want to kill anyone'. The ensuing time was discussing target shooting at the range, her going, and how she would shoot something that wasn't as loud.

With her pink .22 Crickett, she's turned into quite the little marksgirl. Still won't shoot anything bigger, but really likes that. Not that I leave them around the house (they're always out of her reach), but I wouldn't panic if my little girl picked up a loaded sidearm. She knows how to treat/handle them. Curiosity is out the window when I've shown her all there is to know.

Knowledge is power, and when it comes to guns, failure to educate is like pulling the trigger yourself.


----------



## Apatheticviews

My gun (1911) when on me is loaded, with one in the chamber, safety on. When it is not on me, it is unloaded, slide locked to the rear. Magazines & spare ammo stored in same location. Accessible, and ready to go from one state to another. 

Like TheGreatTwizz I have trained my son in firearms safety.


----------



## hardline_42

I keep a 1911 Colt Commader cocked and locked behind my nightstand, but it's my backup gun in case I have to deviate from my HD plan and leave my bedroom (if company is staying in the guest bedroom, for example). My main HD gun is an AK variant (Saiga) in .223 under my bed, loaded magazine, safety off, empty chamber. The safety is so ungainly on an AK that I prefer working the bolt to taking the safety off.

Regarding kids and guns, my wife and I are expecting our first in November. Even though my wife isn't comfortable around guns herself, we both agree that it's important to expose him/her from a young age. You can't be with them every second of their lives and the chances of them coming into contact with a firearm when an adult is not around is likely. A child who isn't raised on a steady diet of violent movies and video games but knows a gun inside out is much more likely to survive such an encounter than your average kid (from the Northeast, where I live) who would pick it up without hesitation and imitate his favorite movie character without any knowledge of the consequences.


----------



## blairrob

Mr. Mac said:


> I own a few shotguns and a couple of handguns. I shoot trap, skeet, and 5-Stand Sporting Clays at a local gun club once a month, and take my revolver to the range a few times a year. I have a CCW permit, but almost never carry.
> 
> I like to have my revolver with me when camping, hiking, or on road trips. I got the CCW mainly so that I wouldn't have to leave the gun unattended in the car on road trips.
> 
> I am a concerned citizen, and feel it best to avoid conflict at all costs but have the mindset to end them decisively if they become unavoidable.





hardline_42 said:


> I hole up in my bedroom with my wife and dogs behind a locked door, keep my rifle trained at the door, have my wife dial 911 and in a loud and clear voice make it known to the intruder that he can have whatever is on the other side of the bedroom door, but what's on this side I will defend with lethal force.
> 
> I don't agree with the "reasonable force" clause. That's like telling me I can't use a fire extinguisher to put out a fire unless the flames are a minimum of 18" high; anything smaller and I have to use water, and the size of the container has to be commensurate with the size of the fire. I don't want a "fair fight" with an intruder. I want the most effective, efficient tool to neutralize a threat. Currently, in 2011, that tool happens to be a firearm.





Apatheticviews said:


> My home defense plan is very similar.
> 
> 1) grab wife & kid.
> 2) grab gun.
> 3) call 911
> 4) announce in loud voice that I have gun & have called cops. Anyone coming through door next will not be happy.





Mr. Mac said:


> My shotguns live, unloaded, in silicon impregnated gun cases on the top shelf of my closet. I store ammunition in an ammo can in my closet. My revolver lives in the top drawer of my dresser, unloaded, with a couple of loaded speedloaders in the next drawer down.





edhillpr said:


> At night my handgun is kept loaded, and close at hand. When carried concealed it is loaded, with one in the chamber.





TheGreatTwizz said:


> I cannot believe I'm back in this tread....so much for re-election when I'm outed for my username.
> 
> In states like Texas, which, I believe, still rely on old cattle laws, you shoot an intruder 1000 yds away if you believe him to be a thief. Repo men get shot quite frequently, and without consequence for the shooter as it is their legal right to protect their property with force.
> 
> A gun in a holster without one in the chamber is about as worthless as a belt buckle; ditto for the one at home that is stored with the clip in one place and bullets in another.





Apatheticviews said:


> My gun (1911) when on me is loaded, with one in the chamber, safety on. .





hardline_42 said:


> I keep a 1911 Colt Commader cocked and locked behind my nightstand, but it's my backup gun in case I have to deviate from my HD plan and leave my bedroom (if company is staying in the guest bedroom, for example). My main HD gun is an AK variant (Saiga) in .223 under my bed, loaded magazine, safety off, empty chamber.


 I'm cancelling my trip to New Hampshire. I can imagine me commenting helpfully on some guys white socks and hiking boots on the peak of Mount Washington and suddenly seeing the business end of a .357 and hearing somebody ask me if I feel lucky.

Man, I am glad I live in Canada. I know, I know, you guys are glad too, though you would prefer I was in Greenland or Patagonia, and without internet access to boot.

You have a mindset that I don't understand when it comes to needing protection. I do recall a post or message earlier (apathetic?) suggesting that firearms were too prevalent to not arm oneself in the USA and I guess that makes some sense.

For the record, I know of no one who owns a handgun, defensive/fighting knife, or assault weapon, and only a couple of guys with shotguns or deer hunting guns. Also, no one I know (well) keeps any defensive weapons such as a bat or anything else by their bed, though an ex of mine does keep a pair of handcuffs in her bedroom.. Tellingly, I don't know anyone who's house has been broken into or was robbed or assaulted on the street (or anywhere else, other than a hockey rink, of course), though our summer home was broken into once.

I like it that way.

Blair


----------



## Apatheticviews

It's not that they are too prevalent not to arm oneself. *It's that there are too many to ban*. It is estimated that there are as many as a 1 to 4 ratio of guns to Americans. If you were to ask a room of people who owned a gun, a solid portion would put their hands up. If you asked those how many owned multiple guns, most would keep their hands up.

Guns are part of American culture in the same way that the Monarchy is part of British culture. It just is. It's built into our founding documents. It's debated ad naseum in every national political election. And it's gone to the Supreme Court (both state and federal) numerous times.

Americans are no more violent than any other nationality, despite what the media and movies display. I've never had to use my defensive weapon in anger outside military service, and I hope I don't have to. But that doesn't mean I won't maintain a viable skill, because I don't expect to use it. I stay First Aid & CPR certified even though I don't anticipate using them either.

My biggest issue is that no one, not my neighbor, and not my government, should ever tell me as a law abiding citizen what I should and should not be allowed to own. I'm a responsible adult, citizen, veteran, father, husband, and whatever other tagline you want to put on it. Why shouldn't i be allowed to own a firearm or any other tool? Saying that it's because it's there are other knuckleheads out there who are not so responsible is a cop-out, as it goes against the "innocent until proven guilty" concept in the country.

In my many years of selling guns, I met many knuckleheads who came in asking about guns. Not a whole lot bought. The people who did were generally polite, knew what they wanted, and every single one of them passed a state and federal criminal background check before they walked out the door with the gun.


----------



## hardline_42

blairrob said:


> I'm cancelling my trip to New Hampshire. I can imagine me commenting helpfully on some guys white socks and hiking boots on the peak of Mount Washington and suddenly seeing the business end of a .357 and hearing somebody ask me if I feel lucky.


Blair, this is the most unlikely of all scenarios. Statistically speaking, someone who has gone through the trouble of obtaining a license to carry a firearm (fees, background checks, fees, waiting periods, fees, training, fees, fingerprinting, fees, fees, etc.) is less likely to commit a crime (like brandishing, which is what you described) than ANY OTHER segment of the population, including law enforcement. If you take away all of the mystique and implications/connotations of the word "gun," what it amounts to is this: someone who owns and carries a firearm for personal defense is taking charge of their own safety.



blairrob said:


> Man, I am glad I live in Canada. I know, I know, you guys are glad too, though you would prefer I was in Greenland or Patagonia, and without internet access to boot.
> 
> You have a mindset that I don't understand when it comes to needing protection. I do recall a post or message earlier (apathetic?) suggesting that firearms were too prevalent to not arm oneself in the USA and I guess that makes some sense.
> 
> For the record, I know of no one who owns a handgun, defensive/fighting knife, or assault weapon, and only a couple of guys with shotguns or deer hunting guns. Also, no one I know (well) keeps any defensive weapons such as a bat or anything else by their bed, though an ex of mine does keep a pair of handcuffs in her bedroom.. Tellingly, I don't know anyone who's house has been broken into or was robbed or assaulted on the street (or anywhere else, other than a hockey rink, of course), though our summer home was broken into once.
> 
> I like it that way.
> 
> Blair


Think of it this way: Who would you feel safer driving cross-country with? A driver who insists that everyone in the car wear their seatbelt, has an emergency kit, an on-board air compressor, MRE's (meals ready to eat) in the trunk and an extra gas can, or a driver who doesn't wear his own seat belt, steers with his knees and doesn't know how to change a flat?

The first driver might seem a little neurotic, maybe even a little bit extreme. The chances that he'll need any of that stuff is slim, but he's prepared for it nonetheless and, chances are, his driving habits will reflect that he's well-aware of the dangers of the road.

The second driver will probably make for a more pleasant car ride, so long as nothing goes wrong. But what happens if things do go wrong?

You seem to think that, since things seldom seem to go wrong where you live, and nobody around you expects anything to go wrong so they don't prepare for it, that things won't ever go wrong! That's what we like to call "having your head in the sand."

Do you wear your seatbelt? Have health insurance? Life insurance? A fire extinguisher in your home? A family escape plan in case of an emergency (if you have a family)? An alarm system? Locks on your doors? All of these things are in place just in case things go wrong and we seldom think about them until we need them. Firearms for protection are just an additional layer of security for millions of Americans. No more, no less.


----------



## Chouan

hardline_42 said:


> Blair, this is the most unlikely of all scenarios. Statistically speaking, someone who has gone through the trouble of obtaining a license to carry a firearm (fees, background checks, fees, waiting periods, fees, training, fees, fingerprinting, fees, fees, etc.) is less likely to commit a crime (like brandishing, which is what you described) than ANY OTHER segment of the population, including law enforcement. If you take away all of the mystique and implications/connotations of the word "gun," what it amounts to is this: someone who owns and carries a firearm for personal defense is taking charge of their own safety.
> 
> Think of it this way: Who would you feel safer driving cross-country with? A driver who insists that everyone in the car wear their seatbelt, has an emergency kit, an on-board air compressor, MRE's (meals ready to eat) in the trunk and an extra gas can, or a driver who doesn't wear his own seat belt, steers with his knees and doesn't know how to change a flat?
> 
> The first driver might seem a little neurotic, maybe even a little bit extreme. The chances that he'll need any of that stuff is slim, but he's prepared for it nonetheless and, chances are, his driving habits will reflect that he's well-aware of the dangers of the road.
> 
> The second driver will probably make for a more pleasant car ride, so long as nothing goes wrong. But what happens if things do go wrong?
> 
> You seem to think that, since things seldom seem to go wrong where you live, and nobody around you expects anything to go wrong so they don't prepare for it, that things won't ever go wrong! That's what we like to call "having your head in the sand."
> 
> Do you wear your seatbelt? Have health insurance? Life insurance? A fire extinguisher in your home? A family escape plan in case of an emergency (if you have a family)? An alarm system? Locks on your doors? All of these things are in place just in case things go wrong and we seldom think about them until we need them. Firearms for protection are just an additional layer of security for millions of Americans. No more, no less.


Overall, however, it seems rather sad, to me, that you feel the need for that kind of protection.


----------



## hardline_42

Chouan said:


> Overall, however, it seems rather sad, to me, that you feel the need for that kind of protection.


 It seems sad, to me, that you're naive enough to think it's just a feeling. Bad things happen, my friend. I hope they never happen to you or your loved ones.


----------



## Jovan

So much for trying to stir up intellectual conversation with my link.


----------



## thunderw21

Jovan said:


> So much for trying to stir up intellectual conversation with my link.


I'm hopefully going to reply to it, just haven't had time.


----------



## hardline_42

Jovan said:


> So much for trying to stir up intellectual conversation with my link.


 It was interesting and pretty accurate as far as I can tell. I'm not a gamer and haven't enjoyed the few FPS games I've played (_Doom?_ Anybody, anybody?) but the philosophy behind it seems sound.


----------



## blairrob

Apatheticviews said:


> It's not that they are too prevalent....


Thank you for the clarification, and well stated.



hardline_42 said:


> It seems sad, to me, that you're naive enough to think it's just a feeling. Bad things happen, my friend. I hope they never happen to you or your loved ones.


Hardline, you can prepare for every potential negative eventuality in life, but if you do you would be classified either neurotic or paranoid. We have very little likelihood _here_ of having to deal with such a violent act, or a tsunami on our shores, so we prepare for neither. We do have to face the odd hurricane ever few years, and 1 in 7 of us will be in a car accident, so we are prepared for the first and wear seat belts for the second. The rationality of preparing for each individual threat is _clearly_ dependent upon the probability of that threat occurring where _you_ are.

Blair


----------



## hardline_42

blairrob said:


> ...and *1 in 7 of us will be in a car accident*, so we are prepared for the first and wear seat belts for the second...


 With such a high car accident rate, why not get rid of the cars? Clearly the problem is cars are too easy to get in a culture that obviously glorifies vehicular violence. Why not leave the driving to professionals, like bus drivers and taxi drivers? The government already takes care of all of your transportation needs by providing buses, trains, subways etc. There clearly is no need for personal ownership of vehicles, yet you car nuts want to cling to your cars regardless of the consequences, all in the name of "personal freedom!"


----------



## hardline_42

blairrob said:


> Hardline, you can prepare for every potential negative eventuality in life, but if you do you would be classified either neurotic or paranoid. We have very little likelihood _here_ of having to deal with such a violent act, or a tsunami on our shores, so we prepare for neither. We do have to face the odd hurricane ever few years, and 1 in 7 of us will be in a car accident, so we are prepared for the first and wear seat belts for the second. The rationality of preparing for each individual threat is _clearly_ dependent upon the probability of that threat occurring where _you_ are.
> 
> Blair


 OK now for a serious response.

The problem is that we all live in different places under different circumstances. It's impossible for an individual or a group who all live under one set of circumstances to dictate policy for those who don't. My neck of the woods isn't terrible, but it isn't great either.

Because of our local economy, my town will be laying off one third of the police force by the end of June. While that doesn't guarantee that my family and I will experience a criminal act against us, it certainly increases the risk factor, and ignoring that fact would be irresponsible on my part. So, while I'm glad that you live in a place with a low enough violent crime rate to not warrant worrying about your personal safety, I don't think it puts you in a position to judge how I address the circumstances of my own environment.


----------



## Rathdown

Howard said:


> But wouldn't you be afraid of it going off by accident?


Actually, I would be more worried that it might not go off when pressed into unexpected service in the dark of night as I am suddenly roused from my slumbers by an intruder.

Where I now live (here in the United States) not only am I permitted to own all sorts of firearms, I am also trusted to carry one concealed on my person if I so desire. True, this requires a permit, but then so does driving; I do not see this as any sort of infringement of personal liberty. I do, however, consider home invasions and muggings to be the grossest kinds of infringement of my personal liberty and therefor take those measures that I can to prevent, or at least mitigate, the extent of that sort of infringement.


----------



## Rathdown

blairrob said:


> Hardline, you can prepare for every potential negative eventuality in life, but if you do you would be classified either neurotic or paranoid.
> Blair


 Presumably your opinion does not include the Boy Scouts whose motto is "Be Prepared"--

I personally find it very Pollyanna-like in the extreme to adopt a head-in-the-sand approach to one's personal safety; as Hardline has pointed out, there is a world of difference between living in Halifax, Nova Scotia and, for example, Windsor, Ontario, or just across the lake in Detroit, Michigan.

As with motor cars, personal safety is one of those issue where YMMV depending upon the conditions you encounter as you move down life's highway.


----------



## blairrob

hardline_42 said:


> With such a high car accident rate, why not get rid of the cars?


Our leaders hear your voice and to that end our local and national governments have been colluding with hedge fund managers, speculators, and producers to raise fuel prices to the point that they force vehicle traffic off our roads. I keep checking Ebay for horse-drawn buggies but demand pushes the bidding too high for a poor Maritimer.



hardline_42 said:


> Clearly the problem is cars are too easy to get in a culture that obviously glorifies vehicular violence.


That is soooo true it's frightening. Half the population here in Canada's Ocean Playground spend the weekend smoking dope and watching Nascar and Sunday evening the streets become launchpads for Dale Earnhardt wannabes.
It's like living in the backwoods of Maine.



hardline_42 said:


> OK now for a serious response.
> 
> The problem is that we all live in different places under different circumstances. It's impossible for an individual or a group who all live under one set of circumstances to dictate policy for those who don't. My neck of the woods isn't terrible, but it isn't great either.
> 
> Because of our local economy, my town will be laying off one third of the police force by the end of June. While that doesn't guarantee that my family and I will experience a criminal act against us, it certainly increases the risk factor, and ignoring that fact would be irresponsible on my part. So, while I'm glad that you live in a place with a low enough violent crime rate to not warrant worrying about your personal safety, I don't think it puts you in a position to judge how I address the circumstances of my own environment.


Yes, you are quite right. Every place has it's strengths and weaknesses and our respective locales are no exception.

Blair


----------



## hardline_42

blairrob said:


> Our leaders hear your voice and to that end our local and national governments have been colluding with hedge fund managers, speculators, and producers to raise fuel prices to the point that they force vehicle traffic off our roads. I keep checking Ebay for horse-drawn buggies but demand pushes the bidding too high for a poor Maritimer.
> 
> That is soooo true it's frightening. Half the population here in Canada's Ocean Playground spend the weekend smoking dope and watching Nascar and Sunday evening the streets become launchpads for Dale Earnhardt wannabes.
> It's like living in the backwoods of Maine.
> 
> Yes, you are quite right. Every place has it's strengths and weaknesses and our respective locales are no exception.
> 
> Blair


 Haha! Awesome. You 'Skoshins ain't half bad.


----------



## mommatook1

This seems relevant: A story of crime and punishment that is dividing an Oklahoma community has now entered the online world, raising questions about what is self-defense and first-degree murder.

Link - https://abcnews.go.com/US/life-sentence-oklahoma-pharmacist-sparks-debate/story?id=13719078

Can't get the video to load at work. Based on the limited information in the article, it seems shot #1 was justified, shots #2-6 not so much. It would seem in deliberations that the jury believed that shots #2-6 were somehow "premeditated", hence the 1st degree charge, vice 3rd degree or manslaughter. I don't see that standing up to appeal. It will be interesting to see how this one plays out.


----------



## Chouan

hardline_42 said:


> It seems sad, to me, that you're naive enough to think it's just a feeling. Bad things happen, my friend. I hope they never happen to you or your loved ones.


I'm nearly 55. I've never even heard of such a thing happen to anybody I know, or anybody they know. Ever. You seem to suggest that America is different; yet when I suggested earlier in this thread that perhaps America is a dangerous place if firearms are needed for protection at home I was condemned for being anti-American, as America, according to the people who posted, isn't a dangerous place. 
Either it is dangerous enough for people to need firearms, or it isn't, in which case they don't need firearms.


----------



## Jovan

To me, there are no blurred lines on this case. The man was clearly psychotic when he fired five more shots into a person who was ALREADY INCAPACITATED by his first shot, which WAS in self defence. Were those kids stupid? Definitely. Was the murder of one of them justified? Heck no. He needs to be put away before he gets carried away and kills anyone else.

It reminds me of the case where a man saw some kids making off with his neighbour's stuff and decided to shoot them, even after the woman on 911 specifically told him NOT TO. Again, the kids were stupid. However, they were also unarmed in this case and he shot one of them _in the back_. He was quite clearly in the wrong.


----------



## hardline_42

Chouan said:


> I'm nearly 55. I've never even heard of such a thing happen to anybody I know, or anybody they know. Ever. You seem to suggest that America is different; yet when I suggested earlier in this thread that perhaps America is a dangerous place if firearms are needed for protection at home I was condemned for being anti-American, as America, according to the people who posted, isn't a dangerous place.
> Either it is dangerous enough for people to need firearms, or it isn't, in which case they don't need firearms.


I've only ever lived in America, and only in one state in America at that. I can't speak for the whole of the country. Likewise, I imagine that, since violent crime DOES occur in the UK, you just happen to live/have lived in places and surrounded yourself with people where and to which violent crime doesn't occur often enough to elicit a reaction from you. That's fine. But just because it's never happened to you, or to the people you know or in the area you live doesn't mean it won't. I hope we can agree on that at the very least.

This is the whole point of insurance. Just because you don't have a history of illness in your family and you've never been sick a day in your life doesn't mean you shouldn't have health insurance. Just because you've never had your home catch on fire doesn't mean you shouldn't have some form of fire protection available. Just because you've never gotten in a car accident and have a spotless driving record doesn't mean you shouldn't wear your seat belt.

Owning a firearm for protection is no different. I've never had to use one for defense and I pray to God I never do. But I feel that much more secure knowing that, if the situation arose, I would be prepared. That's really all there is to it. It's an insurance policy to protect your most precious assets: your life and the lives of your loved ones.


----------



## hardline_42

Jovan said:


> To me, there are no blurred lines on this case. The man was clearly psychotic when he fired five more shots into a person who was ALREADY INCAPACITATED by his first shot, which WAS in self defence. Were those kids stupid? Definitely. Was the murder of one of them justified? Heck no. He needs to be put away before he gets carried away and kills anyone else.
> 
> It reminds me of the case where a man saw some kids making off with his neighbour's stuff and decided to shoot them, even after the woman on 911 specifically told him NOT TO. Again, the kids were stupid. However, they were also unarmed in this case and he shot one of them _in the back_. He was quite clearly in the wrong.


 I can't say I feel terribly sorry for the robber, but as I stated in a previous post, without the robber having the ability and the opportunity (as I assume he was unconscious on the floor after being shot in the head) it's unlikely the shooter was in reasonable jeopardy.

I suppose we'll never know whether or not the robber was "trying to make a move" after being shot. Most gun training courses teach you to shoot until you neutralize the threat. I believe it was also determined that the robber died, not from the initial shot to the head, but from the follow-up shots.

I'm betting that he is guilty of murder, but I don't know that it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.


----------



## Jovan

I think the man in the other story I mentioned got off. I sure hope this guy doesn't.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Jovan said:


> To me, there are no blurred lines on this case. The man was clearly psychotic when he fired five more shots into a person who was ALREADY INCAPACITATED by his first shot, which WAS in self defence. Were those kids stupid? Definitely. Was the murder of one of them justified? Heck no. He needs to be put away before he gets carried away and kills anyone else.
> 
> It reminds me of the case where a man saw some kids making off with his neighbour's stuff and decided to shoot them, even after the woman on 911 specifically told him NOT TO. Again, the kids were stupid. However, they were also unarmed in this case and he shot one of them _in the back_. He was quite clearly in the wrong.


With the adrenaline, and every other natural chemical that going through the pharmacists head during the encounter, shots 2-6 were not "pre-meditated." Psychotic, and in a case of "traumatic shock" are probably as accurate as you are going to get. The pharmacist probably doesn't remember what happened, really.

I'm not saying what he did was right, or wrong.  One of the things that was taught during self defense courses was:

1) Neutralize the threat
2) Call 911
3) STAY BACK.

Staying back does a few things:

a) Let's the adrenaline drain out of your system
b) keeps you the hell away from the attacker (safe distance)
c) let's him bleed out (1qt per minute, per hole = dead in 5 quarts)
d) keeps you from accidentally shooting a prone target, and being accused of "executing" your attacker.

The pharmacist violated this rule, and likely resulted in a + b+ d = life sentence.


----------



## thunderw21

Jovan said:


> To me, there are no blurred lines on this case. The man was clearly psychotic when he fired five more shots into a person who was ALREADY INCAPACITATED by his first shot, which WAS in self defence. Were those kids stupid? Definitely. Was the murder of one of them justified? Heck no. He needs to be put away before he gets carried away and kills anyone else.


Agreed. First shot = self defense. The other five = murder. He was found guilty.



> It reminds me of the case where a man saw some kids making off with his neighbour's stuff and decided to shoot them, even after the woman on 911 specifically told him NOT TO. Again, the kids were stupid. However, they were also unarmed in this case and he shot one of them _in the back_. He was quite clearly in the wrong.


I think I remember this case. Neighbor witnesses kids breaking into woman's house, calls the police who tell him to do nothing, neighbor knows kids are going to be gone by time police arrive, confronts and shoots one of the kids.

I see a big difference between this case and the one mentioned above. First of all, one does not know at the time that the thief/attacker is unarmed, therefore one must assume the thief is armed.

Secondly, one does not know the intentions of the thief, therefore one must assume that if he is willing to break, enter and steal he is also willing to injure, rape and kill. If someone breaks into a home that is not his own he doesn't want to be friends nor does he want to have tea with the occupant.

Thirdly, a man's home is his castle. In the state where this happened (if I remember correctly) there are "stand your ground" and "castle doctrine" laws on the books that do not require the victim to retreat if attacked (like other states including my own) and allow any law-abiding citizen to protect himself, others and private property if he has a legal right to be there (not trespassing).

Fourth, when seconds count, the police are minutes away. The 911 lady may have told him not to shoot, but she was not the one in the situation and therefore has no idea or say how someone defenses himself and his neighbors. Had the man not shot the thief the kids would have gotten away to rob another day, the police would have arrived 30 minutes later and nothing would be resolved.

If one decides to steal from others he better know that sooner or later he'll most likely be looking down the barrel of a gun. Those weren't just kids looking to have a good time, they were looking to take from and live off of another human being's hard work and possessions. That's animal behavior. In my book, breaking into, entering and taking from another man's castle is just below rape and murder, especially since the former can easily lead to the latter.


----------



## blairrob

thunderw21 said:


> Secondly, one does not know the intentions of the thief, therefore one must assume that if he is willing to break, enter and steal he is also willing to injure, rape and kill.


I find that assertion completely and utterly ridiculous. Break and enters are usually _not_ committed by violent criminals, except in high crime rate neigbourhoods where drugs or drug money are common. One believing that they can break the law does not predispose one towards violence, other traits do. By your thinking, a store owner should be able to shoot shoplifters. It seems your predisposition towards violence is greater than the average criminals.


----------



## thunderw21

blairrob said:


> I find that assertion completely and utterly ridiculous. Break and enters are usually _not_ committed by violent criminals, except in high crime rate neigbourhoods where drugs or drug money are common. One believing that they can break the law does not predispose one towards violence, other traits do. By your thinking, a store owner should be able to shoot shoplifters. It seems your predisposition towards violence is greater than the average criminals.


When faced with a thief it is customary to treat the thief as possibly violent (breaking and entering can and will often include theft, rape, murder, vandalism and other felonies and is a completely different animal than shoplifting). Assuming the thief is armed and willing to inflict injury and death is part of the correct mindset when faced with a dangerous situation: preparing for the worst even if the worst case senario doesn't play out. It also does not mean that the defender should kill or even shoot the thief: as Apatheticviews pointed out, retreating (before or after violence) can help a situation. However, retreating may even make it worse (criminals often feel empowered when the victim backs down: it's like a shark tasting blood in the water). It depends upon the situation, the people involved and how they will react to each other. My point is that our training as owners and carriers emphasizes the correct mindset (preparedness) and de-escalation whenever possible. However, there will be times when that is not possible.

Again, assume and prepare for the worst, hope for the best.


----------



## Apatheticviews

blairrob said:


> I find that assertion completely and utterly ridiculous. Break and enters are usually _not_ committed by violent criminals, except in high crime rate neigbourhoods where drugs or drug money are common. One believing that they can break the law does not predispose one towards violence, other traits do. By your thinking, a store owner should be able to shoot shoplifters. It seems your predisposition towards violence is greater than the average criminals.


To paraphrase a politician...

"the first act this person committed when entering your house was a crime..." (with the intent of doing something else illegal)

what makes you think anything else they are going to do is going to do is going to be legal?

They are already "escalating" their crimes. B&E is already an "aggressive" crime. Add aggressive to escalation, and you get violent.


----------



## blairrob

Apatheticviews said:


> To paraphrase a politician...
> 
> "the first act this person committed when entering your house was a crime..." (with the intent of doing something else illegal) _what makes you think anything else they are going to do is going to do is going to be legal?_


Umm, nothing, which might be why I didn't suggest that they would:icon_smile_wink:.



Apatheticviews said:


> They are already "escalating" their crimes. B&E is already an "aggressive" crime. Add aggressive to escalation, and you get violent.


I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying here. They are 'escalating' what by doing what? And adding aggressive to escalation = violent? Um, violent = violent, and aggressive equals violent if there is aggression towards an individual, plain and simple. The reality is very few B&E's result in violence and those that do usually are begat by confrontation by the homeowner.


----------



## hardline_42

blairrob said:


> The reality is very few B&E's result in violence and those that do usually are begat by confrontation by the homeowner.


 I'd really like to see some statistics behind this assertion.

I do hope you understand the difference between "burglary (B&E)" and "robbery" as you interpret any statistics you might find. The reason why very few burglaries (legal term for breaking and entering) result in violence is because it only describes the forcible entrance into the dwelling of another with the intent to commit a crime. If a victim is present, it is no longer "burglary." It becomes "robbery."

In other words, B&E's don't typically end in violence because, by definition, there isn't a victim present at the scene during its commission. You might think I'm splitting hairs, but if you're going to make an assertion like that you'd better make sure your terminology is correct.

As for the homeowner begetting violence through confrontation, as I've said several times before, if the intruder has the ability and the opportunity to do me harm and I am convinced of reasonable jeopardy to my welfare, I am legally justified in defending my life with lethal force.


----------



## blairrob

hardline_42 said:


> I'd really like to see some statistics behind this assertion.


Yes, so would I. I searched like a fiend for an hour:icon_headagainstwal and had absolutely no luck finding American statistics on this, and the Canadian and European stats I am sure differ from the US because of the comparative paucity of gun ownership and ban on handguns. I had to go with what I had.



hardline_42 said:


> I do hope you understand the difference between "burglary (B&E)" and "robbery" as you interpret any statistics you might find. The reason why very few burglaries (legal term for breaking and entering) result in violence is because it only describes the forcible entrance into the dwelling of another with the intent to commit a crime. If a victim is present, it is no longer "burglary." It becomes "robbery."


I do, apparently better than you (but only after my research today:icon_smile_wink. Burglary does not have to be forcible now, e.g. a unlocked door can be accessed, and an attempted entrance with intent to burgle that fails also falls under 'burglary'. You folks also have divisions by degree. Our legal term actually still is 'break and enter'. Both countries consider 'robbery' to require a victim be present.



hardline_42 said:


> In other words, B&E's don't typically end in violence because, by definition, there isn't a victim present at the scene during its commission. You might think I'm splitting hairs, but if you're going to make an assertion like that you'd better make sure your terminology is correct.


My terminology is correct. Unfortunately, all the stats I found for US crime did not break robbery down into the subsets such as street robberies, residential robberies, commercial and bank, etc., though there were some regional/municipal stats.



hardline_42 said:


> As for the homeowner begetting violence through confrontation, as I've said several times before, if the intruder has the ability and the opportunity to do me harm and _I am convinced of reasonable jeopardy to my welfare, I am legally justified in defending my life with lethal force._


I cannot refute that point, and I can also say that we have a similar law here in Canada. What bites my butt is that the concept of _reasonable jeopardy_ varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and I am sure in most states varies from judge to judge, notwithstanding the fact that an individuals propensity to pull the trigger also varies enormously such that an armed, mildly neurotic homeowner with a low tolerance of fear, or a Sherman Austin protege with a PS90, have the opportunity to make that life altering definition. Frankly, I have little faith in the average person making a reasonable decision with a firearm under duress.

M. Gandhi


----------



## Apatheticviews

blairrob said:


> Frankly, I have little faith in the average person making a reasonable decision with a firearm under duress.


Who else should make that decision? It's already been shown that NO government in the world can be trusted to do it. I can't think of a single government that hasn't made mistakes (many of them atrocities). Especially since the government is, and always will be made up of _average people under duress_.

As for a PS90....The ammo (the armor piercing type) is actually not legal for civilian purchase, and the non-armor piercing type is worthless compared to a shotgun, most handguns, and nearly any rifle on the market. This weapon, is what is known as "hype." It's great to look at, but without the proper ammo, it's near useless. Even with the proper ammo, it is a specific purpose tool which is no more effective at killing things which are unarmored than a standard bullet. I've sold several of them, and honestly they aren't worth the price tag to anyone but a collector.


----------



## mommatook1

Apatheticviews said:


> As for a PS90....


I digress, but what is that, a civilian variant? If so, that is really lame. But I guess they wouldn't make them if there weren't some boneheads around to buy them.


----------



## thunderw21

mommatook1 said:


> I digress, but what is that, a civilian variant? If so, that is really lame. But I guess they wouldn't make them if there weren't some boneheads around to buy them.


Yeah, semi-auto with 16" barrel. Defeats the purpose of a PDW.


----------



## Apatheticviews

mommatook1 said:


> I digress, but what is that, a civilian variant? If so, that is really lame. But I guess they wouldn't make them if there weren't some boneheads around to buy them.


The civilian community likes having weapons "similar" to that of what the military/police uses.

It's like the AR15 (semi-auto) vs the M16/M4 (full auto or 3rd burst).


----------



## Apatheticviews

thunderw21 said:


> Yeah, semi-auto with 16" barrel. Defeats the purpose of a PDW.


Will still poke holes in an assailant. Just really small holes. LOTS of really small holes. Most assailants aren't wearing body armor though, which means you don't need the rounds which were designed to go with PS90.

It has 0 take down power though (single round, body shot). If you're going to use a rifle for a PDW, you really need something in the .30 cal range though. Even the AR15, is just a pumped up .22 and has nearly no take down power at close range (awesome at 100+ yards) with the same criteria.

In my opinion, profession & personal, the best weapon for home defense is still the 12 gauge shotgun. It doesn't go through walls. Has lots of take down power. Is very intimidating. Dead simple to use (point & click device). Clearing a jam is as simple as racking the pump and pulling trigger again. Second choice is a medium calibre double action revoler (.38 or .357 + [yah, I know same bullet]). Same advantages as shotgun, plus smaller size for PDW.


----------



## thunderw21

Apatheticviews said:


> In my opinion, profession & personal, the best weapon for home defense is still the 12 gauge shotgun...


Agreed, I love shotguns. Devestating at close range yet is able to reach out at range if needed. There are so many different flavors of ammunition for every different job, the shotgun is truly a dynamic firearm. And what other weapon was so feared during WW1 that the Germans tried to ban it? A 12 gauge is my go-to HD firearm.

Here's my 500. Also picked up Magpul's 'Dynamic Shotgun' DVD, very good piece. Made me rethink my 500's configuration when it came to reloading, control manipulation, handposition, etc.


















Looking to get a better sight, just don't have the funds at the moment. The current one does stand up to the recoil pretty well but sits just a tad too high for a solid cheek weld.


----------



## Regillus

Myself; I'll stick to the tried-and-true .45 ACP M1911A1. I trust it's reliability and it's stopping power when loaded with wadcutters.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Regillus said:


> Myself; I'll stick to the tried-and-true .45 ACP M1911A1. I trust it's reliability and it's stopping power when loaded with wadcutters.


My carry piece is also the .45. you really can't go wrong. The only issue with it, and the only reason I don't generally recommend it for my top choices is that it's an semi-auto, vice a revolver.

I've never had a single malfunction with a 4-5 barrel variant, however when you start getting down into the shorter ones, the spring tension "could" lead to issues when having to clear a jam, especially for those with lower hand strength.

Major advantage is pure unadulterated knock down power. People do not stay standing when hit with a .45. People have been known to stay standing when hit with 9mm (which is the same bullet as a .38, & .357), because they just don't realize they've been hit. They're just as dead, they're just dead & standing, vice dead & on the ground.

You don't even need special ammo. A .45 that hasn't expanded is bigger than a 9mm that has, meaning the base kinetic energy transfer is going to be greater.


----------



## mommatook1

Apatheticviews said:


> The civilian community likes having weapons "similar" to that of what the military/police uses.
> 
> It's like the AR15 (semi-auto) vs the M16/M4 (full auto or 3rd burst).


Yeah, but there's really nothing functionally similar to those two weapons, other than the fact that they look alike. Which is what I guess someone who buys one is going for, because they certainly won't be using it as it was designed-- it can't be fired on full auto, can't be used reliably in and out of a vehicle because of the longer barrel, and can't (legally) fire armor-piercing rounds (not that the average civilian can afford the "proprietary" FNH ammo anyways.)

The AR-15 actually existed before the M-16 designation, so I don't see that example as being the same. Although, Armalite based the -15 off the -10, which I believe was originally designed as a military purpose weapon to replace the M1, so I guess it works.

I agree with your comments on a shotgun being the best home defense weapon system. Less likely to go through walls, can purchase non-lethal rounds, easier to attach a light for positive ID of target at night, and the sound of a pump-action being cycled is likely enough to deter most criminals and prevent a confrontation in the first place.


----------



## Regillus

Has anyone fired the .50 cal. Desert Eagle?


----------



## Apatheticviews

Regillus said:


> Has anyone fired the .50 cal. Desert Eagle?


Yes. Kicks like a mule.

"Most commonly Resold firearm in America." Has one of the lowest resale values there is.

In essence, it's a video game gun. There's no practical purpose for it, that a .44 mag or a .45 acp won't meet. There's just so many better options out there for equal or better cost.


----------



## Apatheticviews

mommatook1 said:


> Yeah, but there's really nothing functionally similar to those two weapons, other than the fact that they look alike. Which is what I guess someone who buys one is going for, because they certainly won't be using it as it was designed-- it can't be fired on full auto, can't be used reliably in and out of a vehicle because of the longer barrel, and can't (legally) fire armor-piercing rounds (not that the average civilian can afford the "proprietary" FNH ammo anyways.)
> 
> The AR-15 actually existed before the M-16 designation, so I don't see that example as being the same. Although, Armalite based the -15 off the -10, which I believe was originally designed as a military purpose weapon to replace the M1, so I guess it works.
> 
> I agree with your comments on a shotgun being the best home defense weapon system. Less likely to go through walls, can purchase non-lethal rounds, easier to attach a light for positive ID of target at night, and the sound of a pump-action being cycled is likely enough to deter most criminals and prevent a confrontation in the first place.


Believe or not the barrel length doesn't adversely affect it "too much" because of the bullpup design. You'd only lose a couple inches overall. The major issue I encountered from the folks wanting them was ammo availability. Firearm law aspects (16" barrells, and full auto aspects) are for the most part non-issues now days.

The AR-15/M16 issue however was much more prominent during the the 1990s/early 2000's "Assault weapons ban" which cosmetically banned aspects of rifles. When the government tells you can't have something because it "looks" like something, even though it performs exactly the same as something that is missing a non-essential feature.


----------



## hardline_42

blairrob said:


> What bites my butt is that the concept of _reasonable jeopardy_ varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and I am sure in most states varies from judge to judge, notwithstanding the fact that an individuals propensity to pull the trigger also varies enormously such that an armed, mildly neurotic homeowner with a low tolerance of fear, or a Sherman Austin protege with a PS90, have the opportunity to make that life altering definition. Frankly, I have little faith in the average person making a reasonable decision with a firearm under duress.


 I can understand that the parameters of reasonable jeopardy will vary depending on the circumstances. I'm sure that there will be some cases that even I won't agree reasonable jeopardy was established (like that Pharmacy shooting). However, removing or otherwise infringing the right of all citizens to protect themselves with firearms because of a few isolated incidents (they really are few and far between) would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

With regards to your faith in the "average" person making a reasonable decision with a firearm under duress, it really depends on what demographic you're pulling your average from. Would I trust the your run-of-the-mill east coast American city-dweller who has been taught that only criminals or cops have guns and who's only experience with firearms is what they've seen in the movies? Absolutely not, but that would be the "average" person in my neck of the woods.

The average law-abiding gun-owner or the average concealed carry permit holder are much more likely to be able to make a better decision under duress simply because a) there are a lot of requirements, background checks and fees to qualify for legal gun-ownership where I live so you're already starting out with someone who isn't a criminal, doesn't have a diagnosed mental problem or substance dependency and has the disposable income to pay the fees and actually purchase a firearm, and b) all of the requirements that they've worked so hard to meet will be for naught if they make a poor choice with a firearm.

I would strongly urge you to sit in on a firearms safety class if one is available where you live. You'll get a chance to learn just how much seriousness and responsibility is placed on gun ownership and carrying among gun-owners themselves.


----------



## hardline_42

mommatook1 said:


> I agree with your comments on a shotgun being the best home defense weapon system. Less likely to go through walls, can purchase non-lethal rounds, easier to attach a light for positive ID of target at night, and the sound of a pump-action being cycled is likely enough to deter most criminals and prevent a confrontation in the first place.


 I have to respectfully disagree with all of this. The shotgun is a very versatile tool and has a place in every persons safe, and it might be the "best" HD weapon in some situations, but not for the reasons you mention.

Most people recommend a shotgun because of claims that it doesn't "over-penetrate." This claim might be true of bird shot or target loads, but any load that is powerful enough to stop an attacker WILL go through a standard drywall/stud/drywall partition.

Shotguns and pistols both rely on the size and weight of the projectile and good, old-fashioned inertia to produce enough trauma to the target area to stop an attack. A rifle, on the other hand (my HD firearm of choice), can use a much smaller projectile fired at a much higher speed to produce large amounts of cavitation (destroying tissue around the actual wound channel) without excessive penetration. Take a look at the ballistics chart below to compare the over penetration of most common HD rounds.










I agree with a weapon light being important on an HD firearm, but I don't think a shotgun makes this any easier than any other firearm. As for the myth about the "sound" of a pump action cycling making intruders soil their skivvies, it might deter some criminals, but I'm not putting my money on a sound stopping anyone.

Besides, if the blaring sound of my security alarm and the barking of two 70lb dogs isn't enough to deter a criminal, chances are sounds don't scare him.


----------



## thunderw21

hardline_42 said:


> ...Most people recommend a shotgun because of claims that it doesn't "over-penetrate." This claim might be true of bird shot or target loads, but any load that is powerful enough to stop an attacker WILL go through a standard drywall/stud/drywall partition.
> ...


This needs to be emphasized.

Folks should go on over to www.theboxotruth.com for tests and info on bullet penetration. Remember, you own every projectile you fire.


----------



## Bjorn

Isn't the best home defense system a good door?

Why not get security doors all round and ground floor windows security or an alarm?

If you have an apartment there really is no reason anyone should ever be able to get into it with a good door. Houses can also be very much improved. 

At absolutely no risk to anyone...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hardline_42

Bjorn said:


> Isn't the best home defense system a good door?
> 
> Why not get security doors all round and ground floor windows security or an alarm?
> 
> If you have an apartment there really is no reason anyone should ever be able to get into it with a good door. Houses can also be very much improved.
> 
> At absolutely no risk to anyone...


 I agree with you. Firearms are only part of a kit of tools for securing your home, and even then, only a last line of defense.

Home security starts with getting to know your neighbors, adequate security lighting and landscaping, good locks and solid core exterior doors, alarm/monitoring systems, dogs (the number one security measure most often recommended by police), reinforced interior doors and, most importantly, an action plan that the entire household is familiar with. If all of those things fail, the firearm is your parachute.

The problem is that, in my experience, the same type of people who disagree with gun ownership and call gun owners paranoid are the same type of people that won't do any of the things I just listed to secure their home. In the end, it's not about guns. It's about admitting to yourself an uncomfortable truth. For many, people it's just easier to pretend like bad things don't happen and convince themselves that they're safe than it is to face their own mortality and the unsavory bits of human nature.


----------



## blairrob

hardline_42 said:


> The average law-abiding gun-owner or the average concealed carry permit holder are much more likely to be able to make a better decision under duress simply because a) there are a lot of requirements, background checks and fees to qualify for legal gun-ownership where I live so you're already starting out with someone who isn't a criminal, doesn't have a diagnosed mental problem or substance dependency and has the disposable income to pay the fees and actually purchase a firearm, and b) all of the requirements that they've worked so hard to meet will be for naught if they make a poor choice with a firearm.


That seems rather sensible, in my view.



hardline_42 said:


> I would strongly urge you to sit in on a firearms safety class if one is available where you live. You'll get a chance to learn just how much seriousness and responsibility is placed on gun ownership and carrying among gun-owners themselves.


We have 2 firearms SC's here, one for long guns and one for handguns, and I suspect that they are well done. Both are put on by the guys on horses with the red jackets, poufy pants, and huge black hats.

Carrying here is quite illegal with very few exceptions, and usually only done in poor inner city neighbourhoods, and the few large gang communities. Robberies here very seldom involve guns, or indeed weapons at all. Usually they just _claim_ to be armed. I think I'll put the 50 buck course fee towards a nice Medoc :icon_smile: instead.

Blair


----------



## mommatook1

Apatheticviews said:


> Believe or not the barrel length doesn't adversely affect it "too much" because of the bullpup design. You'd only lose a couple inches overall. The major issue I encountered from the folks wanting them was ammo availability. Firearm law aspects (16" barrells, and full auto aspects) are for the most part non-issues now days.
> 
> The AR-15/M16 issue however was much more prominent during the the 1990s/early 2000's "Assault weapons ban" which cosmetically banned aspects of rifles. When the government tells you can't have something because it "looks" like something, even though it performs exactly the same as something that is missing a non-essential feature.


Ah, gotcha, that makes more sense in ref to the assault weapons ban period. Just curious, what does the five-seven ammo run? Either flavor.


----------



## eagle2250

The following is just about the best advice I have seen offered so far! The most common mistake people make in this regard is overgrowing the shrubbery near the windows and doors of their home. 
Thank you hardline 42.



hardline_42 said:


> I agree with you. Firearms are only part of a kit of tools for securing your home, and even then, only a last line of defense.
> 
> Home security starts with getting to know your neighbors, adequate security lighting and landscaping, good locks and solid core exterior doors, alarm/monitoring systems, dogs (the number one security measure most often recommended by police), reinforced interior doors and, most importantly, an action plan that the entire household is familiar with. If all of those things fail, the firearm is your parachute.
> 
> The problem is that, in my experience, the same type of people who disagree with gun ownership and call gun owners paranoid are the same type of people that won't do any of the things I just listed to secure their home. In the end, it's not about guns. It's about admitting to yourself an uncomfortable truth. For many, people it's just easier to pretend like bad things don't happen and convince themselves that they're safe than it is to face their own mortality and the unsavory bits of human nature.


----------



## mommatook1

hardline_42 said:


> I have to respectfully disagree with all of this. The shotgun is a very versatile tool and has a place in every persons safe, and it might be the "best" HD weapon in some situations, but not for the reasons you mention.
> 
> Most people recommend a shotgun because of claims that it doesn't "over-penetrate." This claim might be true of bird shot or target loads, but any load that is powerful enough to stop an attacker WILL go through a standard drywall/stud/drywall partition.
> 
> Shotguns and pistols both rely on the size and weight of the projectile and good, old-fashioned inertia to produce enough trauma to the target area to stop an attack. A rifle, on the other hand (my HD firearm of choice), can use a much smaller projectile fired at a much higher speed to produce large amounts of cavitation (destroying tissue around the actual wound channel) without excessive penetration. Take a look at the ballistics chart below to compare the over penetration of most common HD rounds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with a weapon light being important on an HD firearm, but I don't think a shotgun makes this any easier than any other firearm. As for the myth about the "sound" of a pump action cycling making intruders soil their skivvies, it might deter some criminals, but I'm not putting my money on a sound stopping anyone.
> 
> Besides, if the blaring sound of my security alarm and the barking of two 70lb dogs isn't enough to deter a criminal, chances are sounds don't scare him.


That chart is very interesting, I particularly find the 556/223's lack of penetration counter-intuitive, but as you stated, it achieves greater "trauma" at impact due to the higher velocity.

Additionally, that chart assumes that 00 buck is the ideal shotgun cartridge for HD, when many would say it is either #1 buck or a heavy bird shot, depending on your preference, and heavy birdshot at the close ranges found inside the average home is enough to put someone down without penetrating an average wall. (Although #1 buck might have even better penetration than the 00, in which case I'd concede the common conception about wall penetration invalid). Of course, perhaps most people choose 00 cartridges without really thinking about the application because they simply want the most "powerful" load, in which case your point is extremely valid.

However, comma, I would still prefer a short barreled 12ga in most situations. I have more faith that I would be able to actually hit a target in the middle of the night, when I am half asleep, confused, scared and pumped full of adrenaline, with a standard 12ga cartridge than with a rifle or pistol cartridge. As an earlier post stated, point and shoot.

In the example of #1 buck, you have 16 pellets of .30 diameter in a spreading pattern of varying size depending on your distance to the target. Even if I take a crappy shot, it is likely at least some of the pellets will hit the target. If I take a crappy shot with a rifle or pistol, there's a greater chance I will miss the target outright.

As for the light, I'm referring to one of the forend mounted lights that have a pressure pad or rocker switch integrated into the slide, meaning you never have to move your forward hand from the firing position to manipulate the light. This reduces any chance of fumbling with the light and then having to return your hand to the slide to fire. In my mind, this is a superior set-up. However, if we're just comparing basic rail mounted lights on different platforms, then you're probably right, the shotgun would not provide any significant advantage.

As for the slide racking noise, I know of at least one person, a former supervisor, who was able to scare off thieves that were in the process of robbing his garage by doing this. (He lived in rural western Virginia, and had a very high-end garage to restore hobby vehicles, complete with lifts, a complement of snap-on tools, power/pneumatic tools, etc.) By the time the police showed up, the thieves were gone, and a confrontation was avoided. I'm not saying this is anyway guaranteed or even a smart tactic, but a consideration. Besides, not all of us have dogs (which I agree is the best HD option period).

Anyways, to each his own, no matter what weapon you choose to support your HD plan, it is useless unless you practice with it and are prepared to maintain it properly and safely. Despite extolling the virtues of the shotgun for HD, I'll admit my last functional choice (before relocating to the UK) was a revolver loaded in .38 with a laser grip and a simple flashlight. This was because it is the only thing I could keep reasonably secure in our bedroom within a small "nightstand" lockbox.

Cheers


----------



## hardline_42

Mommatook, don't get me wrong, I don't think a shotgun is a bad HD tool. I think it's miles ahead of a pistol all other things being equal. But I don't like to encourage certain attitudes that elevate a particular firearm platform, or caliber, or grip stance or tactical doo-dad to talisman status, where the practical value of a particular setup is based on the exaggeration of a few basic attributes.

One of the attributes of a shotgun is that it patterns shot in increasing diameters as the distance of the target increases. This does not mean that a shot from the hip from your Grandpa's 30" hunting double will create a solid wall of death the entire circumference of your hallway at 7 yards. You still have to acquire your target and point the shotgun. At typical home defense distances, you're just as likely to get a hit with a rifle as you are with a shotgun (a pistol is a whole other ballgame).

But, like you said, it's not about any one platform or caliber. It's about implementing all of the tools available for the security of your property and the welfare of your family and learning to be proficient in their use.


----------



## mommatook1

mommatook1 said:


> That chart is very interesting, I particularly find the 556/223's lack of penetration counter-intuitive, but as you stated, it achieves greater "trauma" at impact due to the higher velocity.


So, doing a little research, it would appear the 556 has some unique characteristics that lend to it's behavior after penetrating a target. Sorry if this is getting off topic, but I find it interesting. Note the last paragraph, fairly relevant to the topic of wall penetration.

Link - https://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs13.htm#Federal PD Shotshell



> Wounding Effects of the U.S. Military M193 (M16A1) and M855 (M16A2) Bullet Cartridges
> 
> Exaggerated descriptions of the wounding effects of the M16 rifle bullet flourish as great works of urban lore. One fable describes a bullet that tumbles end-over-end in flight as soon as it exits the muzzle of the rifle. Another legend provides a dramatic account of an unstable, super-high velocity bullet that tumbles and chews its way through flesh like a buzz saw. Although there appears to be a tinge of half-truth behind these entertaining and awe-inspiring mythical tales, these stories do not represent an accurate description of the wounding characteristics of the M16 bullet.
> 
> When the M16 cartridge is fired and the bullet is propelled down the bore, the bore's rifling imparts a gyroscopic spin to the bullet. This gyroscopic rotation is needed to maintain point forward stabilization of the bullet as it flies through the air. This method of bullet stabilization is identical to the rotational spin applied to a football when thrown by a quarterback (American football).
> 
> The Earth's gaseous atmosphere is approximately 400 times less dense than the body's soft tissues. When the M16 bullet strikes and plows into the body, the rotational spin that stabilized its flight through the air is insufficient to maintain its stability as it flies through dense tissue. The bullet typically penetrates point forward for approximately 4-5 inches before it begins to seek a state of stability in the body.
> 
> The bullet's pointed shape makes it heavier at its base than its nose, producing a center of gravity that is located aft of its longitudinal centerline. When the bullet hits the body and penetrates, the bullet attempts to rotate 180 degrees around its center of gravity to achieve a base forward orientation. This backwards orientation is the bullet's stable position in tissue because it places the center of gravity forward.
> 
> As the bullet yaws through 90 degrees and is traveling sideways through flesh, the stress of tissue resistance to bullet passage can overpower the physical integrity of the bullet. The bullet has a groove around its midsection called a cannelure. The purpose of the cannelure is to permit the mouth of the cartridge case to be crimped tightly against the bullet shank to hold it firmly to the case. The cannelure weakens the structural integrity of the bullet's copper jacket.
> 
> At distances of 100 yards and under, when the bullet hits the body and yaws through 90 degrees, the stresses on the bullet cause the leading edge to flatten, extruding lead core out the open base, just before it breaks apart at the cannelure. The portion of the bullet forward of the cannelure, the nose, usually remains in one piece and retains about 60 percent of the bullet's original weight. The portion of the bullet aft of the cannelure, the base, violently disintegrates into multiple lead core and copper jacket fragments, which penetrate up to 3-inches radially outward from the wound track. The fragments perforate and weaken the surrounding tissues allowing the subsequent temporary cavity to forcibly stretch and rip open the multiple small wound tracks produced by the fragments. The resulting wound is similar to one produced by a commercial expanding bullet used for varmint hunting, however the maximum tissue damage produced by the military bullet is located at a greater penetration depth.
> 
> (The increased wounding effects produced by bullet fragmentation were not well understood until the mid-1980's. Therefore the wounding effects of the original M16 rifle bullet were not an intentional U.S. military design characteristic.)
> 
> At distances between 100-200 yards the bullet commonly breaks in half at the cannelure forming two large penetrating fragments, the nose and base.
> 
> At distances beyond 200 yards the bullet usually remains intact due to velocity decay. It simply yaws 180 degrees to penetrate backwards through the body.
> 
> Both the M193 and M855 bullets demonstrate similar terminal performance as described above, when fired from rifles fitted with a 20-inch or longer barrel.
> 
> Shooting the M193 or M855 from a rifle with a barrel length less than 14.5-inches produces insufficient muzzle velocity to achieve the terminal performance described above. A rifle fitted with a 14.5-inch barrel is adequate for close-quarters battle. For engagements anticipated at greater than room distance but less than 100 yards, a rifle fitted with a 16.5-inch barrel should be employed to ensure sufficient velocity.
> 
> The older 55-grain M193 (M16A1) cartridge is not sensitive to rifling twist rate and can be fired in rifles with 1:12, 1:9 and 1:7 rates of twist. However, the newer M855 (M16A2) cartridge is best used with a rifling twist rate of 1:7 or 1:9. When the M855 is fired in a rifle with a slower rate of twist the longer 62-grain bullet can yaw up to 70 degrees in free trajectory through the air, substantially degrading accuracy.
> 
> The wound ballistics of the U.S. military Olin M193/Winchester 55 grain FMJ (X223R1 or Q3131) and green tip U.S. military Olin M855/Winchester 62 grain FMJ (RA556M855) cartridges makes them an adequate choice for use against violent criminal offenders.
> 
> Additional testing has indicated that errant bullets (military FMJ and commercial .223 Remington JSP/JHP) which do not hit an attacker appear to penetrate fewer walls and other common building materials than stray handgun bullets.


----------



## Bjorn

hardline_42 said:


> The problem is that, in my experience, the same type of people who disagree with gun ownership and call gun owners paranoid are the same type of people that won't do any of the things I just listed to secure their home. In the end, it's not about guns. It's about admitting to yourself an uncomfortable truth. For many, people it's just easier to pretend like bad things don't happen and convince themselves that they're safe than it is to face their own mortality and the unsavory bits of human nature.


I agree with the first part, yet I would argue that a ban on civilian carrying and stricter gun laws would ensure less guns on the street. In Sweden, many (many) people have reinforced doors and alarms, but people don't have guns, though sometimes hunting rifles (locked up). Is there an nationwide organisation with lobbyists pushing secure doors to the public? Seems they prefer to push guns.

If somebody mugs you, you give them your money, call the police, then get it back from your insurance company. You don't shoot them.

If the problem is that some areas are really really bad, perhaps social reform rather than gun ownership helps?

We don't have a constitutional right to bear arms where I live. Who needs that? If the government isn't to you liking, you vote them out. Do you guys honestly see yourselves ousting the second period Obama administration by militia action in an american civil war? I'm not necessarily critisising, I just don't get how the legalized right to bear arms is valid. You could amend the amendment to state that a gun may only be carried to fight the US government, if the person carrying it feels that that government is repressive. Would be slightly backward though, since I suppose that shooting at the police or military would always be a crime.

As for gun owners being paranoid, I don't have any experience with civilians with guns. Hunting rifles are locked away and brought out and assembled for practice or hunting. My dad had a gun, he was an officer. He never let me touch it. My brief time in the military let me handle submachineguns for a short period of time. They punch a large number of holes into people, buildings and don't neccessarily stop until they hit the dirt. There is no reason for a civvie to be let near one.

Also, I would argue that the gun enthusiast is perhaps a little to fond of the gun itself and not fond enough of efficient (preferably nonviolent) self defence and home protection. The amount of caliber comparing etc above points in that direction.

I'm not sure that gun ownership laws would affect your crime rate or the number of people getting shot. Try it out, maybe it will.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## hardline_42

mommatook1 said:


> So, doing a little research, it would appear the 556 has some unique characteristics that lend to it's behavior after penetrating a target. Sorry if this is getting off topic, but I find it interesting. Note the last paragraph, fairly relevant to the topic of wall penetration.
> 
> Link - https://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs13.htm#Federal PD Shotshell


 Yup. 5.56/.223 have a tendency to yaw and fragment which causes additional trauma. That's why many military and police agencies that operate in dense urban environments have been switching from 9mm sub machine guns to .223 AR platform rifles as their standard issue firearm. It has better terminal ballistics and less over penetration.


----------



## hardline_42

Bjorn said:


> I agree with the first part, yet I would argue that a ban on civilian carrying and stricter gun laws would ensure less guns on the street.


I live in New Jersey, one of the states with the strictest gun laws in the nation. Civilian carry is illegal thanks to a de facto ban. Only retired police and politically connected civilians are ever issued carry permits. You would think that this would mean less guns on the street, less violence and less crime. Yet, my state is home to the two most violent cities in the nation: Camden and Newark. I've posted the stats previously in this thread. Gun ownership is in no way related to crime rates. It might seem counter intuitive, but the reality proves it.



Bjorn said:


> In Sweden, many (many) people have reinforced doors and alarms, but people don't have guns, though sometimes hunting rifles (locked up). Is there an nationwide organisation with lobbyists pushing secure doors to the public? Seems they prefer to push guns.


If by "gun lobby," you're referring to the NRA, I'm afraid you are wrong. The NRA is not a lobby. It is an advocacy group made up of millions of regular, gun-owning folks and, as such, it cannot legally lobby. The Institute for Legislative Action is a small, little known group that can legally lobby for gun owners. The NRA does not push guns on the public. It tries (not always in ways that I agree with) to protect the rights of those in the public that do chose to own firearms. I can't speak for all gun owners, but I like my secure doors and alarm system just as much as I like my guns.



Bjorn said:


> If somebody mugs you, you give them your money, call the police, then get it back from your insurance company. You don't shoot them.


Agree 100%. A firearm is a last resort for the purpose of saving your life or the life of a loved one, not to protect your possessions.



Bjorn said:


> If the problem is that some areas are really really bad, perhaps social reform rather than gun ownership helps?


I'm afraid that a proper primer on the nuances of such an undertaking in this country would require way too much bandwidth. Let's just say, I'm open to the idea but I'd rather keep my right to protect myself while they flesh out the details.



Bjorn said:


> We don't have a constitutional right to bear arms where I live. Who needs that? If the government isn't to you liking, you vote them out. Do you guys honestly see yourselves ousting the second period Obama administration by militia action in an american civil war? I'm not necessarily critisising, I just don't get how the legalized right to bear arms is valid. You could amend the amendment to state that a gun may only be carried to fight the US government, if the person carrying it feels that that government is repressive. Would be slightly backward though, since I suppose that shooting at the police or military would always be a crime.


We are a Constitutional Republic. The US is governed by rule of law and the government's authority is limited by Constitution. In order for the government to legally deny the people of the right to bear arms, a Constitutional Convention would have to be held in order to amend it. Any infringement of that right before such an event is an abuse of power.



Bjorn said:


> Also, I would argue that the gun enthusiast is perhaps a little to fond of the gun itself and not fond enough of efficient (preferably nonviolent) self defence and home protection. The amount of caliber comparing etc above points in that direction.
> 
> I'm not sure that gun ownership laws would affect your crime rate or the number of people getting shot. Try it out, maybe it will.


Again, I don't speak for all gun owners, but I've made it clear that a firearm is not the first line of defense, nor is it a magic talisman that will ward off all evil. It's a tool that works in tandem with other preventative measures to safeguard your life. Just because it performs a function that some might deem unsavory doesn't take away from the fact that a firearm is a pretty ingenious mechanical artifact and often draws interest and admiration from its owners in the same way that a nice mechanical watch movement or well made pair of shoes can for members of this forum.

In conclusion, gun ownership laws do not affect crime rates. The supporting information has been cited several times already. It's been attempted several times in recent history with zero impact on crime.


----------



## Apatheticviews

mommatook1 said:


> Ah, gotcha, that makes more sense in ref to the assault weapons ban period. Just curious, what does the five-seven ammo run? Either flavor.


I haven't priced it out in about 4 years honestly. It's a novelty at best. The armor piercing variant is non-existant in the civilian community so "priceless" is the only accurate range.


----------



## Apatheticviews

One of the issues with the 5.56 is that it is so "powder heavy" compared to its weight that it spins madly when it impacts. It's crazy destructive.

It's an effective round, yes. Is it the best round? No. But there is no perfect round.

One of the main reasons that local law enforcement swapped to it though was because they are dead easy to get parts for. Dead easy. Every body makes the frigging things. You'd be a fool to go with any other black gun, as an "assault weapon" platform in the US.

The US military has MILLIONS of them. Why not use the AR15 which you know you will always have ammo, mags, parts, gear, etc for, even if everything else is pure and absolute crap (not that it is, but just using it to highlight a point)?

It's kind of like the Glock 17/19/22/23 platform. When everyone else is using it, you might as well get on the bandwagon....


----------



## Regillus

Yes; the 5.56mm bullet was specifically designed to tumble after hitting flesh to increase the wound severity and increase the odds that the person would die or at least be seriously injured to the point of being incapacitated thus rendering them ineffective on the battlefield. All the above discussion about bullet tumbling and fragmentation is old Vietnam war knowledge that's been around for years.


----------



## Bjorn

hardline_42 said:


> We are a Constitutional Republic. The US is governed by rule of law and the government's authority is limited by Constitution. In order for the government to legally deny the people of the right to bear arms, a Constitutional Convention would have to be held in order to amend it. Any infringement of that right before such an event is an abuse of power.


Agreed and you also make a very good case.

There's always a risk with blaming socio-economic problems on gun-ownership. Firstly it's illogical and secondly it's naive.

Would you amend the constitution to reduce the right to bear arms? Even curtail it slightly?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Regillus

Bjorn said:


> Agreed and you also make a very good case.
> 
> There's always a risk with blaming socio-economic problems on gun-ownership. Firstly it's illogical and secondly it's naive.
> 
> Would you amend the constitution to reduce the right to bear arms? Even curtail it slightly?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No I wouldn't. I think it works just fine the way it is. The only thing I would change is this; and this doesn't require a constitutional amendment - is that gun permits issued in one state be recognized in all other states or that there be a federal gun permit recognized in all 50 states. The way it is now; a gun permit issued in one state is only good in that state.


----------



## Bjorn

Is that a bad thing? It doesn't really make sense, I agree, but do you really want people travelling with their weapons?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chouan

Bjorn said:


> I agree with the first part, yet I would argue that a ban on civilian carrying and stricter gun laws would ensure less guns on the street. In Sweden, many (many) people have reinforced doors and alarms, but people don't have guns, though sometimes hunting rifles (locked up). Is there an nationwide organisation with lobbyists pushing secure doors to the public? Seems they prefer to push guns.
> 
> If somebody mugs you, you give them your money, call the police, then get it back from your insurance company. You don't shoot them.
> 
> If the problem is that some areas are really really bad, perhaps social reform rather than gun ownership helps?
> 
> We don't have a constitutional right to bear arms where I live. Who needs that? If the government isn't to you liking, you vote them out. Do you guys honestly see yourselves ousting the second period Obama administration by militia action in an american civil war? I'm not necessarily critisising, I just don't get how the legalized right to bear arms is valid. You could amend the amendment to state that a gun may only be carried to fight the US government, if the person carrying it feels that that government is repressive. Would be slightly backward though, since I suppose that shooting at the police or military would always be a crime.
> 
> As for gun owners being paranoid, I don't have any experience with civilians with guns. Hunting rifles are locked away and brought out and assembled for practice or hunting. My dad had a gun, he was an officer. He never let me touch it. My brief time in the military let me handle submachineguns for a short period of time. They punch a large number of holes into people, buildings and don't neccessarily stop until they hit the dirt. There is no reason for a civvie to be let near one.
> 
> Also, I would argue that the gun enthusiast is perhaps a little to fond of the gun itself and not fond enough of efficient (preferably nonviolent) self defence and home protection. The amount of caliber comparing etc above points in that direction.
> 
> I'm not sure that gun ownership laws would affect your crime rate or the number of people getting shot. Try it out, maybe it will.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I agree entirely. Most people in favour of gun ownership whjo have expressed that view seem to use personal and familial protection as a pretext or excuse to justify their desire to own a firearm. 
I would suggest that, in Britain, 90% of gun related fatalities are accidents, domestic murder (killing of the owner or owner's family members by the owner or owner's family members) or gang on gang violence. Indeed, most murders in Britain are inter-familial. So the self and family protection element of gun ownership is entirely irrelevant as far as Britain is concerned. 
If Americans believe that protection of themselves, their family and their home is so important, then it can only mean that serious violence must be a major problem in the US. If it is, then the US needs to do something urgently about it's social problems.
There are a couple of interesting articles here:
https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/feb/20/gun-crime-arizona-shooting
and here:
https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jan/24/gun-crime-arizona-shooting


----------



## Apatheticviews

Regillus said:


> No I wouldn't. I think it works just fine the way it is. The only thing I would change is this; and this doesn't require a constitutional amendment - is that gun permits issued in one state be recognized in all other states or that there be a federal gun permit recognized in all 50 states. The way it is now; a gun permit issued in one state is only good in that state.


I live in VA. I don't have to have a Gun permit at all. Nor do I think I should have to have one at all. I think that a "gun permit" is an infringement of the right to bear arms.

The federal form 4473 is all I need to fill out, which is a DEALER/FIREARM tracking document, vice an individual document, which happens to tie into the NICS systems to ensure felons are restricted from buying weapons. It's a good system.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Chouan said:


> I agree entirely. Most people in favour of gun ownership whjo have expressed that view seem to use personal and familial protection as a pretext or excuse to justify their desire to own a firearm.
> I would suggest that, in Britain, 90% of gun related fatalities are accidents, domestic murder (killing of the owner or owner's family members by the owner or owner's family members) or gang on gang violence. Indeed, most murders in Britain are inter-familial. So the self and family protection element of gun ownership is entirely irrelevant as far as Britain is concerned.
> If Americans believe that protection of themselves, their family and their home is so important, then it can only mean that serious violence must be a major problem in the US. If it is, then the US needs to do something urgently about it's social problems.
> There are a couple of interesting articles here:
> https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/feb/20/gun-crime-arizona-shooting
> and here:
> https://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/jan/24/gun-crime-arizona-shooting


If most murders in GB are inter family would that mean that you have a higher domestic violence instance? No, obviously not. It's just a different way of reading something, based on different conditions. I'd hazard to guess that most "murders" around the world fall under the same category.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Bjorn said:


> Is that a bad thing? It doesn't really make sense, I agree, but do you really want people travelling with their weapons?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I live within 3 hours drive of 5 states & DC. It's not really "traveling." On the Eastern US (NE is worse), the states are clumped together tightly, meaning you can blink and drive through one.

Each state has its own carry laws. My Concealed Carry Permit (not owner permit, some states require one, or both), is good in several states but not all. I am not allowed to carry in MD, or DC but am allowed to carry in every state south of me except GA (I can keep it on me in the car).

When driving to FL, at night, and stopping at various out of the way places (rest stops for instance), a legally owned and carried firearm can be a nice bit of piece of mind for me and my family. After all, I don't have the protection of my 4 main walls around me.


----------



## mommatook1

hardline_42 said:


> Yup. 5.56/.223 have a tendency to yaw and fragment which causes additional trauma. That's why many military and police agencies that operate in dense urban environments have been switching from 9mm sub machine guns to .223 AR platform rifles as their standard issue firearm. It has better terminal ballistics and less over penetration.


Yeah, I've been issued a 10in barrel M4 variant before, but according to this article that would seem to completely negate the effectiveness of the cartridge:



> Shooting the M193 or M855 from a rifle with a barrel length less than 14.5-inches produces insufficient muzzle velocity to achieve the terminal performance described above.


hmmm...

As for the effect being common knowledge since Vietnam and a part of the design, again this article seems to refute that claim:



> (The increased wounding effects produced by bullet fragmentation were not well understood until the mid-1980's. Therefore the wounding effects of the original M16 rifle bullet were not an intentional U.S. military design characteristic.)


Either way, doubt that it is common knowledge with the average GI. I guess the fact that I am not a "gun enthusiast" is why I find this new and interesting.


----------



## mommatook1

Chouan said:


> So the self and family protection element of gun ownership is entirely irrelevant as far as Britain is concerned.


True, folks in the UK just seem to resort to stabbing each other in the absence of guns. Had one up the street this past weekend, and another in the same neighborhood a couple weeks before that, and another in the same neighborhood the month before that. I guess as long as they aren't attacking you with a gun, then you shouldn't be defending yourself with one either. Wait, but you aren't allowed to carry a knife to defend yourself, quite the delimma...

I find it amusing that I've been told if you find you home or flat burgled, when you call the police you should tell them that there are still intruders in the house, regardless if there actually are, because then they are required to send bobbies over to respond to the incident. Otherwise, you will simply be told to go online and fill out a form on the website, and then you may get a response within a few days. Not sure if this is related to recent budget issues or simply the "norm".

I find it troubling that the only self-defense item my wife is legally allowed to carry in her purse is a small alarm that emits a loud noise if it is tripped. That should definitely keep her from getting assaulted in a large city, if the bobbies should for whatever reason not respond in time.


----------



## Chouan

Apatheticviews said:


> If most murders in GB are inter family would that mean that you have a higher domestic violence instance? No, obviously not. It's just a different way of reading something, based on different conditions. I'd hazard to guess that most "murders" around the world fall under the same category.


Sorry, I should have said intra-family. ie within a family. 
I agree, most murders are within a family, in it's loosest sense. That being the case, would having a firearm within that family environment offer any kind of protection? Or would it simply offer an easier method of killing?


----------



## Howard

Bjorn said:


> Isn't the best home defense system a good door?
> 
> Why not get security doors all round and ground floor windows security or an alarm?
> 
> If you have an apartment there really is no reason anyone should ever be able to get into it with a good door. Houses can also be very much improved.
> 
> At absolutely no risk to anyone...
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


They sell alarm systems for when you try to open up a door a sound goes off and that sounds security and takes them to the house that was burgularized.


----------



## hardline_42

Chouan said:


> ...would having a firearm within that family environment offer any kind of protection? Or would it simply offer an easier method of killing?


 Would having a family vehicle make transportation easier? Or would it promote drinking and driving and result in vehicular homicide?

Would having a pool in your backyard be a fun way to spend a summer afternoon with your family? Or would it result in the drowning death of every child within a two-mile radius?

Would having a set of kitchen knives on your counter make it easier to prepare delicious meals? Or would it simply offer an easier way of killing?

Would having a fire extinguisher make it easier to put out a fire? Or would it simply make a handy weapon to beat someone to death with?

If you refuse to see the practical application of any item, firearm or not, because of some emotional hang-up, you start to sound ridiculous.


----------



## Chouan

hardline_42 said:


> Would having a family vehicle make transportation easier? Or would it promote drinking and driving and result in vehicular homicide?
> 
> Would having a pool in your backyard be a fun way to spend a summer afternoon with your family? Or would it result in the drowning death of every child within a two-mile radius?
> 
> Would having a set of kitchen knives on your counter make it easier to prepare delicious meals? Or would it simply offer an easier way of killing?
> 
> Would having a fire extinguisher make it easier to put out a fire? Or would it simply make a handy weapon to beat someone to death with?
> 
> If you refuse to see the practical application of any item, firearm or not, because of some emotional hang-up, you start to sound ridiculous.


I'm not refusing to see the practical application of firearms. What I'm saying is that if most murders in the home (98%+) are carried out within the family, then murders in the home are most unlikely to be carried out by intruders. Therefore, having a firearm to guard against intruders doesn't make much sense. Having a firearm as protection against one's own family wouldn't make much sense either.
If, however, the percentage rate of murders in American homes by intruders is much higher, then the US government and indeed American people should do something about US society and not just arm themselves. Certainly, there must be a serious problem if firearms are needed for protection at home.


----------



## hardline_42

Chouan said:


> I'm not refusing to see the practical application of firearms. What I'm saying is that if most murders in the home (98%+) are carried out within the family, then murders in the home are most unlikely to be carried out by intruders. Therefore, having a firearm to guard against intruders doesn't make much sense. Having a firearm as protection against one's own family wouldn't make much sense either.


Ah, I see. I didn't see a citation for the 98% statistic you mentioned in your post, but I assume that is for Britain? Here in the U.S., the most often quoted "statistic" is that "handguns are 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a criminal," which might lead some to come to the same conclusion you did.

That study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1986 and is rather flawed. Of the 43 deaths reported, 37 (86%) were suicides. Other deaths involved *criminal activity* between the family members (drug deals gone bad, for example). Of the remaining deaths, the deceased family members included felons, drug dealers, violent spouses committing assault and other criminals.

It's interesting to note that Arthur Kellerman, the author of the study, admits that he did "not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm" He also admitted his study did not look at situations in which intruders "purposely avoided a home known to be armed." (_Protection or Peril? An analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home_, Arthur L. Kellerman, D.T. Reay, 314 New Eng. J. Med. 1557-60, June 12, 1986)

The truth is that only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the attacker. This means you are much more likely to prevent a crime without bloodshed than hurt a family member. (_Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America_, Gary Kleck, New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1991)



Chouan said:


> If, however, the percentage rate of murders in American homes by intruders is much higher, then the US government and indeed American people should do something about US society and not just arm themselves. Certainly, there must be a serious problem if firearms are needed for protection at home.


You keep repeating this same line as if "immediate need" were the only justification. Nobody "needs" to wear their seat belt until they get into a car accident. Nobody "needs" health insurance until they get sick, or injured. That's the nature of insurance of any kind. You don't "need" it until you *need* it, and if you don't have it it's already too late.

Americans own guns, no doubt about it. There are an estimated 300 million of them in private hands. However, there is *NO DATA* that supports that the availability of guns causes crime. None. Zip. Zilch.

What does that mean for you? It means that *just because firearms are kept in homes for protection doesn't mean there is a serious crime problem that requires some kind of major socio-economic overhaul in America.*


----------



## blairrob

hardline_42 said:


> Ah, I see. I didn't see a citation for the 98% statistic you mentioned in your post, but I assume that is for Britain? Here in the U.S., the most often quoted "statistic" is that "handguns are 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a criminal," which might lead some to come to the same conclusion you did.
> 
> That study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1986 and is rather flawed. Of the 43 deaths reported, 37 (86%) were suicides.
> 
> Americans own guns, no doubt about it. There are an estimated 300 million of them in private hands. However, *there is NO DATA that supports that the availability of guns causes crime.* None. Zip. Zilch.


Well there is. First, the stats you quote show that their is. Since suicide _is_ considered a crime, and the rate of successful suicides is much higher, in fact up to 25 times higher according to one study, in homes where firearms are stored, the conclusion made by the medical fraternity is that this availability does increase the suicide rate, and ergo, the crime rate.



hardline_42 said:


> What does that mean for you? It means that *just because firearms are kept in homes for protection doesn't mean there is a serious crime problem that requires some kind of major socio-economic overhaul in America.*


That is _exactly_ what it means. The USA has the highest homicide rate in the developed world, 3 times higher than the next country, on the list (Canada) and 5 times the average of the G7. Canada's biggest problem with homicides, according the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, is the increasing availability of guns, the vast majority of which are smuggled in from the US where gun control is much looser. These guns typically fall into the hands of criminals in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. The significant variances between the USA and the rest of these countries _is_ the control of gun sales, and oh, yes, the living standards gap between the upper middle class and the poor. The USA also has the largest and most poverty stricken underclass in the G7, which clearly leads people into crime as a measure to improve their lot. *That* is a socio-economic problem.


----------



## Jovan

I suspect there's a much deeper problem than gun ownership at play.


----------



## hardline_42

blairrob said:


> Well there is. First, the stats you quote show that their is. Since suicide _is_ considered a crime, and the rate of successful suicides is much higher, in fact up to 25 times higher according to one study, in homes where firearms are stored, the conclusion made by the medical fraternity is that this availability does increase the suicide rate, and ergo, the crime rate.


 Suicide (and attempted suicide) is NOT considered a crime in any state in the U.S.



blairrob said:


> That is _exactly_ what it means. The USA has the highest homicide rate in the developed world, 3 times higher than the next country, on the list (Canada) and 5 times the average of the G7. Canada's biggest problem with homicides, according the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, is the increasing availability of guns, the vast majority of which are smuggled in from the US where gun control is much looser. These guns typically fall into the hands of criminals in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. The significant variances between the USA and the rest of these countries _is_ the control of gun sales, and oh, yes, the living standards gap between the upper middle class and the poor. The USA also has the largest and most poverty stricken underclass in the G7, which clearly leads people into crime as a measure to improve their lot. *That* is a socio-economic problem.


Please cite sources.


----------



## blairrob

hardline_42 said:


> Suicide (and attempted suicide) is NOT considered a crime in any state in the U.S.


Interesting. It is many countries, and was in most primarily Catholic countries which often had a legal impact on the deceased's estate.



hardline_42 said:


> Please cite sources.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

sources footnoted at bottom of each page.

As a bonus I will throw in the infant mortality rates showing the US as the worst in the western world, even worse than Cuba. As an aside, in America the African American rate is more than double the Caucasian rate, but I'm sure that's not a socio-economic problem , it's a, it's a, um, what is it again? Bad luck?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate


----------



## hardline_42

blairrob said:


> Interesting. It is many countries, and was in most primarily Catholic countries which often had a legal impact on the deceased's estate.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
> 
> sources footnoted at bottom of each page.
> 
> As a bonus I will throw in the infant mortality rates showing the US as the worst in the western world, even worse than Cuba. As an aside, in America the African American rate is more than double the Caucasian rate, but I'm sure that's not a socio-economic problem , it's a, it's a, um, what is it again? Bad luck?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate


 Interesting. I noticed that many of the Western European countries were calculated "excluding attempts," but the US was not. I wonder what kind of impact that would have on the ranking. And thanks for providing sources. Even Wikipedia is better than "because I think it's obvious."

With regards to the other issues you brought up, I honestly have my opinions but admit I've not done any research on it. I think it's beyond the scope of this thread.


----------



## Apatheticviews

blairrob said:


> Interesting. It is many countries, and was in most primarily Catholic countries which often had a legal impact on the deceased's estate.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
> 
> sources footnoted at bottom of each page.
> 
> As a bonus I will throw in the infant mortality rates showing the US as the worst in the western world, even worse than Cuba. As an aside, in America the African American rate is more than double the Caucasian rate, but I'm sure that's not a socio-economic problem , it's a, it's a, um, what is it again? Bad luck?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate


Actually reading the sources... You see the following phrases:

_"The reliability of underlying *national murder rate data may vary*.[1] The legal definition of "intentional homicide" differs among countries. Intentional homicide may or may not include infanticide, assisted suicide or euthanasia.
Intentional homicide demographics are affected by changes in trauma care, leading to changed lethality of violent assaults, so the intentional homicide rate may not necessarily indicate the overall level of societal violence.[2] They may also be underreported for political reasons.[3][4]
Another problem for the comparability of the following figures is that some data includes attempts and other doesn't. This values may differ highly in some countries."_

If things aren't being measured the same across the board, the you can't really draw conclusions from the data.


----------



## Apatheticviews

blairrob said:


> That is _exactly_ what it means. The USA has the highest homicide rate in the developed world, 3 times higher than the next country, on the list (Canada) and 5 times the average of the G7. Canada's biggest problem with homicides, according the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, is the increasing availability of guns, the vast majority of which are smuggled in from the US where gun control is much looser. These guns typically fall into the hands of criminals in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. The significant variances between the USA and the rest of these countries _is_ the control of gun sales, and oh, yes, the living standards gap between the upper middle class and the poor. The USA also has the largest and most poverty stricken underclass in the G7, which clearly leads people into crime as a measure to improve their lot. *That* is a socio-economic problem.


Actually that is a different problem. That is an Import/Export problem, not a Gun Control problem. Much like the Import/Export problem the US has with Canadian "Pharmaceuticals" coming across the border. What is controlled adequately on our side of the border, according to our laws is a completely different issue when it crosses the border into another country.

If YOUR citizens fail to follow YOUR laws in purchasing restricted items on YOUR soil, whose fault is that? They are not legally allowed to buy them here without being a legal resident. That said, you can't control criminals. Just like we can't control drug runners operators operating on Canadian soil, until they attempt to cross US soil.

It's not guns causing the issue. It's criminals who are willing to violate the law. Whenever you have two borders and one side has a different law than the other, a smart person jumps to the side with the more lenient law. This has been going on for years. It's not going to change anytime in the next 10,000 years.


----------



## blairrob

Apatheticviews said:


> Actually reading the sources... You see the following phrases:
> 
> _"The reliability of underlying *national murder rate data may vary*.[1] The legal definition of "intentional homicide" differs among countries. Intentional homicide may or may not include infanticide, assisted suicide or euthanasia.
> Intentional homicide demographics are affected by changes in trauma care, leading to changed lethality of violent assaults, so the intentional homicide rate may not necessarily indicate the overall level of societal violence.[2] They may also be underreported for political reasons.[3][4]
> Another problem for the comparability of the following figures is that some data includes attempts and other doesn't. This values may differ highly in some countries."_
> 
> If things aren't being measured the same across the board, the you can't really draw conclusions from the data.


Come on Apathetic, you don't seriously believe that the countries (with the exception of Cuba) I have noted misstate their figures or that their 'infanticide' rates, if reported differently, affect the comparatives? I have specifically noted G7 and western countries where 1) trauma care is quite similar, and 2) where assisted suicide was illegal for most of the years data was collected and infanticide an immaterial and therefor irrelevant red herring. If I were to compare the US numbers with Russia, the Sudan, or Chad, you would have a beef. To try to discredit the comparisons I have made is ignoring the reality of the situation in the United States or refutation by obfuscation.



Apatheticviews said:


> Actually that is a different problem. That is an Import/Export problem, not a Gun Control problem.


You're right, it is an import/export problem of guns. Since you are stating that better border security would reduce the inflow of guns into Canada and therefore the availability of same, it seems you are admitting that guns are the problem.



Apatheticviews said:


> If YOUR citizens fail to follow YOUR laws in purchasing restricted items on YOUR soil, whose fault is that? They are not legally allowed to buy them here without being a legal resident. That said, you can't control criminals. Just like we can't control drug runners operators operating on Canadian soil, until they attempt to cross US soil.
> *It's not guns causing the issue*. It's criminals who are willing to violate the law. Whenever you have two borders and one side has a different law than the other, a smart person jumps to the side with the more lenient law. This has been going on for years. It's not going to change anytime in the next 10,000 years.


It clearly is guns causing much of the issue. The proliferation of handguns clearly increases violent crime rates in developed countries as does the increased marginalization of the lowest socio-economic groups.

It is disingenuous or myopic to ignore what are longstanding facts; poverty and guns are a bad mix. As of now I can feel comfortable walking any neighbourhood in Montreal, Toronto, or Vancouver but there are large portions of Boston, Detroit, Buffalo, Portland and Baltimore that scare the crap out of me. Actually, they are portions of Ithaca and Albany I wouldn't walk at night.

I understand much of the American philosophy or rationale towards gun ownership, and to a degree their belief in a managed meritocracy, much as I understand the many (usually older) Canadians and Brits who support the Monarchical traditions of our countries while holding a different view myself. My own worry is that if we don't do better at controlling gun smuggling into Canada and the gap continues to grow between the haves and havenots here I will need to carry for my protection as many feel they must in America, and that is not how _I_ wish to live.

I might add I can't imagine a suit jacket hanging properly with a Smith and Wesson tucked in there.

R. Wallenberg


----------



## Apatheticviews

blairrob said:


> Come on Apathetic, you don't seriously believe that the countries (with the exception of Cuba) I have noted misstate their figures or that their 'infanticide' rates, if reported differently, affect the comparatives? I have specifically noted G7 and western countries where 1) trauma care is quite similar, and 2) where assisted suicide was illegal for most of the years data was collected and infanticide an immaterial and therefor irrelevant red herring. If I were to compare the US numbers with Russia, the Sudan, or Chad, you would have a beef. To try to discredit the comparisons I have made is ignoring the reality of the situation in the United States or refutation by obfuscation.
> 
> You're right, it is an import/export problem of guns. Since you are stating that better border security would reduce the inflow of guns into Canada and therefore the availability of same, it seems you are admitting that guns are the problem.
> 
> It clearly is guns causing much of the issue. The proliferation of handguns clearly increases violent crime rates in developed countries as does the increased marginalization of the lowest socio-economic groups.
> 
> It is disingenuous or myopic to ignore what are longstanding facts; poverty and guns are a bad mix. As of now I can feel comfortable walking any neighbourhood in Montreal, Toronto, or Vancouver but there are large portions of Boston, Detroit, Buffalo, Portland and Baltimore that scare the crap out of me. Actually, they are portions of Ithaca and Albany I wouldn't walk at night.
> 
> I understand much of the American philosophy or rationale towards gun ownership, and to a degree their belief in a managed meritocracy, much as I understand the many (usually older) Canadians and Brits who support the Monarchical traditions of our countries while holding a different view myself. My own worry is that if we don't do better at controlling gun smuggling into Canada and the gap continues to grow between the haves and havenots here I will need to carry for my protection as many feel they must in America, and that is not how _I_ wish to live.
> 
> I might add I can't imagine a suit jacket hanging properly with a Smith and Wesson tucked in there.
> 
> R. Wallenberg


Violent people will use any tool. It doesn't matter if it's a gun or a baseball bat, or a knife. Murders in Britain are most commonly performed with a knife. Accidental deaths in the US are most commonly associated with cars. We don't ban either of those. Why? Because we aren't scared of those two tools.

The US Constitution Framers specifically built in protections against people like the British/Commonwealth Policy makers to prevent them from banning "arms" (guns), because they wanted citizens to be able to arm themselves "if needed." There were disagreements as to "what level" (individual vs militia), but they put our second amendment in place to ensure we always had the Right.

As for a suit jacket hanging right with a gun. Small of the back holster works great. So does several of the Galco line. galcousa.com

Poverty can lead to violence. No doubt. But a violent person will use any tool. Any tool. And a dead person is dead no matter how you killed them. It doesn't matter whether it was a knife, a bat, or a gun. But a baseball bat is $20, knives are commonplace, sticks are free, and most guns are $100-1000. *It's disingenuous to assume to a poor person is going to use an expensive tool over a cheap one to perform the same act.* "Availability" is a funny word. It implies a great many things. I bet you would be a lot harder pressed to actually get a gun than you think.


----------



## Chouan

Apatheticviews said:


> Violent people will use any tool. It doesn't matter if it's a gun or a baseball bat, or a knife. Murders in Britain are most commonly performed with a knife. Accidental deaths in the US are most commonly associated with cars. We don't ban either of those. Why? Because we aren't scared of those two tools.


Murders _*outside of the home*_ are most often committed with a knife. Hence carrying a knife that could be argued is an offensive weapon in the UK is prohibited by law. If caught carrying a concealed weapon there is a serious prison sentence attached. Killing somebody with a knife is automatically classed as murder as it is considered to be pre-meditated. So, knives _*are*_ banned. 
Similarly, killing somebody with a baseball bat, or pickaxe handle, that you were carrying, is also classed as murder. Hence, for carrying a baseball bat in a public area, one can be prosecuted for being in possession of an offensive weapon. Not that many people in Britain would be seen dead with one......

Referring to the in depth conversations about bullet size and gun length (!), surely, if the user was to file away the point of the bullet, or, using a needle file, file a cross onto the bullet tip, the user would get a very good man stopping effect from most ammunition?


----------



## hardline_42

Chouan said:


> Murders _*outside of the home*_ are most often committed with a knife. Hence carrying a knife that could be argued is an offensive weapon in the UK is prohibited by law. If caught carrying a concealed weapon there is a serious prison sentence attached. Killing somebody with a knife is automatically classed as murder as it is considered to be pre-meditated. So, knives _*are*_ banned.
> Similarly, killing somebody with a baseball bat, or pickaxe handle, that you were carrying, is also classed as murder. Hence, for carrying a baseball bat in a public area, one can be prosecuted for being in possession of an offensive weapon. Not that many people in Britain would be seen dead with one......


 Putting the gun debate aside for a moment and speaking out of pure awe and amazement at the differences in our culture, I find this concept to be so...backwards! If you can't carry anything that could be used as a weapon in public, do you just stop using those items? Can you legally walk to your local cricket field with a bat slung over your shoulder? Can you stroll down to your local hardware store with your pickaxe in tow to have it sharpened? How far-reaching do you see this type of legislation being (how many other items that could be used as weapons do you think should be banned)?



Chouan said:


> Referring to the in depth conversations about bullet size and gun length (!), surely, if the user was to file away the point of the bullet, or, using a needle file, file a cross onto the bullet tip, the user would get a very good man stopping effect from most ammunition?


 What you're referring to are commonly called Dum-dum bullets. They, along with all other hollow-point ammunition, are illegal to carry in my state (even the police can't carry them while off-duty, though they're standard issue on-duty).

Hollow-point ammunition is very effective and much safer than round-nose projectiles because they tend to stay in the target and not over penetrate. They're also much less likely to penetrate the soft-body armor worn by police than any other type of ammo.

I would recommend against filing the tips or modifying self-defense ammunition in any way.


----------



## Chouan

hardline_42 said:


> Putting the gun debate aside for a moment and speaking out of pure awe and amazement at the differences in our culture, I find this concept to be so...backwards! If you can't carry anything that could be used as a weapon in public, do you just stop using those items? Can you legally walk to your local cricket field with a bat slung over your shoulder? Can you stroll down to your local hardware store with your pickaxe in tow to have it sharpened? How far-reaching do you see this type of legislation being (how many other items that could be used as weapons do you think should be banned)?


If you are clearly on your way to or from a cricket ground, or park, or field carrying a cricket bat there wouldn't be a problem. However, if you are wandering around a built up area at night with one, the view might be different. Taking your pickaxe to be sharpened is fine, but again, carrying a pick-axe handle under your coat at night would be taken a very dim view of.....
Carrying chisels, crow-bars and hammers in a tool bag at night wouldn't be wise either, as you are "equipped to commit burglary".


----------



## hardline_42

Chouan said:


> If you are clearly on your way to or from a cricket ground, or park, or field carrying a cricket bat there wouldn't be a problem. However, if you are wandering around a built up area at night with one, the view might be different. Taking your pickaxe to be sharpened is fine, but again, carrying a pick-axe handle under your coat at night would be taken a very dim view of.....


Wow. And you guys don't mind living that way?



Chouan said:


> Carrying chisels, crow-bars and hammers in a tool bag at night wouldn't be wise either, as you are "equipped to commit burglary".


I would argue that it should also be illegal for women to be out at night seeing as how, assuming anatomical correctness, they are "equipped to solicit for prostitution." :icon_smile_big:


----------



## blairrob

hardline_42 said:


> Wow. And you guys don't mind living that way?


I won't speak for Chouan, but yes, it is far preferable to your option in my mind. I would rather have the freedom to walk around safely at night unarmed anywhere in my city than the freedom to walk around armed.



hardline_42 said:


> I would argue that it should also be illegal for women to be out at night seeing as how, assuming anatomical correctness, they are "equipped to solicit for prostitution." :icon_smile_big:


We also have a few anatomically _incorrect_ women strolling the sidewalks in our fair city. I assume that means we can now be called a 'modern city'.

FYI, that's a pair of sweet looking Weimaraners you have there.


----------



## Ekphrastic

hardline_42 said:


> ...Dum-dum bullets. They, along with all other hollow-point ammunition, are illegal to carry in my state (even the police can't carry them while off-duty, though they're standard issue on-duty).
> 
> Hollow-point ammunition is very effective and much safer than round-nose projectiles because they tend to stay in the target and not over penetrate. They're also much less likely to penetrate the soft-body armor worn by police than any other type of ammo.
> 
> I would recommend against filing the tips or modifying self-defense ammunition in any way.


Hollowpoints are illegal in New Jersey? I didn't know that--so you can only use, what, FMJ bullets? Wadcutters?


----------



## hardline_42

Ekphrastic said:


> Hollowpoints are illegal in New Jersey? I didn't know that--so you can only use, what, FMJ bullets? Wadcutters?


 Hollowpoint bullets (yes, BULLETS, not just cartridges) are illegal to CARRY in NJ. They're usually used as an add-on charge (IE: breaking and entering, possession of an illegal weapon, possession of hollowpoint ammunition). They're perfectly legal to own and use at the range and in the home. However, if, let's say, a round falls off the table at the range and ends up in your pants cuff (you do have your pant hems cuffed, don't you?) and the wrong person sees it shake out onto the ground somewhere later on, you're in a world of hurt. You probably won't go to jail but you'll spend a pretty penny defending yourself in court.

Personally, I only use FMJ at the range. Using FMJ for self-defense is dangerous and irresponsible. If I go to PA and I chose to carry, I'll take EFMJs (expanding full metal jacket) on the off chance that I might get stopped by a police officer during the 8 minute drive to the bridge. Their legality is somewhat blurry since they still expand, but they aren't hollow points and the average person wouldn't know the difference by looking at them. I try to obey the law at all times unless that law is downright dangerous, as it is in this case.


----------



## hardline_42

blairrob said:


> I won't speak for Chouan, but yes, it is far preferable to your option in my mind. I would rather have the freedom to walk around safely at night unarmed anywhere in my city than the freedom to walk around armed.


 The "freedom to be safe" is an oxymoron. Freedom and safety are two distinct ideas that rarely coexist in nature. In order to increase one, you must diminish the other. The preference for one over the other seems to be at the heart of our differing view points.


----------



## Apatheticviews

hardline_42 said:


> Hollowpoint bullets (yes, BULLETS, not just cartridges) are illegal to CARRY in NJ. They're usually used as an add-on charge (IE: breaking and entering, possession of an illegal weapon, possession of hollowpoint ammunition). They're perfectly legal to own and use at the range and in the home. However, if, let's say, a round falls off the table at the range and ends up in your pants cuff (you do have your pant hems cuffed, don't you?) and the wrong person sees it shake out onto the ground somewhere later on, you're in a world of hurt. You probably won't go to jail but you'll spend a pretty penny defending yourself in court.
> 
> Personally, I only use FMJ at the range. Using FMJ for self-defense is dangerous and irresponsible. If I go to PA and I chose to carry, I'll take EFMJs (expanding full metal jacket) on the off chance that I might get stopped by a police officer during the 8 minute drive to the bridge. Their legality is somewhat blurry since they still expand, but they aren't hollow points and the average person wouldn't know the difference by looking at them. I try to obey the law at all times unless that law is downright dangerous, as it is in this case.


That's one of the reason I like my 45acp. It doesn't have to expand. FMJ is a perfectly valid option. They work. Military has been using them for years. They transfer kinetic energy just fine (knock down), and poke holes in targets (bleeding), meaning they will neutralize nearly any target.

I disagree with the generalization that all FMJ for self defense is irresponsible. It's inaccurate. For smaller calibers like the 9mm, and .38, the statement does often hold true however, as you just start requiring more ammo to perform the same mission.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Chouan said:


> Murders _*outside of the home*_ are most often committed with a knife. Hence carrying a knife that could be argued is an offensive weapon in the UK is prohibited by law. If caught carrying a concealed weapon there is a serious prison sentence attached. Killing somebody with a knife is automatically classed as murder as it is considered to be pre-meditated. So, knives _*are*_ banned.
> Similarly, killing somebody with a baseball bat, or pickaxe handle, that you were carrying, is also classed as murder. Hence, for carrying a baseball bat in a public area, one can be prosecuted for being in possession of an offensive weapon. Not that many people in Britain would be seen dead with one......
> 
> Referring to the in depth conversations about bullet size and gun length (!), surely, if the user was to file away the point of the bullet, or, using a needle file, file a cross onto the bullet tip, the user would get a very good man stopping effect from most ammunition?


I carry a knife daily. A knife is a tool. One of the oldest in existence. Certain classes of knives are generally restricted, but treating a tool as a weapon is a bad assumption.

Just buy hollowpoints. They expand just fine. You can buy them online and we ship them UPS ground to your home address.

Filing a cross doesn't really add "stopping power" but adds fragmentation/expansion, and the potential for kinetic energy transfer. It depends on the round in question. Many hollowpoints are reduced weight from "ball" ammo, but because of expansion result in better energy transfer, hence more stopping power. Below .40S&W, hollowpoints really *are* necessary for transfer because of powder vs bullet weight. Above 40 cal, not so much. The bullet is starting to get in the sub sonic range, and is unlikely to fully penetration the "chest thru back."

Massive damage offers it's own advantage in that it causes body & central nervous system shock, plus blood loss. 5 pints = dead. Target on floor = mobility kill. Unconscious target = neutralized threat. All = win.


----------



## hardline_42

Apathetic, the military uses FMJ because they have to. They're constrained by the Hague Convention to non-expanding ammunition because it's been declared "humane." I don't know of a single non-military agency that issues FMJ ammunition. It's true that the .45ACP (my favorite pistol caliber) has a bigger cross-section than the smaller 9mm and .38, but it's also proportionately heavier, which means more inertia to carry it right on through. Take a look at the wound channel from typical .45 acp ball ammo:








That's 23.6" of penetration with a wound channel only slightly larger than the bullet itself. This would zip right through an attacker in most scenarios.

Now here's the ballistic profile of a .45ACP HP round:








That's only 9.8" of penetration with a larger wound channel and cavity. There's no comparison. The HP presents much less of a threat to innocent bystanders than FMJ.


----------



## blairrob

hardline_42 said:


> The "freedom to be safe" is an oxymoron. Freedom and safety are two distinct ideas that rarely coexist in nature. In order to increase one, you must diminish the other. *The preference for one over the other seems to be at the heart of our differing view points*.


Again, you are correct. Clearly Americans in general are further to the right on this freedom/safety continuum compared to Western Europe and Canada (ignoring the national dialogue each country has) and I find it fascinating how our differing traditions, educational processes, and culture combine into different value systems. We are truly shaped by the environment we are exposed to.


----------



## Chouan

It seems to be true that Americans really don't get irony......


----------



## Chouan

blairrob said:


> Again, you are correct. Clearly Americans in general are further to the right on this freedom/safety continuum compared to Western Europe and Canada (ignoring the national dialogue each country has) and I find it fascinating how our differing traditions, educational processes, and culture combine into different value systems. We are truly shaped by the environment we are exposed to.


We are indeed. Freedom seems to have varying definitions. 
I quite like these expressions:

Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.
Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society. Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law.
Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to all public positions and occupations, according to their abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and talents.
Under British law doing something preparatory to committing a crime is itself classed as a crime, albeit a lesser crime. So, carrying a bag of tools that a burglar would need, in suspicious circumstances, is a crime, which seems reasonable to me. 
Carrying a short bladed, single edged clasp knife in your pocket isn't a crime, as such an item is clearly a tool, not a weapon. However, carrying a double edged blade 6 inches long in a public place is a crime, as it is a weapon, not a tool.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Chouan said:


> We are indeed. Freedom seems to have varying definitions.
> I quite like these expressions:
> 
> Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.
> Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society. Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law.
> Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to all public positions and occupations, according to their abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and talents.
> Under British law doing something preparatory to committing a crime is itself classed as a crime, albeit a lesser crime. So, carrying a bag of tools that a burglar would need, in suspicious circumstances, is a crime, which seems reasonable to me.
> Carrying a short bladed, single edged clasp knife in your pocket isn't a crime, as such an item is clearly a tool, not a weapon. However, carrying a double edged blade 6 inches long in a public place is a crime, as it is a weapon, not a tool.


per 1 US Constitution 2nd Amendment
per 2 US Constitution 2nd Amendment, specifically words "not infringed"

In the US, the People's Rights outweigh "Society's Rights." Society has no rights. You have to show where you are doing actual harm to another. Governmental bodies, Corporations etc merely act on behalf of them, but unless they can show actual harm, the argument falls apart in our eyes. Perceived threat means nothing.

There's an old saying, my ability to swing my arms extends to the end of your nose. As long as my rights don't actively interfere with your rights, you really can't do anything about it. Gun ownership, free speech, etc has stood up on that premise for a law time using that litmus test.

Why does it matter to you, whether I have possession of something? I'm not actively using it against you. I'm not a criminal. I've shown no indication of criminal intent. Frankly it's none of your business as far as the law is concerned. Firearms are no different. The potential to cause harm is just a bad excuse. Motor vehicles cause infinitely more harm every year, yet we don't nearly the call to arms about them. It's because people are scared of what they don't know about.

I do not own a firearm for home defense. I own a firearm for personal defense because my former job made it a good deterrent. I wore it in the open, in the store, because the last thing you want is some knucklehead thinking they can rob a gun store (it does happen occasionally). I am trained with my carry weapon, and I put in lots of range time to ensure I maintain proficiency with it.

I hope I never have to use it, but that doesn't mean I don't like having the option of having it. Firearms are an enjoyable pastime. They take skill to use.


----------



## mommatook1

Chouan said:


> We are indeed. Freedom seems to have varying definitions.
> I quite like these expressions:
> 
> Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.
> Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society. Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law.
> Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to all public positions and occupations, according to their abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and talents.
> Under British law doing something preparatory to committing a crime is itself classed as a crime, albeit a lesser crime. So, carrying a bag of tools that a burglar would need, in suspicious circumstances, is a crime, which seems reasonable to me.
> Carrying a short bladed, single edged clasp knife in your pocket isn't a crime, as such an item is clearly a tool, not a weapon. However, carrying a double edged blade 6 inches long in a public place is a crime, as it is a weapon, not a tool.


I think the key difference here is simple, merely the acceptance of the right of an *individual* to commit a justifiable "crime", which in the context of this discussion means defending oneself. The ability to utilize a gun is irrelevant. Let me take a stab at it (pun intended):

UK - if you injure or kill another person, regardless of the reason, you have committed a "crime". As an individual, you do not have an inherent right to self defence, because in doing so you will being causing another "crime" by injuring or killing another person, regardless if that person has first committed a crime against you. An exception may be made if you are defending yourself in the moment and have not prepared in any way to defend yourself with a weapon. Ultimately, it is left up to the collective state to defend individual citizens against crimes perpetrated by other citizens.

US - if you injure or kill another person, in the presence of immediate criminal intent against your person (definitions vary by state), it is not considered a crime, because individuals do have an inherent right to self defense. Committing a crime (injuring or killing) in response to a grave threat is allowed, and you can prepare yourself with weapon for self defense. Ultimately, it is up to both the collective state *AND* the individual, to defend individual citizens against serious crimes perpetrated by other citizens.

I think I stated somewhere else in this thread, years ago, the Second Amendment isn't really about guns, it's about the right of the individual over the state, and the collective right of individuals to protect their interests and other liberties with force, if needed. While the original framers may have worded it to imply protection of the individual citizen against the state, in practice it also allows for individual citizens to protect themselves against other individual citizens. A concept, which obviously seems counterintuitive to our some of our neighbors, given their absolute definition of "crime".


----------



## Chouan

The words are translations of the 4th, 5th and 6th articles of the "_Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen"_, of 1789_._


----------



## Howard

> I carry a knife daily. A knife is a tool. One of the oldest in existence. Certain classes of knives are generally restricted, but treating a tool as a weapon is a bad assumption.


But why would you carry one,Don't you think you might get caught with it?


----------



## mommatook1

Chouan said:


> The words are translations of the 4th, 5th and 6th articles of the "_Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen"_, of 1789_._


Sorry, meant my earlier post as a general response to the dialogue comparing UK and US systems, and your multiple posts explaining British laws and perceptions, not that individual quote/articles.

However, it is fascinating to look at conceptual similarities in such constitutional documents, or also US Bill of Rights, UK Magna Carta, etc, and yet because they are interpreted across different times, countries, governments, economic conditions, and human populations, still result in somewhat dissimilar laws. The evolution of natural liberty and governance systems will likely continue indefinitely (until the asteroid hits...)


----------



## Chouan

mommatook1 said:


> Sorry, meant my earlier post as a general response to the dialogue comparing UK and US systems, and your multiple posts explaining British laws and perceptions, not that individual quote/articles.
> 
> However, it is fascinating to look at conceptual similarities in such constitutional documents, or also US Bill of Rights, UK Magna Carta, etc, and yet because they are interpreted across different times, countries, governments, economic conditions, and human populations, still result in somewhat dissimilar laws. The evolution of natural liberty and governance systems will likely continue indefinitely (until the asteroid hits...)


It just shows that the ideas of a corset-maker from Thetford influenced both France and the US.....


----------



## Peak and Pine

I've never shot a gun in my life, so a very basic question: does it really go BANG?

When I shout the word "BANG" like real loud ouloud, it doesn't seem to sound anyhing like what I think a gun should sound like. And if you fire it twice and if it really does go BANG, BANG, how necessary is it to follow it up by saying: _you're dead_?


----------



## Jovan

Man, I'm just as liberal as you yet I love shooting guns... and you're in the Maine woods! Something is seriously wrong here.


----------



## Peak and Pine

Mr. J said:


> ...and you're in the Maine woods! Something is seriously wrong here.


My new location name, as you might have noticed, and it's just a name, the location's the same, says: _In the deep, dark scary woods: Maine. Picture it_. It does not ask you to picture people with guns. However, you are allowed to do that. _Picture it_ means picture whatever you want. I was hoping you'd picture me, the de facto face o'Maine on this forum, me, hopefully at night and on my nocturnal rounds delivering lobster meals to the housebound; I am a gentle person. The Deep Dark Scary Woods is a gun-free zone, we shoot only glances here, at each other, fondly, the fishers, the *****, those that scurry about the forest and swamp, you've heard of muskrat love, right? We do not blast their guts all over the meadow.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Howard said:


> But why would you carry one,Don't you think you might get caught with it?


LOL. who would care? It's a pocket knife. 4" blade. 8" overall length. I use it to open boxes & letters.

If I wanted, which I don't, I could tear someone a new one with it as well. It's a TOOL. I carry it as a TOOL. It's primary use is a TOOL. It however can be used as a weapon. Firearms are also a tool. They are just a more specialized tool.

I wear it in my right front pocket with the clip clearly visible when wearing anything below business casual. I treat it much like I do a watch or a mobile phone. It's a tool that I carry daily, and use daily. If I were to brandish it like an idiot, I would expect to be called out on it, but I use it responsibly, and no one has ever batted an eye. Not even a law enforcement professional.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Peak and Pine said:


> I've never shot a gun in my life, so a very basic question: does it really go BANG?
> 
> When I shout the word "BANG" like real loud ouloud, it doesn't seem to sound anyhing like what I think a gun should sound like. And if you fire it twice and if it really does go BANG, BANG, how necessary is it to follow it up by saying: _you're dead_?


Depends on where you are in relation to them.

When bullets are coming toward you they sound a hell of a lot more like CRACK than "bang." Hope you never hear them, it's not a pleasant sound.
When you are shooting them, it's more of an explosion in half a second that makes your ears ring.


----------



## Chouan

Apatheticviews said:


> Depends on where you are in relation to them.
> 
> When bullets are coming toward you they sound a hell of a lot more like CRACK than "bang." Hope you never hear them, it's not a pleasant sound.
> When you are shooting them, it's more of an explosion in half a second that makes your ears ring.


Exactly right, except that in my case there were bangs as well, as they hit the steel bulkhead behind me. I never found out who fired them, but, from the direction they came from, I'd guess Loyalist "Paramilitaries".....


----------



## Apatheticviews

Chouan said:


> Exactly right, except that in my case there were bangs as well, as they hit the steel bulkhead behind me. I never found out who fired them, but, from the direction they came from, I'd guess Loyalist "Paramilitaries".....


Most of my experience with "incoming" was "softer" (relatively) terrain. No steel bulkheads. Lots of stone, gravel, drywall, etc.

Scary things. Not nearly as scary as Grenades, or Artillery though.


----------



## mommatook1

Chouan said:


> It just shows that the ideas of a corset-maker from Thetford influenced both France and the US.....


Yes, but it required colonies full of *armed* citizens to take action to implement and then defend those ideals... hence the 2nd amendment was written to provide a real, existent method by which individual citizens could protect their intangible and idealistic individual rights. It is both a singular liberty, and the method of defending the other liberties. This is why it is written as the right to bears "arms", not firearms, or guns, or muskets, etc etc etc.

Of course, one could also argue the American Revolution and its associated idealism was less an inspiration for the French Revolution than a cause, as France's proxy involvement in the American Revolution pushed the country into bankruptcy. But that's another discussion altogether.


----------



## Chouan

mommatook1 said:


> Yes, but it required colonies full of *armed* citizens to take action to implement and then defend those ideals... hence the 2nd amendment was written to provide a real, existent method by which individual citizens could protect their intangible and idealistic individual rights. It is both a singular liberty, and the method of defending the other liberties. This is why it is written as the right to bears "arms", not firearms, or guns, or muskets, etc etc etc.
> 
> Of course, one could also argue the American Revolution and its associated idealism was less an inspiration for the French Revolution than a cause, as France's proxy involvement in the American Revolution pushed the country into bankruptcy. But that's another discussion altogether.


Particularly their expenditure on their Navy.....


----------



## Chouan

Apatheticviews said:


> Most of my experience with "incoming" was "softer" (relatively) terrain. No steel bulkheads. Lots of stone, gravel, drywall, etc.
> 
> Scary things. Not nearly as scary as Grenades, or Artillery though.


I never had to deal with those, only the threat of anti-tank missiles being fired by helicopters or "Boghammers". Essentially ineffectual to a ship, but effective on the people therein!


----------



## eagle2250

Peak and Pine said:


> My new location name, as you might have noticed, and it's just a name, the location's the same, says: _In the deep, dark scary woods: Maine. Picture it_. It does not ask you to picture people with guns. However, you are allowed to do that. _Picture it_ means picture whatever you want. I was hoping you'd picture me, the de facto face o'Maine on this forum, me, hopefully at night and on my nocturnal rounds delivering lobster meals to the housebound; I am a gentle person. The Deep Dark Scary Woods is a gun-free zone, we shoot only glances here, at each other, fondly, the fishers, the *****, those that scurry about the forest and swamp, you've heard of muskrat love, right? We do not blast their guts all over the meadow.


Peak: You never cease to amaze me....walks in the woods, communing with the critters...muskrats(!). Why, as a teenager, back in Pennsylvania, I used to run a trap line for muskrats; crisp, cold sunrises, a skim of ice along the edge of the water, sucking in clean, fresh mountain air...being paid $3 a pelt...great memories!


----------



## mommatook1

Chouan said:


> Particularly their expenditure on their Navy.....


... which was destined for failure anyways, thanks to Lord Nelson :icon_smile:


----------



## Chouan

mommatook1 said:


> ... which was destined for failure anyways, thanks to Lord Nelson :icon_smile:


Except that the 1780's saw the only time in our joint (modern) History, where the French _*Marine Royale*_ controlled the channel and effectively dominated the Atlantic, which led to the loss of America. 
The French economy couldn't maintain the fleet though, leading to the financial collapse of the monarchy, and the laying up of most of the fleet. Then, as you rightly say, the Navy was able to regain supremacy in the 1790's.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Chouan said:


> I never had to deal with those, only the threat of anti-tank missiles being fired by helicopters or "Boghammers". Essentially ineffectual to a ship, but effective on the people therein!


During my year & a half on ship, I was lucky. USN ships are nye impossible to get close to (unless docked), and have an extreme overkill philosophy regarding anything that tries.

I was with a ground unit, for the most part, which counterintuitively is the safest thing you can be in, since you are the smallest target.


----------



## Chouan

Apatheticviews said:


> During my year & a half on ship, I was lucky. USN ships are nye impossible to get close to (unless docked), and have an extreme overkill philosophy regarding anything that tries.
> 
> I was with a ground unit, for the most part, which counterintuitively is the safest thing you can be in, since you are the smallest target.


Paradoxically, in the instance I referred to, despite being on a ship, I was clearly the target. Coming in to Belfast, I was on the starboard bridge-wing; the only person there, and it was clearly me being shot at. Why? Perhaps the dark uniform made me stand out? Perhaps the "para-military" in question was bored? We were only a few hundred yards away from buildings, some of which were derelict. 
The incident has rather coloured my view on terrorism.......


----------



## Apatheticviews

Chouan said:


> Paradoxically, in the instance I referred to, despite being on a ship, I was clearly the target. Coming in to Belfast, I was on the starboard bridge-wing; the only person there, and it was clearly me being shot at. Why? Perhaps the dark uniform made me stand out? Perhaps the "para-military" in question was bored? We were only a few hundred yards away from buildings, some of which were derelict.
> The incident has rather coloured my view on terrorism.......


I'd take offense at anyone trying to poke holes in me, regardless of their choice of tool, or their reasons behind it. Very seldom have I thought "I probably deserve this."


----------



## Howard

ever notice that every time you read the newspaper there is always an article about someone getting shot or someone shooting some person or a group of people? Whatever happened to gun control and what's with all the crazy blood gore and violence?


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Valid and interesting comments on both sides of the issue. I think of myself as an average American firmly entrenched in the middle class. To clarify my thoughts I would like to start from the premise that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or for that matter that the Constitution as a document, does not exist. 

As a free man who has never committed a crime of any kind I do not need a document or a man to tell me that I have a right to defend my gift of life, period. 

Speaking of basic human rights, I cannot imagine a more inherent human right than an individual being able to defend themselves or their loved ones. 

A gun is the great equalizer. I do not have to fear someone bigger or stronger than myself even when I reach senior citizen status. I have little faith in bureaucracies and I will never be able to trust someone else to protect myself or my family. I will never accept not being able to own a gun to defend myself.

While I respect others' opinions It's difficult for me to relate when someone responds with their opinion on firearms by citing statistics.


----------



## vatoemperor

Howard said:


> ever notice that every time you read the newspaper there is always an article about someone getting shot or someone shooting some person or a group of people? Whatever happened to gun control and what's with all the crazy blood gore and violence?


Funny, when I read the paper, I always read about the 80 million gun owners that didn't shoot anyone.


----------



## Regillus

127.72 MHz said:


> Valid and interesting comments on both sides of the issue. I think of myself as an average American firmly entrenched in the middle class. To clarify my thoughts I would like to start from the premise that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or for that matter that the Constitution as a document, does not exist.


Your premise is invalid. The U.S. Constitution does exist and the every police dept. in your state, and the federal police dept.'s (i.e. F.B.I., U.S. Marshals Service) as well as the National Guard and all five branches of the U.S. military stand behind it and enforce it. It's dangerous to your freedom to think that you can ignore the Constitution - you could get locked up if you carry out some sort of action based on your premise. Like carrying a firearm without a license if your state requires a license-to-carry or having guns in your house and your state requires those guns to be registered and you don't fill out the requisite forms in triplicate. The kind of talk that you're engaging in is all well and good until the police surround your house and say "Come out with your hands up!" What will you do then - tell them that you don't believe in the Constitution?


----------



## Apatheticviews

Regillus said:


> Your premise is invalid. The U.S. Constitution does exist and the every police dept. in your state, and the federal police dept.'s (i.e. F.B.I., U.S. Marshals Service) as well as the National Guard and all five branches of the U.S. military stand behind it and enforce it. It's dangerous to your freedom to think that you can ignore the Constitution - you could get locked up if you carry out some sort of action based on your premise. Like carrying a firearm without a license if your state requires a license-to-carry or having guns in your house and your state requires those guns to be registered and you don't fill out the requisite forms in triplicate. The kind of talk that you're engaging in is all well and good until the police surround your house and say "Come out with your hands up!" What will you do then - tell them that you don't believe in the Constitution?


I think what he is saying is that the Constitution *ensures* our rights not *grants* rights.There's a world of difference.


----------



## Howard

vatoemperor said:


> Funny, when I read the paper, I always read about the 80 million gun owners that didn't shoot anyone.


because they had blank bullets I suppose.


----------



## JohnRov

Howard said:


> because they had blank bullets I suppose.


Why do you continually post in this thread without adding anything of value? I assume you don't drink alcohol or support its legality because of all the drunks that kill people each year. And the same for driving and owning a car since there are so many deaths caused by irresponsible operation. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on those.


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Regillus said:


> Your premise is invalid. The U.S. Constitution does exist and the every police dept. in your state, and the federal police dept.'s (i.e. F.B.I., U.S. Marshals Service) as well as the National Guard and all five branches of the U.S. military stand behind it and enforce it. It's dangerous to your freedom to think that you can ignore the Constitution - you could get locked up if you carry out some sort of action based on your premise. Like carrying a firearm without a license if your state requires a license-to-carry or having guns in your house and your state requires those guns to be registered and you don't fill out the requisite forms in triplicate. The kind of talk that you're engaging in is all well and good until the police surround your house and say "Come out with your hands up!" What will you do then - tell them that you don't believe in the Constitution?


You've taken my comments way out of context. Where did I mention that I intend to "ignore the Constitution." (?) I simply illustrated that my feelings on firearm onwership were not formed from a legal premise based on the U.S. Constitution. *You* took that comment and ran with it, I can only assume, attempting to pro tray me as anti-government.

Just because you live in a state with some of the most restrictive guns laws in the U.S. doesn't mean all of us do.

Also,* I never said* I intend to "carry out some sort of action." *

If you intend to reply to this please show, anywhere in my post, where I said I intend to "carry out some sort of action." *You will not show that I have said this because I did not. *YOU DID.*

I have never had anything other than a posttive encounter with the police and I made no implication that I am anything other than a law abiding citizen.* YOU DID.*

Perhaps you're incapable of critical thought? (Rhetorical question)

I would go on to ask you if your Mother, elderly Father, or your wife were attacked, in a parking lot in the Commonwealth of your great state of Massachusetts, do you think you have a right to make an attempt to defend them? (with your fists, a stick, your keyring, or anything at your disposal) You will not reply *directly* to the question because *anyone* from anywhere on the face of the earth would make an attempt to render assistance to a love one who's being attacked. * (Perhaps you would call the police and wait around for them to come while your loved one was robbed, beaten, or God forbid, worse)*

But, based on your ramblings, I feel confident that you would not reply to my questions directly. You'd regress into a rant attempting to portray me as some sort of anti-government right winger.


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Howard said:


> because they had blank bullets I suppose.


This is really clever stuff Howard,....


----------



## Jovan

JohnRov said:


> Why do you continually post in this thread without adding anything of value? I assume you don't drink alcohol or support its legality because of all the drunks that kill people each year. And the same for driving and owning a car since there are so many deaths caused by irresponsible operation. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on those.


 Well stated.


----------



## hardline_42

JohnRov said:


> Why do you continually post in this thread without adding anything of value? I assume you don't drink alcohol or support its legality because of all the drunks that kill people each year. And the same for driving and owning a car since there are so many deaths caused by irresponsible operation. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on those.


 Umm, not to be a nuisance, but I think it's highly possible that Howard actually doesn't do either of those things, though probably not for the reasons you mentioned. He gets a free pass.


----------



## JohnRov

hardline_42 said:


> Umm, not to be a nuisance, but I think it's highly possible that Howard actually doesn't do either of those things, though probably not for the reasons you mentioned. He gets a free pass.


It is possible he doesn't, as you stated, but does he contest their utility because of those who cannot handle the responsibility or does he simple not need/like them? My main contention is that it is possible to have a reasonable discourse on the matter between people who disagree, Howard's comments in this thread serve as nothing more than snarky remarks to stir the pot that don't contribute anything of substance to the dialogue.


----------



## Regillus

127.72 MHz said:


> You've taken my comments way out of context. Where did I mention that I intend to "ignore the Constitution." (?) I simply illustrated that my feelings on firearm onwership were not formed from a legal premise based on the U.S. Constitution. *You* took that comment and ran with it, I can only assume, attempting to pro tray me as anti-government.
> 
> Just because you live in a state with some of the most restrictive guns laws in the U.S. doesn't mean all of us do.
> 
> Also,* I never said* I intend to "carry out some sort of action." *
> 
> If you intend to reply to this please show, anywhere in my post, where I said I intend to "carry out some sort of action." *You will not show that I have said this because I did not. *YOU DID.*
> 
> I have never had anything other than a posttive encounter with the police and I made no implication that I am anything other than a law abiding citizen.* YOU DID.*
> 
> Perhaps you're incapable of critical thought? (Rhetorical question)
> 
> I would go on to ask you if your Mother, elderly Father, or your wife were attacked, in a parking lot in the Commonwealth of your great state of Massachusetts, do you think you have a right to make an attempt to defend them? (with your fists, a stick, your keyring, or anything at your disposal) You will not reply *directly* to the question because *anyone* from anywhere on the face of the earth would make an attempt to render assistance to a love one who's being attacked. * (Perhaps you would call the police and wait around for them to come while your loved one was robbed, beaten, or God forbid, worse)*
> 
> But, based on your ramblings, I feel confident that you would not reply to my questions directly. You'd regress into a rant attempting to portray me as some sort of anti-government right winger.


 You clearly stated that you wanted to "start from the premise...that the Constitution as a document, does NOT EXIST." This is a patently nonsensical statement. The Constitution most certainly exists and is sometimes available for public viewing at the National Archives in D.C. Anyone can see it for themselves. So in stating that the Constitution "does not exist," you are ignoring the plain evidence that; over the decades that the Constitution has been on display; hundreds of thousands of people have seen it.
"I simply illustrated that my feelings on firearm [ownership] were not formed from a legal premise based on the U.S. Constitution." So then is your legal premise based on natural law? If yes it would have helped to point that out so that the standpoint from which you were arguing was more clear.
Yes it's true that Mass. has very restrictive gun laws - which I'm not in favor of, by the way. I'm a firm believer in the right to carry for citizens with no felony conviction.
"...I never said I intend to 'carry out some sort of action.'" I said "IF you carry out...." I didn't say that you INTENDED to do anything.
"Perhaps you're incapable of critical thought?" With three college degrees (B.S., A.A., & A.S.) and a paralegal certificate I'm quite capable of critical thought. I'm sure I've taken more math classes and written more term papers than you have.
"I would go on to ask you if your Mother, elderly Father, or your wife were attacked, in a parking lot in the Commonwealth of your great state of Massachusetts, do you think you have a right to make an attempt to defend them? (with your fists, a stick, your keyring, or anything at your disposal) You will not reply directly to the question...." Now you're being foolish. Of course I'd defend them, and I have the right to do it. I wouldn't just attempt to do it - I'd do it. That was why I took karate from age 16 to 18 - made green belt and was nearly due to be promoted to purple belt.
"I feel confident that you would not reply to my questions directly." Your confidence is unfounded. And why, pray tell, wouldn't I reply to your questions?
"...[A]ttempting to portray me as some sort of anti-government right winger." Our government is a government of laws. These laws are written down so that all people can see them and understand their meaning. There are large libraries (ever been to one of the Harvard Law School libraries?) filled with endless tomes of statute laws, case laws, case transcripts etc. The moment you said that the Constitution doesn't exist you showed yourself to be anti-government.

Re Post #492: "Umm, not to be a nuisance, but I think it's highly possible that Howard actually doesn't do either of those things, though probably not for the reasons you mentioned. He gets a free pass."

Second.


----------



## Howard

JohnRov said:


> Why do you continually post in this thread without adding anything of value? I assume you don't drink alcohol or support its legality because of all the drunks that kill people each year. And the same for driving and owning a car since there are so many deaths caused by irresponsible operation. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on those.


I don't drink (only on occasions) and I don't smoke and I've been taken public transportation for about 26 years.


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Okay Mr. AA, AS. and BS Degree, (with a paralegal certificate!) And you're "Sure" you've taken more math classes and written more term papers than I have. You're sure eh? You don't even need to state the fact that you're a fairly young man. It's a big world junior and you might feel as though you've arrived with your AA. AS. and BS degrees but keep in mind that many people, especially in the scientific arena, consider your degrees a *start *in their careers.

You know, you've changed my whole way of thinking. You've wowed me with your intellect. You're correct on all of your points.



Regillus said:


> You clearly stated that you wanted to "start from the premise...that the Constitution as a document, does NOT EXIST." This is a patently nonsensical statement. The Constitution most certainly exists and is sometimes available for public viewing at the National Archives in D.C. Anyone can see it for themselves. So in stating that the Constitution "does not exist," you are ignoring the plain evidence that; over the decades that the Constitution has been on display; hundreds of thousands of people have seen it.
> "I simply illustrated that my feelings on firearm [ownership] were not formed from a legal premise based on the U.S. Constitution." So then is your legal premise based on natural law? If yes it would have helped to point that out so that the standpoint from which you were arguing was more clear.
> Yes it's true that Mass. has very restrictive gun laws - which I'm not in favor of, by the way. I'm a firm believer in the right to carry for citizens with no felony conviction.
> "...I never said I intend to 'carry out some sort of action.'" I said "IF you carry out...." I didn't say that you INTENDED to do anything.
> "Perhaps you're incapable of critical thought?" With three college degrees (B.S., A.A., & A.S.) and a paralegal certificate I'm quite capable of critical thought. I'm sure I've taken more math classes and written more term papers than you have.
> "I would go on to ask you if your Mother, elderly Father, or your wife were attacked, in a parking lot in the Commonwealth of your great state of Massachusetts, do you think you have a right to make an attempt to defend them? (with your fists, a stick, your keyring, or anything at your disposal) You will not reply directly to the question...." Now you're being foolish. Of course I'd defend them, and I have the right to do it. I wouldn't just attempt to do it - I'd do it. That was why I took karate from age 16 to 18 - made green belt and was nearly due to be promoted to purple belt.
> "I feel confident that you would not reply to my questions directly." Your confidence is unfounded. And why, pray tell, wouldn't I reply to your questions?
> "...[A]ttempting to portray me as some sort of anti-government right winger." Our government is a government of laws. These laws are written down so that all people can see them and understand their meaning. There are large libraries (ever been to one of the Harvard Law School libraries?) filled with endless tomes of statute laws, case laws, case transcripts etc. The moment you said that the Constitution doesn't exist you showed yourself to be anti-government.
> 
> Re Post #492: "Umm, not to be a nuisance, but I think it's highly possible that Howard actually doesn't do either of those things, though probably not for the reasons you mentioned. He gets a free pass."
> 
> Second.


----------



## Regillus

Re Post #496: "You don't even need to state the fact that you're a fairly young man."

You don't know what you're talking about. I'm not that young; I'm 53. You continue to make assumptions that are wrong while presuming to know things that you don't know.

"It's a big world junior...."

You're making an ad hominem attack: The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made). Don't patronize me. Address my arguments; not me.

"You know, you've changed my whole way of thinking."

Sarcasm or no?

"You're correct on all of your points."

Thank you. Long hours researching in the college library does improve your critical reasoning.

I'm curious, 127.72 MHz: Do you have a college degree? BTW: How's your Browning 1956 12ga. superposed doing?


----------



## Jovan

"A place for ladies and gentlemen to sit back in a plush leather club chair, with drink and cigar in hand and pleasantly discuss the great issues of the day that are not about clothes."

Shame that this is rarely the case.


----------



## Bjorn

While you may not be able to state with certainty that the number of guns in a society actually account for the number of people being killed (rather the state of mind of the killers, their socio economic background, the general acceptance of violence in the society etc ad infinitum), do you feel that you can evaluate the US rules on gun control (for example licensing rules) and the right to bear arms and conclude that they are fulfilling the basic demands that people have of a state, namely to protect the population from violence, war and civil unrest?

It seems the rules are currently interpreted as being written and construed to protect groups of civilians from armed oppression from their own government (something that is very hard to do), since crime prevention is mainly carried out (effectively) by organised state or federal police. 

There seems to be an enormous amount of energy spent on keeping regulation on guns static, to remain 'true' to constitutional texts written a very long time ago. However, maintaining the rules static does not mean that the world remains the same. Sometimes, American jurisprudence seem to have a tendency (not shared by the British) to cement what is old and proven. American contractual texts for example read a lot more old school than British. Is this a problem, do you think?


----------



## JohnRov

Bjorn said:


> It seems the rules are currently interpreted as being written and construed to protect groups of civilians from armed oppression from their own government (something that is very hard to do), since crime prevention is mainly carried out (effectively) by organised state or federal police.


In the US? Not so. The Heller decision cemented the interpretation that the right to bear arms is an individual right, and while it has utility in the scenario you state, it is not in any way limited to those circumstances.



Bjorn said:


> There seems to be an enormous amount of energy spent on keeping regulation on guns static, to remain 'true' to constitutional texts written a very long time ago. However, maintaining the rules static does not mean that the world remains the same. Sometimes, American jurisprudence seem to have a tendency (not shared by the British) to cement what is old and proven. American contractual texts for example read a lot more old school than British. Is this a problem, do you think?


I'm not a lawyer, but US firearms laws have evolved plenty to change with society.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Bjorn said:


> It seems the rules are currently interpreted as being written and construed to protect groups of civilians from armed oppression from their own government (something that is very hard to do), since crime prevention is mainly carried out (effectively) by organised state or federal police.


Police do not carry out "Crime Prevention." At most they can be considered a "deterrent" but in reality they are a "reactionary" force, in that they are involved after a crime has been committed. It is a common fallacy to think of them as anything existing in "real time." Police do not guard our streets, like some sentry on post. They actually investigate crimes which have already occurred, hoping to remove those who are most likely commit crimes (criminals).

It is through this action that crime prevention occurs. Remove repeat offenders, and overall crime rate drops.


----------



## Apatheticviews

JohnRov said:


> I'm not a lawyer, but US firearms laws have evolved plenty to change with society.


There's hundreds of firearms laws on the books, as highlighted by your statement.

They vary from manufacturing (safety) to purchasing (1 a month laws, or 10 day cool-down periods), to registrations, depending on locale. There's also the ever famous "add-on" laws, such as "commission of a felony while in possession of a firearm."

The major issues that come into play is when a specific jurisdiction states you are not allowed to OWN a specific "class" (Pistol and Revolver aka Handgun, or Shotgun or Rifle aka Long-gun), such as within DC or Chicago.


----------



## Bjorn

Apatheticviews said:


> Police do not carry out "Crime Prevention." At most they can be considered a "deterrent" but in reality they are a "reactionary" force, in that they are involved after a crime has been committed. It is a common fallacy to think of them as anything existing in "real time." Police do not guard our streets, like some sentry on post. They actually investigate crimes which have already occurred, hoping to remove those who are most likely commit crimes (criminals).
> 
> It is through this action that crime prevention occurs. Remove repeat offenders, and overall crime rate drops.


I don't think that's really true. For example hot spot mapping. (https://www.cops.usdoj.gov/files/RIC/Publications/e040825133-web.pdf)

Your view comes from the idea that people really need to take care of themselves, defend themselves against crime, and thus need to be armed.

Any efficient government agency dealing with compliance does preventive work.


----------



## Bjorn

Apatheticviews said:


> There's hundreds of firearms laws on the books, as highlighted by your statement.
> 
> They vary from manufacturing (safety) to purchasing (1 a month laws, or 10 day cool-down periods), to registrations, depending on locale. There's also the ever famous "add-on" laws, such as "commission of a felony while in possession of a firearm."
> 
> The major issues that come into play is when a specific jurisdiction states you are not allowed to OWN a specific "class" (Pistol and Revolver aka Handgun, or Shotgun or Rifle aka Long-gun), such as within DC or Chicago.


But still, in 2011, you do not even have a federal registry of all legally sold firearms, right?

There is also (as I understand it) no harmonisation of requirements for purchasing firearms within the US, which (being one country with a federal government) is kind of remarkable.

Are these things that really need to be defended from a libertarian point of view? Unless the federal government is to be considered a threat in itself, why enable people to own firearms without strict control measures?


----------



## JohnRov

Bjorn said:


> But still, in 2011, you do not even have a federal registry of all legally sold firearms, right?
> 
> There is also (as I understand it) no harmonisation of requirements for purchasing firearms within the US, which (being one country with a federal government) is kind of remarkable.
> 
> Are these things that really need to be defended from a libertarian point of view? Unless the federal government is to be considered a threat in itself, why enable people to own firearms without strict control measures?


Why does the government need a list of people who legally own something and have done nothing wrong...? The lack of a federal registry is not an example of not keeping up with the times, but an example of the valuation of privacy and not being singled out and tracked for exercising a right expressly prohibited from being infringed by the foundation of our country, the Constitution.

And, there is a baseline requirement for purchase of firearms in the US. If you buy any new firearm or used handgun, you MUST be cleared through a national instant check system. Period. States have some differing laws on top of this but nationally there is a harmonized baseline.


----------



## JohnRov

Bjorn said:


> I don't think that's really true. For example hot spot mapping. (https://www.cops.usdoj.gov/files/RIC/Publications/e040825133-web.pdf)
> 
> Your view comes from the idea that people really need to take care of themselves, defend themselves against crime, and thus need to be armed.
> 
> Any efficient government agency dealing with compliance does preventive work.


Several cases have established that police do not in fact have an obligation to protect citizens. They can, but they are not obligated to.


----------



## Regillus

Bjorn said:


> Unless the federal government is to be considered a threat [IN ITSELF],....


Precisely the point. This is a country founded by the violent overthrow of the sitting government. We the people considered the government to be so bad that the only solution was to abolish it by force - it's called the Revolutionary War.
Moreover, let's not forget the issues raised by the Sedition Act of 1918(1). Eugene V. Debs and others were imprisoned for violating this law. A law that was later repealed by Congress and would unlikely be supported by the U.S. Supreme Court today(2). The issue being this: Since the Sedition Act was unconstitutional; would Eugene V. Debs et al have been justified in using armed and deadly force against the federal government to resist being imprisoned after conviction?

Re Post #506: "Several cases have established that police do not in fact have an obligation to protect citizens. They can, but they are not obligated to."

Precisely. It's not the job of the police to act as any individual's personal bodyguard unless specifically ordered to do so. You have to defend YOURSELF from attack. The police only show up after you're dead and try to catch the person who killed you - see Kitty Genovese. That's why I'm in favor of right-to-carry laws, so that the old, infirm, and women (i.e. Kitty Genovese) can defend their most precious possession; their LIVES.

(1) Wikipedia, "Sedition Act of 1918." Though the legislation enacted in 1918 is commonly called the Sedition Act, it was actually a set of amendments to the Espionage Act of 1917.
(2) Wikipedia, Ibid. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Sedition Act in Abrams v. United States (1919), but subsequent Supreme Court decisions, such as Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, make it unlikely that similar legislation would be considered constitutional today.
Congress repealed the Sedition Act on December 13, 1920.


----------



## Bjorn

JohnRov said:


> Why does the government need a list of people who legally own something and have done nothing wrong...? The lack of a federal registry is not an example of not keeping up with the times, but an example of the valuation of privacy and not being singled out and tracked for exercising a right expressly prohibited from being infringed by the foundation of our country, the Constitution.
> 
> And, there is a baseline requirement for purchase of firearms in the US. If you buy any new firearm or used handgun, you MUST be cleared through a national instant check system. Period. States have some differing laws on top of this but nationally there is a harmonized baseline.


A federal registry offers huge possibilities for law enforcement to work proactively with prevention. Also, it would make it easier to solve crime.

Tracking does not constitute an infringement, does it?

The constitution protects the right to bear arms, but does it have anything to say about registration being illegal?


----------



## Bjorn

JohnRov said:


> Several cases have established that police do not in fact have an obligation to protect citizens. They can, but they are not obligated to.


That doesn't really describe how they work though, does it? All police focus heavily on prevention. The legal obligation doesn't come into it, the police themselves (and current research) have determined that it's the most effective approach.


----------



## Bjorn

Regillus said:


> Precisely the point. This is a country founded by the violent overthrow of the sitting government. We the people considered the government to be so bad that the only solution was to abolish it by force - it's called the Revolutionary War.
> Moreover, let's not forget the issues raised by the Sedition Act of 1918(1). Eugene V. Debs and others were imprisoned for violating this law. A law that was later repealed by Congress and would unlikely be supported by the U.S. Supreme Court today(2). The issue being this: Since the Sedition Act was unconstitutional; would Eugene V. Debs et al have been justified in using armed and deadly force against the federal government to resist being imprisoned after conviction?
> 
> Re Post #506: "Several cases have established that police do not in fact have an obligation to protect citizens. They can, but they are not obligated to."
> 
> Precisely. It's not the job of the police to act as any individual's personal bodyguard unless specifically ordered to do so. You have to defend YOURSELF from attack. The police only show up after you're dead and try to catch the person who killed you - see Kitty Genovese. That's why I'm in favor of right-to-carry laws, so that the old, infirm, and women (i.e. Kitty Genovese) can defend their most precious possession; their LIVES.
> 
> (1) Wikipedia, "Sedition Act of 1918." Though the legislation enacted in 1918 is commonly called the Sedition Act, it was actually a set of amendments to the Espionage Act of 1917.
> (2) Wikipedia, Ibid. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Sedition Act in Abrams v. United States (1919), but subsequent Supreme Court decisions, such as Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, make it unlikely that similar legislation would be considered constitutional today.
> Congress repealed the Sedition Act on December 13, 1920.


It is in fact the job of the police to protect the public. They are also increasingly able to do so.

Would Eugene et al have been justified? No, what you are entitled to is your day in court.

These are seemingly just things that are brought up to defend a sentiment that guns need to be available. You select your government democratically. To remove that government by force would be illegal and, I'm guessing, unconstitutional. Since the constitution of any given country states the form for creating the government.


----------



## JohnRov

Bjorn said:


> That doesn't really describe how they work though, does it? All police focus heavily on prevention. The legal obligation doesn't come into it, the police themselves (and current research) have determined that it's the most effective approach.


It actually does. They can't be everywhere all the time even if they were obligated to prevent crime.


----------



## JohnRov

Bjorn said:


> A federal registry offers huge possibilities for law enforcement to work proactively with prevention. Also, it would make it easier to solve crime.
> 
> Tracking does not constitute an infringement, does it?
> 
> The constitution protects the right to bear arms, but does it have anything to say about registration being illegal?


You see, this is probably where we differ, I value my privacy more than the convenience of tracking down criminals. Perhaps they could just sample all of our DNA when we are born, then it would be much easier to solve crimes. Sounds far fetched but it's not really outside the bounds of your assertion.


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Regillus said:


> Re Post #496: "You don't even need to state the fact that you're a fairly young man."
> 
> You don't know what you're talking about. I'm not that young; I'm 53. You continue to make assumptions that are wrong while presuming to know things that you don't know.
> 
> "It's a big world junior...."
> 
> You're making an ad hominem attack: The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made). Don't patronize me. Address my arguments; not me.
> 
> "You know, you've changed my whole way of thinking."
> 
> Sarcasm or no?
> 
> "You're correct on all of your points."
> 
> Thank you. Long hours researching in the college library does improve your critical reasoning.
> 
> I'm curious, 127.72 MHz: Do you have a college degree? BTW: How's your Browning 1956 12ga. superposed doing?


Long hours researching in the college library? Do I have *a* college degree? And my Browning Superposed? (what does the Superposed have to do with?) Oh I get it, you're able to do a web search and find out who I am. (you Wiley son of a gun!) Now you know that in my field it's assumed you hold a Baccalaureate degree to get in the door. And to list a two year degree, that would just make you look like, well, like you do.

And you, Mr. paralegal certificate are going to be the judge of critical thought? You would have had an excuse for the immature behavior if you were 28 but at 53, you're just a Wennie, plain and simple.

*You no longer even wish to discuss the topic of the thread*,...But with a fellow who holds AA, AS, and a BS degree, (with a Paralegal certificate) you have got quite an impressive C.V.. And that's not to mention all those term papers you've written,...And all the long hours in the college library, researching. Ad nauseam.

No names, but two individual members who have sent personal messages suggesting that I list a few facts about myself. (I guess to illustrate who foolish to look) You're doing great all by yourself.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Bjorn said:


> A federal registry offers huge possibilities for law enforcement to work proactively with prevention. Also, it would make it easier to solve crime.
> 
> Tracking does not constitute an infringement, does it?
> 
> The constitution protects the right to bear arms, but does it have anything to say about registration being illegal?


The US government (specifically the justice department) is prohibited from collecting data on its citizens except under specific certain circumstances (like criminal investigations).

The registry offers little for "proactive" prevention in that LAW ABIDING CITIZENS BUY GUNS LEGALLY. CRIMINALS DON'T.

Even if they were to institute a registry now, you would be talking about a conservative 100 million firearms that would not be on said registry. 100 MILLION.

But, we don't have a national car registry (we do have state car registries which are linked), and that hasn't stopped people from speeding.

The Federal government does register some firearms (NFA), but for the most part, leaves registration to the state/local level if desired.


----------



## Regillus

Re Post #513: "Now you know that in my field it's assumed you hold a Baccalaureate degree to get in the door."

And what field are you in and what B.S. or B.A. degree do you hold? Just asking.

There you go again (c.f. Ronald Reagan). You can't support your premise (see Post #483) that the Constitution doesn't exist so you resort to ad hominem attacks instead. Doing that doesn't help your argument - it tears it down.

Re Post #514: "The registry offers little for "proactive" prevention in that LAW ABIDING CITIZENS BUY GUNS LEGALLY. CRIMINALS DON'T."

Exactly. Criminals have always bought their guns on the black market. They wouldn't go into a store and fill out paperwork using their real names and addresses. My long-standing complaint about both state and federal gov't is that they don't do enough enforcement of the gun laws they ALREADY HAVE. This "Operation Fast & Furious" is a perfect example of that. Tracking the guns was ok, but after the tracking was over and done with did ATF ARREST any straw purchasers or anyone. No. What are we paying these people for?


----------



## 127.72 MHz

So Regillus you ask the questions, as some want to be Attorney, in an attempt to turn most everything you post into a legal issue.

You're not "Just asking" about my education. You've been shown for the *blow hard* you are by *YOU *listing your AA, AS, and BS degree, (let's not forget that Paralegal certificate!) As well as all those term papers you've written,.....

I have received two personal e-mail messages, one of which said ROTFLMAO, (in reference to you going through your litany of academic excellence) The other one went on to call you a "Loser." (I could not agree more)

*Do you recognize how ignorant and foolish that makes you look?* Do you? (I admit mistaking you for a young man because I assumed that no one could be so daft as to list their education, Associate degrees and all for Pete's sake, in an attempt to sway an argument) It makes you look foolish because you are foolish,...

I *NEVER* said that the Constitution did not exist, *You took my comment completely out of context*. (I can only assume because you long to practice law but lack a license, so you practice law on the internet to impress yourself!)

My comment, that* you* pulled out of context, simply said that *my thoughts*, on firearm ownership were *formed* without being based in a legal context. But you can't conceptualize anything beyond your uni-dimensional pea brain. I'd ask to confirm that you understand but there's no doubt that you don't understand this anymore than you understand that listing your educational background to bolster your opinion only confirms that you're a schmuck.

What a position to be in. You don't list you own position concisely, you salt others' comments with out of context quips, pepper everything you write with outright bologna, (citing legal and historical precedence that may or may not apply) and serve it all up as you being the pseudo-intellectual you are.

You're an idiot and you get no more replies.


----------



## Chouan

Apatheticviews said:


> Police do not carry out "Crime Prevention." At most they can be considered a "deterrent" but in reality they are a "reactionary" force, in that they are involved after a crime has been committed. It is a common fallacy to think of them as anything existing in "real time." Police do not guard our streets, like some sentry on post. They actually investigate crimes which have already occurred, hoping to remove those who are most likely commit crimes (criminals).
> 
> It is through this action that crime prevention occurs. Remove repeat offenders, and overall crime rate drops.


In Britain an important role of the Police is crime prevention, that even have specially designated crime prevention teams whose role it is to predict the circumstances that may lead to crime. If you run a business, for example, you can request that the Crime Prevention Officer visit your premises to check it's security and offer advice. The police do indeed patrol the streets; in Britain it is known as being "on the beat", and is seen as a necessary part of their role, even if it is believed that they aren't "on the beat" as much as they should be. Being seen on patrol is also part of their role as preventing crime.


----------



## Bjorn

Apatheticviews said:


> The US government (specifically the justice department) is prohibited from collecting data on its citizens except under specific certain circumstances (like criminal investigations).
> 
> The registry offers little for "proactive" prevention in that LAW ABIDING CITIZENS BUY GUNS LEGALLY. CRIMINALS DON'T.
> 
> Even if they were to institute a registry now, you would be talking about a conservative 100 million firearms that would not be on said registry. 100 MILLION.
> 
> But, we don't have a national car registry (we do have state car registries which are linked), and that hasn't stopped people from speeding.
> 
> The Federal government does register some firearms (NFA), but for the most part, leaves registration to the state/local level if desired.


This would then be one of the specific circumstances... I take it that would be constitutionally ok.

Your statement that there is 100 million illegal firearms in the US doesn't really help your argument that current legislation is working well IMO.

Those 100 million guns must have come from somewhere, I'm guessing sold legally and then illegally (?). Or is 100 million the currently legally owned firearms?

If you track the weapons, that offers possibilities for blocking illegal gun sales. As I understand it, illegal guns rarely have a long lifespan (bad maintenance). Limiting the guns entering the illegal market seems dependent on tracking the guns in the legal market. Registration would be mandatory for all guns, not just bought after the legislation came into effect.

If sales of ammo and parts where also tracked, that could offer possibilities for law enforcement as well. Ammo should not be readily available without a registered gun ownership.

Why can't the people who want to own guns be registered and have an obligation to produce that gun if asked, and an obligation too keep it safe from theft? Put a microchip in every gun with an identity code.

The national car registry is of immense value to law enforcement.


----------



## thunderw21

This is what happens when your are defenseless:








https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...mingham-people-forced-strip-naked-street.html

Who needs guns in the UK? Nothing bad happens there...

Looks like those folks over in the UK wish they could defend themselves against the rioters.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Bjorn said:


> This would then be one of the specific circumstances... I take it that would be constitutionally ok.
> 
> Your statement that there is 100 million illegal firearms in the US doesn't really help your argument that current legislation is working well IMO.
> 
> Those 100 million guns must have come from somewhere, I'm guessing sold legally and then illegally (?). Or is 100 million the currently legally owned firearms?
> 
> If you track the weapons, that offers possibilities for blocking illegal gun sales. As I understand it, illegal guns rarely have a long lifespan (bad maintenance). Limiting the guns entering the illegal market seems dependent on tracking the guns in the legal market. Registration would be mandatory for all guns, not just bought after the legislation came into effect.
> 
> If sales of ammo and parts where also tracked, that could offer possibilities for law enforcement as well. Ammo should not be readily available without a registered gun ownership.
> 
> Why can't the people who want to own guns be registered and have an obligation to produce that gun if asked, and an obligation too keep it safe from theft? Put a microchip in every gun with an identity code.
> 
> The national car registry is of immense value to law enforcement.


100 million LEGAL firearms. Owned LEGALLY by private citizens.

This is estimated based on Criminal Background Checks performed each & EVERY time a new firearm is LEGALLY sold in the USA. The FBI conducts the check (states have access to the system to confirm), however they do not have direct access to the paperwork itself which has the serial number, model, and manufacturer of the gun.

The ATF may at anytime perform a "Trace" on a SPECIFIC firearm, based on Manufacturer, & Serial Number, by calling the Point of Origin (Manufacturer), and then each subsequent purchaser (which is tracked by the seller) up until first legal owner (who was the one who purchased using the FBI Criminal Background Check system).

Speaking as a former Firearms dealer, someone who sold guns for a living, this method works well in blocking the illegal sales of firearms, when ENFORCED (or not baited by the ATF / Justice Department in an ill-advised scheme). I have sold hundreds, if not close to a thousand firearms, and what you are suggesting is unnecessary (at best).

We don't track the sale of every bottle of wine, beer, nor every cigarette sold. All are legal items and considered just deadly in their own right. Firearms are legal to own, and although some states/locales do have a registration process, doesn't mean everyone should.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Chouan said:


> In Britain an important role of the Police is crime prevention, that even have specially designated crime prevention teams whose role it is to predict the circumstances that may lead to crime. If you run a business, for example, you can request that the Crime Prevention Officer visit your premises to check it's security and offer advice. The police do indeed patrol the streets; in Britain it is known as being "on the beat", and is seen as a necessary part of their role, even if it is believed that they aren't "on the beat" as much as they should be. Being seen on patrol is also part of their role as preventing crime.


We have insurance agents do the same thing. Risk Management. Security Specialists are called in if deemed necessary. Police in the US are reactionary.

The days of the "beat cop" (constable on patrol) died in all but the densest of Urban locations (NY city, Boston, Chicago etc). As you get into modern cities, vehicular traffic is so prevalent that the "police presence" aspect of "crime prevention" (which the beat cop does offer, I agree) disappears, and their primary duty becomes traffic enforcement (which is the majority of modern 
"crime" or civil infractions depending on your take).

It's a matter of "square footage." You just can't have enough police per area to be an effective deterrent, when the response time is 5-10 minutes, even by vehicle. How much crime does each officer have to stop to be considered cost effective to the bean counters at city hall? A beat cop produces no revenue. A traffic cop does.


----------



## JohnRov

Bjorn said:


> Why can't the people who want to own guns be registered and have an obligation to produce that gun if asked, and an obligation too keep it safe from theft? Put a microchip in every gun with an identity code.


Because it's a right, not a privilege. You don't need to prove you are complying with the law. It's innocent until proven guilty. I think you and some of us are just on totally different wavelengths. The government could never be trusted with information like that. We've already seen what happens in emergency circumstances when police feel the need to disarm the public. Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans is a perfect example.


----------



## Chouan

thunderw21 said:


> This is what happens when your are defenseless:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...mingham-people-forced-strip-naked-street.html
> 
> Who needs guns in the UK? Nothing bad happens there...
> 
> Looks like those folks over in the UK wish they could defend themselves against the rioters.


It's a good thing that firearms are restricted, or one or both of those young men pictured would be dead. 
This, by the way, is an example of US culture that I'd rather the UK hadn't adopted, the cult of the American Urban Street Gang, as popularised in American "Gangsta Rap". Due to the gang culture that exists in some cities, if the victim here had resisted in any way, the gang would have needed to assert themselves more forcefully to ensure that their "respect" is maintained. This would have resulted in serious attacks on him and his extended family and friends. In this instance, if the victim was related to me, I'd rather he was humiliated than stabbed. 
Alternatively, I'd rather that he was humiliated than have him shoot somebody, with the escalation of violence that that option would have lead to.


----------



## Howard

thunderw21 said:


> This is what happens when your are defenseless:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...mingham-people-forced-strip-naked-street.html
> 
> Who needs guns in the UK? Nothing bad happens there...
> 
> Looks like those folks over in the UK wish they could defend themselves against the rioters.


What was the picture about? Why was the black guy telling the other guy to pull down his pants?


----------



## eagle2250

^^
LOL. Well, in all probability, he had just gotten off of his favorite menswear website and found himself motivated to go out and shop for some new clothes(), perhaps? If you will notice, the gentleman wearing the hoodie, already has the other guys shirt, undershirt and shoes in his left hand! That just cannot be good.


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Chouan said:


> It's a good thing that firearms are restricted, or one or both of those young men pictured would be dead.
> This, by the way, is an example of US culture that I'd rather the UK hadn't adopted, the cult of the American Urban Street Gang, as popularised in American "Gangsta Rap". Due to the gang culture that exists in some cities, if the victim here had resisted in any way, the gang would have needed to assert themselves more forcefully to ensure that their "respect" is maintained. This would have resulted in serious attacks on him and his extended family and friends. In this instance, if the victim was related to me, I'd rather he was humiliated than stabbed.
> Alternatively, I'd rather that he was humiliated than have him shoot somebody, with the escalation of violence that that option would have lead to.


So you're *absolutely positive* that if one of them had a firearm it would surely result in one of them being *"Dead"*(?) Isn't it also possible that if one of them had a firearm the individual attempting to rob the other would realize that his would be victim did not wish to comply? Is there *any possibility* that no attack at all would occur if a firearm was present?


----------



## hardline_42

127.72 MHz said:


> So you're *absolutely positive* that if one of them had a firearm it would surely result in one of them being *"Dead"*(?) Isn't it also possible that if one of them had a firearm the individual attempting to rob the other would realize that his would be victim did not wish to comply? Is there *any possibility* that no attack at all would occur if a firearm was present?


 This is such a simple concept and yet the hardest to get through to someone when they're afraid of firearms.


----------



## Chouan

If firearms were freely available, would the robber in this instance be relying on fear of his gang and physical intimidation alone? Or would he be relying on his possession of a firearm a well, if the robber and his gang were concerned that a potential victim might be armed? If the victim also had a firearm, for self-defence of course, when confronted by the robber, and his gang who aren't in the selected photograph, you've got robber + gang with firearm or firearms, and victim with firearm. What is likely to be the outcome?
The gangmember you can see isn't relying on force of personality to rob his victim, it is the threat of subsequent violence which is making his robbery effective. The violence could be immediate, or next week, but is a very real threat. If the victim was able to deal with the immediate threat of robbery by producing his firearm, the gang culture would demand that the gang member regains his "respect" from the victim. Hence the victim would be under permanent danger until the gang and gang member's "respect" had been regained, by violence against the victim, his family, his friends, his property, his family or friends' property or whichever the gang chooses. It isn't as simple as you'd like to think.


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Perhaps it's just possible that it *is quite simple*. At least concede that it's possible. (even if you concede the possibility is one in a million)
You seem to believe this whole issue has to do with gangs and gang culture. While street gangs are an issue for law enforcement in the U.S. it's a very small part of overall crime.

This is an issue of a law abiding citizen refusing to be a victim, plain and simple.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Chouan said:


> It's a good thing that firearms are restricted, or one or both of those young men pictured would be dead.
> This, by the way, is an example of US culture that I'd rather the UK hadn't adopted, the cult of the American Urban Street Gang, as popularised in American "Gangsta Rap". Due to the gang culture that exists in some cities, if the victim here had resisted in any way, the gang would have needed to assert themselves more forcefully to ensure that their "respect" is maintained. This would have resulted in serious attacks on him and his extended family and friends. In this instance, if the victim was related to me, I'd rather he was humiliated than stabbed.
> Alternatively, I'd rather that he was humiliated than have him shoot somebody, with the escalation of violence that that option would have lead to.


The "People" have become "Prey." That's what eventually happens when you disarm law abiding citizens. There aren't enough police/military to "protect" everyone. In an armed society, the potential for predatory mentality is at least tempered by a healthy survival instinct.

The old pun goes "If you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns."

Self defense is an inherent right. It's not just something in a document. It's just something we have. If someone means to do you harm, you do what you have to (whatever is necessary) to end that harm. Sometimes that "end" is their life. That's we have different definitions between killing and murder. I'm not saying every "threat" needs the ultimate punishment, but in an armed society every person is polite enough to think about it prior to making such threat.

People don't like guns because of a "belief system" not because of statistical or logical data. When compared to Automobiles, Firearms aren't even a contender in deaths caused yet we don't even think about them in the same light. Alcohol & Tobacco are just as deadly, however we only tax them... No one would dream of banning known carcinogens, or intoxicants.


----------



## Howard

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> LOL. Well, in all probability, he had just gotten off of his favorite menswear website and found himself motivated to go out and shop for some new clothes(), perhaps? If you will notice, the gentleman wearing the hoodie, already has the other guys shirt, undershirt and shoes in his left hand! That just cannot be good.


I think the guy was gonna rob him of all his clothes.


----------



## Bjorn

JohnRov said:


> Because it's a right, not a privilege. You don't need to prove you are complying with the law. It's innocent until proven guilty. I think you and some of us are just on totally different wavelengths. The government could never be trusted with information like that. We've already seen what happens in emergency circumstances when police feel the need to disarm the public. Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans is a perfect example.


But registration in no way hinders the excercise of that right.


----------



## hardline_42

Bjorn said:


> But registration in no way hinders the excercise of that right.


 The simple facts are that:

a) gun registration isn't about fighting crime, therefore

b) gun registration doesn't prevent crime

c) gun registration doesn't help police find suspects

d) gun registration leads to confiscation

As with every other one of my posts in this exhausting thread, I can provide statistics with cited, unbiased sources to back up each and every one of those points. It seems though, that they're always ignored in favor of emotional arguments about some "civilized society", so I won't bother.


----------



## 127.72 MHz

^^ A concise rendering of the most salient facts on firearm ownership by citizens. You will find that no one will refute these points directly.


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Bjorn, there is not one society on the face of the earth that has ever required registration of weapons that has not followed up the registration with confiscation. 

Registration = eventual confiscation.


----------



## JohnRov

Bjorn said:


> But registration in no way hinders the excercise of that right.


It does because as others just pointed out it leads to confiscation. Witness New Orleans where the police went house to house disarming people when they needed protection the most.


----------



## Bjorn

So basically what you're saying is that if the government can know who owns guns, they will inevitably take them away? 

That's not true. We have registration of guns and people are free to keep them. 

This all comes back to paranoia about your own government. But you are of course free to keep any laws you want to.


----------



## hardline_42

Bjorn said:


> So basically what you're saying is that if the government can know who owns guns, they will inevitably take them away?
> 
> That's not true. We have registration of guns and people are free to keep them.
> 
> This all comes back to paranoia about your own government. But you are of course free to keep any laws you want to.


Oh dear, oh dear. I guess it's true about those who don't learn from history.

- Canada: The handgun registration law of 1934 was the source used to identify and confiscate (without compensation) over half of the registered handguns in 2001.

- Germany: The 1928 Law on Firearms and Ammunition (before the Nazis came into power) required all firearms to be registered. When Hitler came into power, the existing lists were used for confiscating weapons.

- Australia: In 1996, the Australian government confiscated over 660,000 previously legal firearms from their citizens.

- California: The 1989 Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act required registration. Due to shifting definitions of "assault weapons," many legal firearms are now being confiscated by the California government.

- New York City: In 1967, NYC passed an ordinance requiring a citizen to obtain a permit to own a rifle or shotgun, which would then be registered. In 1991, the city passed a ban on private possession of some semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, and "registered" owners were told that those firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city.

Similar scenarios have played out in Bermuda, Cuba, Greece, Ireland, Jamaica and Soviet Georgia as well, but I guess I'm just paranoid about my government.


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Bjorn said:


> So basically what you're saying is that if the government can know who owns guns, they will inevitably take them away?
> 
> That's not true. We have registration of guns and people are free to keep them.
> 
> This all comes back to paranoia about your own government. But you are of course free to keep any laws you want to.


Bjorn,
It may seem as though you're being "Piled on" but honestly it's not my intent and I don't think it's the intend of anyone else.
Just a civil discussion okay?* (and I had no idea that my reply would be so long!) *

Paranoia is defined as a baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others. To be suspicious of a government, any government, is not baseless.

 That being said Sweden is a fairly small country, less than 9.5 million people I believe. For the most part it's a racially and socially homogeneous society. Heck, after a visit to Stockholm last year for a professional conference I can say that I wouldn't mind living there.

I got this off of Wikipedia:

In Sweden Welfare (=) means in a broad sense standard of life. Welfare is everything that contributes to a good = well-fare (good journey) in life. It is also a systematic infrastructure to protect a good life, from a minimum up to (today) just about average (like 'one size fits all' or 'black T-ford').
Sweden has been categorised by some observers[_who?_] as a middle way between a capitalist economy and a socialist economy.[_citation needed_] Supporters of this system assert that Sweden has found a way of achieving high levels of social equality, without stifling entrepreneurialism. The perspective has been questioned by supporters of economic liberalization in Sweden.
Government pension payments are financed through an 18.5% pension tax on all taxed incomes in the country, which comes partly from a tax category called a public pension fee (7% on gross income), and 30% of a tax category called employer fees on salaries (which is 33% on a netted income). Since January 2001 the 18.5% is divided in two parts: 16% goes to current payments, and 2.5% goes into individual retirement accounts, which were introduced in 2001. Money saved and invested in government funds, and IRAs for future pension costs, are roughly 5 times annual government pension expenses (725/150).
*(This sounds pretty good to me!)*

One the other hand, (WAAAY on the other hand) in the United States we have 300 million citizens. The U.S. government* piece meals *out the taxes whereas on the surface it seems that citizens income taxes are nowhere near what citizens of a country like Sweden pay. Except, our government taxes us to death for every little thing so that the net result is that we end up paying very near the same taxes as a country with cradle to grave socialism yet we get almost none of the benefits. (as Winston Churchill said: "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.") i.e. We, as Citizens of the USA, are just plain dumb for taking it in my opinion.

A U.S. citizens' health care is not paid for by the government. (with few exceptions) In the USA, right now, the number one cause of personal bankruptcy's is a health care bill someone cannot pay.
In Sweden you start with about six weeks paid vacation per year. Well here in the good ol' USA a worker will work for thirty years to earn six weeks vacation. (and the chances of most people staying with the same company for that long are slim so in actuality most will never see six weeks vacation)
If a U.S. citizen was born after 1960 they will have to work until they are 67 years old to get their social security. (and it's low enough that we have shocking numbers of our senior citizens who are not well fed and cannot afford to go to the doctor when they are ill.) Also it's worth noting that the politicians are currently talking about changing eligibility to 70 years old.

I could go on and on,.... The point being that in the U.S.A. we have a wide gap between the people who *have *and the people who *have not*. (and that gap has been widening for the past thirty five years) And human nature being what it is you can bet that the people that *have*, for the most part, do not wish to give one penny more than they have to towards the society that helped provide a sanctuary for them to thrive.

In many parts of the United States the veneer of a civil society is wearing ever thin. Americans have a long history of mistrust of our government. Americans have a long history of not trusting any government. (going back to the people who founded the USA because they did not trust the British government.)

The people who founded the U.S.A. believed that the nature of government, government of any kind, is inherently bad. As students of history they believed that governments which are supposed to serve citizens most often end up seeking to dominate and control them. (and in the end many commit genocide against their "Citizens.")

The people who founded the United States did not write the Second Amendment to our Constitution to allow us to hunt for sport. They wrote the Second Amendment so that we, as citizens, if forced to do so, can defend ourselves against a government that has turned to tyranny against us. Do you think this is an antiquated concept for today's civilized world? (see hardline 42's post just above this one) or for that matter look at the so called Arab Spring. Do you think these governments would be slaughtering their citizens if the citizens had firearms? Perhaps they would but some government soldiers would be feeling the pain too.

Does this mean that I'm looking for a fight against my government? *NOT IN THE LEAST.*
Does this mean that: (as some of our American Red Necks say) "When they come for my gun I'm going to give em' the bullets first!" *No, not in the least.*

Does this mean that I don't trust politicians? Absolutely!

I have been involved in the shooting sports since I was a small child. I have never brandished a firearm towards any person, let alone shot someone. But if I was convinced that my life, or a family members life was in jeopardy, yes I would use a firearm to defend my life. And it is highly American to say so.

The problem with the issue of firearm ownership for citizens is that it's complex. It can't be summarized on a bumper sticker. (often a catchy rhyme) It requires critical thought and taking into account human nature over the course of history.


----------



## Regillus

Re Post #516: "I NEVER said that the Constitution did not exist, You took my comment completely out of context."
I did no such thing. You clearly stated the following:
From Post #483: "To clarify my thoughts I would like to start from the premise that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or for that matter that the Constitution as a document, does not exist." 
So you said it, and then you lie about it as if no one's going to look through the posts and see it.
Post #516: "My comment, that you pulled out of context, simply said that my thoughts, on firearm ownership were formed without being based in a legal context. ...I'd ask to confirm that you understand but there's no doubt that you don't understand...."
Oh I understand you perfectly. There's nothing wrong with forming an opinion about something without checking into the legal fine points. However, you're going to run into a problem with that in this case. When you get into the issue of gun ownership; since most states and the federal gov't have gun laws and regulations; at some point you're going to run into the "legal context," as you say - so you need to address or at least mention the legal issues somewhere along the way. You pretend to possess an intellectual superiority that you don't have.
From Post 483: "...I do not need a document or a man to tell me that I have a right to defend my gift of life,...."
You stated the obvious. The founding fathers wrote:
From Wikipedia:
Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,...."
The important part is "endowed by their Creator...." They were making an a priori argument that God had given men these certain rights - whether they were written down or not. So you can start off that way, but you'll soon run into the legal issues.
Re Post #489: "Perhaps you're incapable of critical thought?" You asked. So I listed my C.V. College is where most people develop and refine their critical reasoning skills or didn't you know that?
Post #516: "So Regillus you ask the questions, ...in an attempt to turn most everything you post into a legal issue." There you go again. Obviously you haven't read my other posts or you'd know I haven't turned "most things" into a legal issue.
Post #516 "I have received two personal e-mail messages, one of which said ROTFLMAO."
Oh did you now? Some of the members of AAAC are paralegals and attorneys. A few of whom have probably done work in constitutional law and may even have done a stint as a U.S. Supreme Court law clerk. When they saw your words "...the Constitution as a document, does not exist." I'm sure they were ROTFLMAO at _you_. I can just see you standing before the justices at the U.S. Supreme Court presenting a Second Amendment case and beginning your opening argument with the words "To clarify my thoughts I would like to start from the premise that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or for that matter that the Constitution as a document, does not exist." I can just see the smiles on the justices faces, hear the ripple of laughter go through the attendant crowd of reporters and onlookers upon hearing such a ridiculous statement..
You've done all this ranting and raving and ad hominem attacks to no effect. All your ranting has done is show what a foolish and uninformed person you are.
Shakespeare aptly described guys like you:
"It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing."


----------



## 127.72 MHz

I don't know how many people follow this kind of stuff but I have two more private e-mails this A.M. regarding your stupidity.
Listen Mr. Paralegal, (with two, count em' *two* Associates Degrees!) As I said, you're a weenie and you get no more responses.


----------



## Jovan

Gents, I suggest you calm down and take it to private message. The Interchange is no longer the free-for-all it was for the longest time. If you need reminding:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...eminder-of-the-original-premise-of-this-Forum.


----------



## Bjorn

127.72 MHz said:


> Bjorn,
> It may seem as though you're being "Piled on" but honestly it's not my intent and I don't think it's the intend of anyone else.
> Just a civil discussion okay?* (and I had no idea that my reply would be so long!) *
> 
> Paranoia is defined as a baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others. To be suspicious of a government, any government, is not baseless.
> 
> That being said Sweden is a fairly small country, less than 9.5 million people I believe. For the most part it's a racially and socially homogeneous society. Heck, after a visit to Stockholm last year for a professional conference I can say that I wouldn't mind living there.
> 
> I got this off of Wikipedia:
> 
> In Sweden Welfare (=) means in a broad sense standard of life. Welfare is everything that contributes to a good = well-fare (good journey) in life. It is also a systematic infrastructure to protect a good life, from a minimum up to (today) just about average (like 'one size fits all' or 'black T-ford').
> Sweden has been categorised by some observers[_who?_] as a middle way between a capitalist economy and a socialist economy.[_citation needed_] Supporters of this system assert that Sweden has found a way of achieving high levels of social equality, without stifling entrepreneurialism. The perspective has been questioned by supporters of economic liberalization in Sweden.
> Government pension payments are financed through an 18.5% pension tax on all taxed incomes in the country, which comes partly from a tax category called a public pension fee (7% on gross income), and 30% of a tax category called employer fees on salaries (which is 33% on a netted income). Since January 2001 the 18.5% is divided in two parts: 16% goes to current payments, and 2.5% goes into individual retirement accounts, which were introduced in 2001. Money saved and invested in government funds, and IRAs for future pension costs, are roughly 5 times annual government pension expenses (725/150).
> *(This sounds pretty good to me!)*
> 
> One the other hand, (WAAAY on the other hand) in the United States we have 300 million citizens. The U.S. government* piece meals *out the taxes whereas on the surface it seems that citizens income taxes are nowhere near what citizens of a country like Sweden pay. Except, our government taxes us to death for every little thing so that the net result is that we end up paying very near the same taxes as a country with cradle to grave socialism yet we get almost none of the benefits. (as Winston Churchill said: "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.") i.e. We, as Citizens of the USA, are just plain dumb for taking it in my opinion.
> 
> A U.S. citizens' health care is not paid for by the government. (with few exceptions) In the USA, right now, the number one cause of personal bankruptcy's is a health care bill someone cannot pay.
> In Sweden you start with about six weeks paid vacation per year. Well here in the good ol' USA a worker will work for thirty years to earn six weeks vacation. (and the chances of most people staying with the same company for that long are slim so in actuality most will never see six weeks vacation)
> If a U.S. citizen was born after 1960 they will have to work until they are 67 years old to get their social security. (and it's low enough that we have shocking numbers of our senior citizens who are not well fed and cannot afford to go to the doctor when they are ill.) Also it's worth noting that the politicians are currently talking about changing eligibility to 70 years old.
> 
> I could go on and on,.... The point being that in the U.S.A. we have a wide gap between the people who *have *and the people who *have not*. (and that gap has been widening for the past thirty five years) And human nature being what it is you can bet that the people that *have*, for the most part, do not wish to give one penny more than they have to towards the society that helped provide a sanctuary for them to thrive.
> 
> In many parts of the United States the veneer of a civil society is wearing ever thin. Americans have a long history of mistrust of our government. Americans have a long history of not trusting any government. (going back to the people who founded the USA because they did not trust the British government.)
> 
> The people who founded the U.S.A. believed that the nature of government, government of any kind, is inherently bad. As students of history they believed that governments which are supposed to serve citizens most often end up seeking to dominate and control them. (and in the end many commit genocide against their "Citizens.")
> 
> The people who founded the United States did not write the Second Amendment to our Constitution to allow us to hunt for sport. They wrote the Second Amendment so that we, as citizens, if forced to do so, can defend ourselves against a government that has turned to tyranny against us. Do you think this is an antiquated concept for today's civilized world? (see hardline 42's post just above this one) or for that matter look at the so called Arab Spring. Do you think these governments would be slaughtering their citizens if the citizens had firearms? Perhaps they would but some government soldiers would be feeling the pain too.
> 
> Does this mean that I'm looking for a fight against my government? *NOT IN THE LEAST.*
> Does this mean that: (as some of our American Red Necks say) "When they come for my gun I'm going to give em' the bullets first!" *No, not in the least.*
> 
> Does this mean that I don't trust politicians? Absolutely!
> 
> I have been involved in the shooting sports since I was a small child. I have never brandished a firearm towards any person, let alone shot someone. But if I was convinced that my life, or a family members life was in jeopardy, yes I would use a firearm to defend my life. And it is highly American to say so.
> 
> The problem with the issue of firearm ownership for citizens is that it's complex. It can't be summarized on a bumper sticker. (often a catchy rhyme) It requires critical thought and taking into account human nature over the course of history.


No worries! I don't mind the odd 'piling' .

As for the above, Sweden is not racially and socially homogenous (we have had a lot of immigration since the 60's, to the betterment of the country I believe). An analysis of the taxes falls out of scope of this discussion, although the level of liberalisation in Sweden the past 20 years has moved us (thankfully) in that general direction rather to the 'cradle to grave' socialism.

However, I see your point.


----------



## Bjorn

hardline_42 said:


> Oh dear, oh dear. I guess it's true about those who don't learn from history.
> 
> - Canada: The handgun registration law of 1934 was the source used to identify and confiscate (without compensation) over half of the registered handguns in 2001.
> 
> - Germany: The 1928 Law on Firearms and Ammunition (before the Nazis came into power) required all firearms to be registered. When Hitler came into power, the existing lists were used for confiscating weapons.
> 
> - Australia: In 1996, the Australian government confiscated over 660,000 previously legal firearms from their citizens.
> 
> - California: The 1989 Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act required registration. Due to shifting definitions of "assault weapons," many legal firearms are now being confiscated by the California government.
> 
> - New York City: In 1967, NYC passed an ordinance requiring a citizen to obtain a permit to own a rifle or shotgun, which would then be registered. In 1991, the city passed a ban on private possession of some semi-automatic rifles and shotguns, and "registered" owners were told that those firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city.
> 
> Similar scenarios have played out in Bermuda, Cuba, Greece, Ireland, Jamaica and Soviet Georgia as well, but I guess I'm just paranoid about my government.


My bigger point may be, that if the government that you elected chooses to outlaw a gun, then under law you are required to submit it, whether it is registered or not. Right?

Do we have a problem with the concept of democracy here?

No civilian needs an assault rifle.


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Bjorn said:


> No worries! I don't mind the odd 'piling' .
> 
> As for the above, Sweden is not racially and socially homogeneous (we have had a lot of immigration since the 60's, to the betterment of the country I believe). An analysis of the taxes falls out of scope of this discussion, although the level of liberalisation in Sweden the past 20 years has moved us (thankfully) in that general direction rather to the 'cradle to grave' socialism.
> 
> However, I see your point.


By pointing out the tax structure and the social welfare system is Sweden as compared to the U.S. I was attempting to establish reason(s) why the "Natives are restless" in the U.S. In Sweden the taxes are high and the benefits to citizens are fair. The minimum standards your society has established for a citizen to live at is far above what the U.S. government has established for what we call "The working poor."

Imagine how you'd feel if your government and mouthpiece politicians began calling the money(s) you have put into the social welfare system towards your retirement an "Entitlement program." You'd be correct if you said that that money is no more of an entitlement than an individuals' bank account is!

That's where we're at in the U.S. and naturally we're upset, afraid, and regardless of one's political leanings, we have little faith in our government.

All these are reasons why the founding Fathers of the U.S. wanted a weak Federal government. 235 years later we have a federal government that is right out of George Orwell's 1984. To be fair it's not an oligarchical dictatorship per se as Orwell described but far too many Americans would agree that it's not serving the majority of citizens.

P.S. Just had to address your comment about no citizen needing an assault weapon. Our anti-gun groups want to call a shotgun that people use to hunt Pheasant an "Assault weapon." (sad but true) By the way the same group of national politicians led by a U.S. Senator from California want to legally define the same rifle that people have used to hunt for deer a "Sniper weapon." (They will stop at nothing to disarm the American public) *Do you think it's coincidence that the calls by politicians in the U.S. to disarm citizens have become louder just as polls show that a shocking percentage of citizens do not trust them?*

Have you ever noticed that when governments pass laws restricting the rights of "Ordinary citizen's, (as they like to call us) that they *ALWAYS* cite the same reason? "We're only trying to make our society safer for our citizens." When the U.S. government hits up the Chinese about human rights issues the Chinese, (besides telling us to mind our own business and saying that their government will never allow us to impose our will upon them) always say that they're only trying to make their society safer for their citizens. *Do you think the Chinese government is trying to make their society safer for their citizens or for themselves?*


----------



## Apatheticviews

Bjorn said:


> My bigger point may be, that if the government that you elected chooses to outlaw a gun, then under law you are required to submit it, whether it is registered or not. Right?
> 
> Do we have a problem with the concept of democracy here?
> 
> No civilian needs an assault rifle.


Define "Assault rifle" I'd love to hear what YOU think an "Assault" rifle is. Please enlighten me.

Because the US Government couldn't in other than "cosmetic" terms. It's not a real designation of a rifle.

Here's what the old law stated (Sunset law from 1995 through 2005). A semi-automatic rifle possessing more than 2 of the following features:

Magazine well
Flash-suppressor
Bayonet lug
Collapsable Stock

An AR15 (Civilian variant of the M16 which only fired semi-automatic) was a modular system which was available with all those parts. Here's the trick though. If manufactured between 1995 and 2005, they did not come with bayonet lugs. Why? Because that would exceed the limit of allowed features, since you could not remove the flash-suppressor, nor magazine well from the weapon.

So you had an AR15, without a bayonet lug, which was not an "Assault rifle," but the same weapon with one (or with a collapsible stock) was one? That's idiotic.

As I have mentioned, I am a former Arms Dealer. And this is a bit of the reason you can't trust government on developing laws. They don't understand how to make correct laws. The "Assault rifle" law is a prime example of idiotic legislation. It doesn't solve crime.

First off, it's badly written. Second, most crime is committed with CHEAP guns. By cheap guns, I mean Granddads old revolver or shotgun, not a $1-2000 "assault rifle."

As for "no civilian needs an assault rifle." Who the hell are you to tell me what I need? No man needs a pair of $300 shoes, a $1000 suit, or $80K car either. It's MY money, and as long as it's legal, and within my RIGHTS to own, I can spend on whatever the damn well I please.


----------



## JohnRov

Bjorn said:


> My bigger point may be, that if the government that you elected chooses to outlaw a gun, then under law you are required to submit it, whether it is registered or not. Right?
> 
> Do we have a problem with the concept of democracy here?
> 
> No civilian needs an assault rifle.


You're still missing the point a bit on the Constitution. The Bill of Rights outlines rights that exist and that the government cannot infringe upon. It doesn't grant them, so the government cannot take them away. Unless they amend the Constitution, it's not democracy for elected officials to trample the Constitution.

As for "assault rifles", the definition portion has already been addressed by Apatheticviews. But more importantly, you use the word "need". This is America, we aren't entitled only to what a government deems we need. Not much explanation is required beyond that.


----------



## hardline_42

Bjorn said:


> My bigger point may be, that if the government that you elected chooses to outlaw a gun, then under law you are required to submit it, whether it is registered or not. Right?
> 
> Do we have a problem with the concept of democracy here?
> 
> No civilian needs an assault rifle.


I have a problem with democracy. So should every other American. The founding fathers of our country despised democracy. That is precisely why they instituted a Constitutional Republic. Ours was meant to be a country governed by rule of law and the limits of said government are expressly laid out in the Constitution of the United States.

In a Democracy, the sovereignty is with the majority. Fifty-one percent of the population make the rules and the remaining 49% have no rights. In a Republic, the sovereignty is with the individual. The individual is free to reject the opinion of the majority, and the Constitution guarantees that freedom to every individual. Even if the majority of the population supported disarming individuals (it does not), the 2nd amendment to the Constitution provides a protection for those who disagree. In recent years, the US Supreme Court has ruled on two land mark cases that clarify the right to bear arms is an individual right, not a collective one.

As for no civilian needing an "assault rifle," well Apathetic Views got the reasoning right, but he fell prey to one of the gun-control lobby's tactics: confusing terminology. "Assault rifles" are select-fire rifles (capable of semi and burst/full auto fire) in medium calibers. They have been under a de facto ban since 1934. Additional legislation to regulate them was enacted in 1968 and again in 1986. Currently, no assault rifles built after 1986 can be imported, bought or sold. The relatively few assault rifles in circulation that are available to civilians are in private collections. Since 1934 there have only been two documented homicides committed with "assault rifles." Of the two, only one was committed by a civilian (the other by a police officer). Given the ridiculously low percentage of crimes committed with "assault rifles," I see no reason to deny a civilian the right to own one. "Need" is not required to exercise a right.


----------



## Apatheticviews

hardline_42 said:


> I have a problem with democracy. So should every other American. The founding fathers of our country despised democracy. That is precisely why they instituted a Constitutional Republic. Ours was meant to be a country governed by rule of law and the limits of said government are expressly laid out in the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> In a Democracy, the sovereignty is with the majority. Fifty-one percent of the population make the rules and the remaining 49% have no rights. In a Republic, the sovereignty is with the individual. The individual is free to reject the opinion of the majority, and the Constitution guarantees that freedom to every individual. Even if the majority of the population supported disarming individuals (it does not), the 2nd amendment to the Constitution provides a protection for those who disagree. In recent years, the US Supreme Court has ruled on two land mark cases that clarify the right to bear arms is an individual right, not a collective one.
> 
> As for no civilian needing an "assault rifle," well Apathetic Views got the reasoning right, but he fell prey to one of the gun-control lobby's tactics: confusing terminology. "Assault rifles" are select-fire rifles (capable of semi and burst/full auto fire) in medium calibers. They have been under a de facto ban since 1934. Additional legislation to regulate them was enacted in 1968 and again in 1986. Currently, no assault rifles built after 1986 can be imported, bought or sold. The relatively few assault rifles in circulation that are available to civilians are in private collections. Since 1934 there have only been two documented homicides committed with "assault rifles." Of the two, only one was committed by a civilian (the other by a police officer). Given the ridiculously low percentage of crimes committed with "assault rifles," I see no reason to deny a civilian the right to own one. "Need" is not required to exercise a right.


You are referring to Automatic Weapons, not Assault weapons, two distinct terms within the gun industry & within legislation. They are commonly confused by the lay person, as the media is horrible at explaining the difference. Much like explaining what a "sniper" rifle is (a precision rifle used to hunt birds [snipe*] aka a generic term that can mean near anything... word origins vice actual current usage.. but again, no one can tell you that something is or isn't a sniper rifle.).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons_ban

The above link references the *Assault* *Weapons Ban* of 1994.

*National Firearms Act of 1934*, and the *Gun Control Act of 1968*, and the *Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986* are the other 3 key pieces of legislation congress has enacted.

Brief synopsis:

NFA 1934: Machine guns, suppressors, short barreled long guns must be "tax stamped" 
GCA 1968: FFL System, Straw purchase punishment.
FOPA 1986: No National Registry allowed by law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snipe


----------



## Apatheticviews

hardline_42 said:


> I have a problem with democracy. So should every other American. The founding fathers of our country despised democracy. That is precisely why they instituted a Constitutional Republic. Ours was meant to be a country governed by rule of law and the limits of said government are expressly laid out in the Constitution of the United States.
> 
> In a Democracy, the sovereignty is with the majority. Fifty-one percent of the population make the rules and the remaining 49% have no rights. In a Republic, the sovereignty is with the individual. The individual is free to reject the opinion of the majority, and the Constitution guarantees that freedom to every individual. Even if the majority of the population supported disarming individuals (it does not), the 2nd amendment to the Constitution provides a protection for those who disagree. In recent years, the US Supreme Court has ruled on two land mark cases that clarify the right to bear arms is an individual right, not a collective one.


"If a law is so unpopular that 49% of the people disagree with it, why do we have it?" would probably some up there thoughts.


----------



## Bjorn

I was referring to a select fire weapons, (automatic or burst) sorry for being obtuse. 

The US is a democracy, the constitution may be altered, reinterpreted and construed in view of how different 'rights' play against each other. The 'differences' between the US as a republic and other democracies stated above are not true, most democracies have constitutional law that are harder to change (requires for example two thirds majority in parliament at two different times with an election in between). They mainly extend basic rights, the form for setting up parliament and government, the setting up of courts etc.

All the rights in constitutions are thereby subject to democratic review. There is no part of the constitution that you cannot change. Moreover, they change (or 'are defined') by themselves as they are reinterpreted in new secondary legislation (ordinary law) and case law. 

Further, all rights given in any legislative act, including the US constitution, exist in competition with each other. One mans right to property may yield to another mans right to life, or vice versa. Rights are therefore curtailed by the legislator (which in extension is the people) to fit together. They are interpreted in view of their aims. 

I take it the right to bear arms has been curtailed not to include the right to bear automatic weapons (or tactical nuclear missiles etc). The right may be further reduced so that there is no right to carry a concealed weapon (or a special permit is required). 

From a legislative and constitutional perspective, I don't really see your point(s). 

As there is no relevant civilian implementation for an automatic weapon, I think I can state with certainty that 'no civilian needs an automatic rifle'. You can't effectively hunt with it and outside of combat (war) it uses a completely superfluous level of violence. As the right to bear arms is sufficiently met by the right to bear a pistol or a single shot rifle, and automatic weapons have (if used) a very high risk to impugn on someone else's security and right to life, well...


----------



## hardline_42

Apatheticviews said:


> You are referring to Automatic Weapons, not Assault weapons, two distinct terms within the gun industry & within legislation. They are commonly confused by the lay person, as the media is horrible at explaining the difference. Much like explaining what a "sniper" rifle is (a precision rifle used to hunt birds [snipe*] aka a generic term that can mean near anything... word origins vice actual current usage.. but again, no one can tell you that something is or isn't a sniper rifle.).
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapons_ban
> 
> The above link references the *Assault* *Weapons Ban* of 1994.
> 
> *National Firearms Act of 1934*, and the *Gun Control Act of 1968*, and the *Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986* are the other 3 key pieces of legislation congress has enacted.
> 
> Brief synopsis:
> 
> NFA 1934: Machine guns, suppressors, short barreled long guns must be "tax stamped"
> GCA 1968: FFL System, Straw purchase punishment.
> FOPA 1986: No National Registry allowed by law.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snipe


AP, I know my gun terminology. Bjorn said "assault rifle" and you gave him a definition for "assault weapon." This is, of course, the intention of the gun control lobby, as you stated. "Assault weapon" sounds enough like "assault rifle" to even confuse those of us who are on the same side! The definition for "assault rifle" can be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

The definition for "assault weapon" is as you posted previously.


----------



## Apatheticviews

hardline_42 said:


> AP, I know my gun terminology. Bjorn said "assault rifle" and you gave him a definition for "assault weapon." This is, of course, the intention of the gun control lobby, as you stated. "Assault weapon" sounds enough like "assault rifle" to even confuse those of us who are on the same side! The definition for "assault rifle" can be found here:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
> 
> The definition for "assault weapon" is as you posted previously.


You are absolutely correct. See how confusing it can get, even for someone who sold them daily (both Assault Weapons, and Assault Rifles).


----------



## Apatheticviews

Bjorn said:


> I was referring to a select fire weapons, (automatic or burst) sorry for being obtuse.
> 
> The US is a democracy, the constitution may be altered, reinterpreted and construed in view of how different 'rights' play against each other. The 'differences' between the US as a republic and other democracies stated above are not true, most democracies have constitutional law that are harder to change (requires for example two thirds majority in parliament at two different times with an election in between). They mainly extend basic rights, the form for setting up parliament and government, the setting up of courts etc.
> 
> All the rights in constitutions are thereby subject to democratic review. There is no part of the constitution that you cannot change. Moreover, they change (or 'are defined') by themselves as they are reinterpreted in new secondary legislation (ordinary law) and case law.
> 
> Further, all rights given in any legislative act, including the US constitution, exist in competition with each other. One mans right to property may yield to another mans right to life, or vice versa. Rights are therefore curtailed by the legislator (which in extension is the people) to fit together. They are interpreted in view of their aims.
> 
> I take it the right to bear arms has been curtailed not to include the right to bear automatic weapons (or tactical nuclear missiles etc). The right may be further reduced so that there is no right to carry a concealed weapon (or a special permit is required).
> 
> From a legislative and constitutional perspective, I don't really see your point(s).
> 
> As there is no relevant civilian implementation for an automatic weapon, I think I can state with certainty that 'no civilian needs an automatic rifle'. You can't effectively hunt with it and outside of combat (war) it uses a completely superfluous level of violence. As the right to bear arms is sufficiently met by the right to bear a pistol or a single shot rifle, and automatic weapons have (if used) a very high risk to impugn on someone else's security and right to life, well...


The US is not a Democracy. Never has been. We're a REPUBLIC. Democracy implies, 1 man, 1 vote. We don't have that.

Our Constitution is an agreement about how much power our government has, and how it will operate. It's a pretty simple document. It's actually dead simple. Anyone with a high school education education can understand it, in its entirety.

The Amendments to the Constitution offer clarification (or revisions). The 2nd amendment in its entirety reads:

*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

*It's made of up of two distinct parts. First is the right of the State to maintain a militia. Basically saying that each State maintains its own sovereignty, and that the federal government cannot disarm it. This is why each state's National Guard swears a modified oath to the state's governor.

The second is the Right of the People to keep and bear arms. It acts exactly like the State's right, except on the individual level.

It does not make exception about what type of weapon. it isn't the federal government's place to to INFRINGE on this right.

That doesn't mean you can't legislate. Legislation can exist without infringement.

Legislation such as the NFA 1934 & GCA 1968 are good examples of legislation. The NFA 1934 allows Law Abiding citizens to purchase Assault Rifles, however they cannot be used for anything other than the range. There are very specific clauses in the legislation regarding what those weapons can be used for (no defensive or hunting purposes). The GCA 1968 says that you must pass a criminal background check to purchase a new firearm. These are good legislation. The FOPA 1986 is good legislation.

The AWB 1994 was Idiotic legislation. It was enacted by people who didn't know their head from a hole in the ground. That's what happens when you get 535 people voting for 400 million (what you call democracy).


----------



## pleasehelp

I've always found the study of Con Law to be more of a study of political history rather than legal interpretation - it is an exercise in twisting words in order to further a view, rather than truly interpretting the words and principles.

I think the gun control debate would be more interesting if people would focus on whether or not gun control should exist, rather than whether it is permissible under the constitution. I believe that one of the greatest risks to our freedom as a nation is the continual warping of the words of the constitution to fit political agendas. Our leaders and judges should be ashamed of themselves that the appointment of who sits on the Supreme Court would have such an effect on our rights. 

If people believe that gun control should exist then they should advocate for an amendment to the constitution. When drafted, the second amendment was designed, in part, to help prevent government tyranny. In many ways, allowing citizens to cpossess automatic weapons, tanks, etc. is exactly what the second amendment was designed to protect - they wanted the people to have proper arms to stand up against an overreaching government.

However, times have changed and it may be a good idea to limit this ability to arm a militia against the government. I just wish the question of what arms a citizen SHOULD have the right to carry would be the focus of the debate rather that the question of what arms a citizen DOES have the right to carry.


----------



## Regillus

hardline_42 said:


> ...I can provide...with cited, unbiased sources....


Yes please do post the sources that you're referring to. I'd like to take a look at them.


----------



## Scotch&Cigars

hardline_42 said:


> Apathetic, the military uses FMJ because they have to. They're constrained by the Hague Convention to non-expanding ammunition because it's been declared "humane." I don't know of a single non-military agency that issues FMJ ammunition. It's true that the .45ACP (my favorite pistol caliber) has a bigger cross-section than the smaller 9mm and .38, but it's also proportionately heavier, which means more inertia to carry it right on through. Take a look at the wound channel from typical .45 acp ball ammo:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's 23.6" of penetration with a wound channel only slightly larger than the bullet itself. This would zip right through an attacker in most scenarios.
> 
> Now here's the ballistic profile of a .45ACP HP round:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's only 9.8" of penetration with a larger wound channel and cavity. There's no comparison. The HP presents much less of a threat to innocent bystanders than FMJ.


I was hoping someone would post this. I don't carry (go Illinois...), but I sleep better at night knowing my trusty .45acp is sitting in my nightstand with a mag of 230gr Speer Gold Dots, at the ready. I don't take chances with the FMJ vs. JHP. Maybe the .45 FMJ won't overpenetrate, but maybe it will. And there's a lesser chance of it with the JHPs, so that's what I load for home defense. I like my neighbor too much to risk accidentally killing him...


----------



## Apatheticviews

pleasehelp said:


> I've always found the study of Con Law to be more of a study of political history rather than legal interpretation - it is an exercise in twisting words in order to further a view, rather than truly interpretting the words and principles.
> 
> I think the gun control debate would be more interesting if people would focus on whether or not gun control should exist, rather than whether it is permissible under the constitution. I believe that one of the greatest risks to our freedom as a nation is the continual warping of the words of the constitution to fit political agendas. Our leaders and judges should be ashamed of themselves that the appointment of who sits on the Supreme Court would have such an effect on our rights.
> 
> If people believe that gun control should exist then they should advocate for an amendment to the constitution. When drafted, the second amendment was designed, in part, to help prevent government tyranny. In many ways, allowing citizens to cpossess automatic weapons, tanks, etc. is exactly what the second amendment was designed to protect - they wanted the people to have proper arms to stand up against an overreaching government.
> 
> However, *times have changed* and it may be a good idea to limit this ability to arm a militia against the government. I just wish the question of what arms a citizen SHOULD have the right to carry would be the focus of the debate rather that the question of what arms a citizen DOES have the right to carry.


One word. Egypt.

Have times really changed all that much?

Have *governments* (not just our own) stopped overreaching their constitutional authority? Has the need for citizens to be wary of them ceased? Hell no. There's a reason every state in the US has it's own National Guard (militia), which reports to the governor.

As others have said, disarming the people is the first step... And it's always a bad first step.


----------



## Bjorn

pleasehelp said:


> I've always found the study of Con Law to be more of a study of political history rather than legal interpretation - it is an exercise in twisting words in order to further a view, rather than truly interpretting the words and principles.
> 
> I think the gun control debate would be more interesting if people would focus on whether or not gun control should exist, rather than whether it is permissible under the constitution. I believe that one of the greatest risks to our freedom as a nation is the continual warping of the words of the constitution to fit political agendas. Our leaders and judges should be ashamed of themselves that the appointment of who sits on the Supreme Court would have such an effect on our rights.
> 
> If people believe that gun control should exist then they should advocate for an amendment to the constitution. When drafted, the second amendment was designed, in part, to help prevent government tyranny. In many ways, allowing citizens to cpossess automatic weapons, tanks, etc. is exactly what the second amendment was designed to protect - they wanted the people to have proper arms to stand up against an overreaching government.
> 
> However, times have changed and it may be a good idea to limit this ability to arm a militia against the government. I just wish the question of what arms a citizen SHOULD have the right to carry would be the focus of the debate rather that the question of what arms a citizen DOES have the right to carry.


Good point.


----------



## Bjorn

Apatheticviews said:


> One word. Egypt.
> 
> Have times really changed all that much?
> 
> Have *governments* (not just our own) stopped overreaching their constitutional authority? Has the need for citizens to be wary of them ceased? Hell no. There's a reason every state in the US has it's own National Guard (militia), which reports to the governor.
> 
> As others have said, disarming the people is the first step... And it's always a bad first step.


Egypt isn't a constitutional democracy, which the US is. I think you (from my point of view) misunderstand the concept of a republic. Making a difference between republics and other democratic forms of government, as Madison did, is a fallacy. The rule of law applies, and people can select representatives (democratically, through elections) that can make or alter legislation at any level.

This also in no way pertains to the issue at hand, since it's quite possible to regulate guns completely (after democratic vote) in the US, since the constitution can be changed. The issue is if guns should be regulated. No reference to current legislation alters that.

As far as the militia is concerned:
Egypt is a dictatorship without free (democratic) elections, courts or parliament.

Also, the protests in Egypt, which has triggered change, has not been led by militia. A militia rarely spearhead democratic change.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Bjorn said:


> Egypt isn't a constitutional democracy, which the US is. I think you (from my point of view) misunderstand the concept of a republic. Making a difference between republics and other democratic forms of government, as Madison did, is a fallacy. The rule of law applies, and people can select representatives (democratically, through elections) that can make or alter legislation at any level.
> 
> This also in no way pertains to the issue at hand, since it's quite possible to regulate guns completely (after democratic vote) in the US, since the constitution can be changed. The issue is if guns should be regulated. No reference to current legislation alters that.
> 
> As far as the militia is concerned:
> Egypt is a dictatorship without free (democratic) elections, courts or parliament.
> 
> Also, the protests in Egypt, which has triggered change, has not been led by militia. A militia rarely spearhead democratic change.


No, it was led by the PEOPLE.

Governments are made of PEOPLE. Not the other way around. The government gets only the authority the PEOPLE grant it. The government doesn't grant anything. It authorizes based on the power it has LENDED by the PEOPLE.

When the people see that a government is abusing it that power, it has the ability to remove that loan, through whatever means are necessary.

The USA first did this in our own revolutionary war (against Great Britain), and we wrote our Declaration of Independence & Constitution with that in mind. We are aware that governments become tyrants. It is not instant. It happens slowly over time. And when it happens, the people have to take those tyrants down, or have to be able to defend themselves from those tyrants.

Hence the 2nd amendment. Hence the federal governments (Founding Fathers) hand's off view of gun control.

*Guns ARE regulated*. They are extremely regulated. You don't seem to understand that. There are hundreds of regulations on guns. The issue is whether the purchasing on guns should be _INFRINGED_.

*Should a LAW-ABIDING Citizen be able to posses a LEGAL item in his home country?*

That's the argument. In a nutshell.

Guns are not illegal. Law-abiding citizens have the God-given right to own & bear them. *Why should I, as a law-abiding citizen not be allowed to own something that is legal in the US?*

Answer that simple question for me.


----------



## Bjorn

Apatheticviews said:


> No, it was led by the PEOPLE.
> 
> Governments are made of PEOPLE. Not the other way around. The government gets only the authority the PEOPLE grant it. The government doesn't grant anything. It authorizes based on the power it has LENDED by the PEOPLE.
> 
> When the people see that a government is abusing it that power, it has the ability to remove that loan, through whatever means are necessary.
> 
> The USA first did this in our own revolutionary war (against Great Britain), and we wrote our Declaration of Independence & Constitution with that in mind. We are aware that governments become tyrants. It is not instant. It happens slowly over time. And when it happens, the people have to take those tyrants down, or have to be able to defend themselves from those tyrants.
> 
> Hence the 2nd amendment. Hence the federal governments (Founding Fathers) hand's off view of gun control.
> 
> *Guns ARE regulated*. They are extremely regulated. You don't seem to understand that. There are hundreds of regulations on guns. The issue is whether the purchasing on guns should be _INFRINGED_.
> 
> *Should a LAW-ABIDING Citizen be able to posses a LEGAL item in his home country?*
> 
> That's the argument. In a nutshell.
> 
> Guns are not illegal. Law-abiding citizens have the God-given right to own & bear them. *Why should I, as a law-abiding citizen not be allowed to own something that is legal in the US?*
> 
> Answer that simple question for me.


The point being that it's perfectly possible to change what is legal.

Also, since (as you point out yourself) you can change the US government through election, I really don't see it going tyrant on you unless you systematically reelect one. You only have two parties to choose from, but still, you can rotate them and presidents.

The legislator (the people, through parliament) can change the rules regarding gun purchases.

One can't simply say that increased gun control is against the constitution, so it can't happen. It's illogical, it's perfectly possible to change legislation.

If it's down to military power between the government and a single state, who'd win? Who would even initiate that kind of fight?


----------



## Apatheticviews

Bjorn said:


> The point being that it's perfectly possible to change what is legal.
> 
> Also, since (as you point out yourself) you can change the US government through election, I really don't see it going tyrant on you unless you systematically reelect one. You only have two parties to choose from, but still, you can rotate them and presidents.
> 
> The legislator (the people, through parliament) can change the rules regarding gun purchases.
> 
> One can't simply say that increased gun control is against the constitution, so it can't happen. It's illogical, it's perfectly possible to change legislation.
> 
> If it's down to military power between the government and a single state, who'd win? Who would even initiate that kind of fight?


It's possible to change what is LEGAL, but not what is *CONSTITUTIONAL*. If you change what is legal to the point where it is no longer *CONSTITUTIONAL*, then it isn't legal at all. That's the issue with gun control. You can legislate. You can regulate. You cannot *INFRINGE*. Infringing breaks the fundamental ground rules. You break that rule, and you've broken the social contract.

We can change ELECTED officials through elections, but that doesn't mean government changes. The number of un-elected civil servants outnumbers our elected officials by an amazing factor. This doesn't even account for party advisors who work behind the scenes, to keep those machines running. The GOVERNMENT is a bueracracy. Every single elected official could disappear tomorrow, and it would still run. They aren't required. They present the _*illusion*_ of Democracy, in our Republic. It takes true naivety to believe that 600 people actually govern 400 million. They don't. They administrate the people who actually do.

I've never said increased gun control is against the constitution. I've said legislation for gun control that *INFRINGES* is against the Constitution. There's a huge difference between the two. I've specifically stated there are good legislation, and cited examples, and I've stated there are idiotic examples.

As for military power between the federal government and a single state or a single person, the federal government can't win that fight. It's not possible. It's a losing fight. However, if history is any indicator the aggressor is generally the larger of the two.


----------



## Jovan

The word you're looking for is "bureaucracy" sir.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Jovan said:


> The word you're looking for is "bureaucracy" sir.


Gotta love spell check. I knew it looked funny (even after I checked it), but apparently my version of spellcheck came back with that, so I let it slide. If you ever want a good laugh go to fuautocorrect.com (text messages on iphones.)

But it sounds like you get the idea. Bureaucracies are more of the government than the elected officials will ever be. There's a reason we call a president's term an "Administration." So it's a fallacy to assume that changing the elected official changes the government.

I think the old British comedy, _Yes, Minister_ (and _Yes, Prime Minister_), were great examples of this.

These just highlight how different the American government is from the theoretical Democracy (1 man, 1 Vote).


----------



## pleasehelp

Apatheticviews said:


> It's possible to change what is LEGAL, but not what is *CONSTITUTIONAL*. If you change what is legal to the point where it is no longer *CONSTITUTIONAL*, then it isn't legal at all. That's the issue with gun control. You can legislate. You can regulate. You cannot *INFRINGE*. Infringing breaks the fundamental ground rules. You break that rule, and you've broken the social contract.
> 
> We can change ELECTED officials through elections, but that doesn't mean government changes. The number of un-elected civil servants outnumbers our elected officials by an amazing factor. This doesn't even account for party advisors who work behind the scenes, to keep those machines running. The GOVERNMENT is a bueracracy. Every single elected official could disappear tomorrow, and it would still run. They aren't required. They present the _*illusion*_ of Democracy, in our Republic. It takes true naivety to believe that 600 people actually govern 400 million. They don't. They administrate the people who actually do.
> 
> I've never said increased gun control is against the constitution. I've said legislation for gun control that *INFRINGES* is against the Constitution. There's a huge difference between the two. I've specifically stated there are good legislation, and cited examples, and I've stated there are idiotic examples.
> 
> As for military power between the federal government and a single state or a single person, the federal government can't win that fight. It's not possible. It's a losing fight. However, if history is any indicator the aggressor is generally the larger of the two.


I'm getting rather confused by this exchange. To make sure we are all clear. Whether it be common laws, statutes, rules, regulations or the constitution, they can all be amended through various procedures so that what was legal on one day is no longer legal the following day.

With respect to whether gun control by the legislature SHOULD be permissible, I think it is a more complicated issue; and I think people get so fired up about the constitutional law issue that they don't think about the policy issue. Should we allow people to have the means to rise up to overthrow the government? Or perhaps just to defend their health and property? Or perhaps just for sporting? Or perhaps not at all? Each position raises complicated issues regarding principles or liberty, equality, capitalism, socialism, etc. Frankly, given a blank slate and the opportunity to write a new law regarding gun control, I'm not sure where I would come out. I tend to be fairly pro gun because I am extremely concerned about the implications of ignoring the plain meaning of the words in the constitution. However, that position is motivated far more by a desire to hold the government accountable to the words of the constitution rather than a reasoned view on the underlying policy itself of gun control


----------



## Bjorn

Apatheticviews said:


> It's possible to change what is LEGAL, but not what is *CONSTITUTIONAL*. If you change what is legal to the point where it is no longer *CONSTITUTIONAL*, then it isn't legal at all. That's the issue with gun control. You can legislate. You can regulate. You cannot *INFRINGE*. Infringing breaks the fundamental ground rules. You break that rule, and you've broken the social contract.
> 
> We can change ELECTED officials through elections, but that doesn't mean government changes. The number of un-elected civil servants outnumbers our elected officials by an amazing factor. This doesn't even account for party advisors who work behind the scenes, to keep those machines running. The GOVERNMENT is a bueracracy. Every single elected official could disappear tomorrow, and it would still run. They aren't required. They present the _*illusion*_ of Democracy, in our Republic. It takes true naivety to believe that 600 people actually govern 400 million. They don't. They administrate the people who actually do.
> 
> I've never said increased gun control is against the constitution. I've said legislation for gun control that *INFRINGES* is against the Constitution. There's a huge difference between the two. I've specifically stated there are good legislation, and cited examples, and I've stated there are idiotic examples.
> 
> As for military power between the federal government and a single state or a single person, the federal government can't win that fight. It's not possible. It's a losing fight. However, if history is any indicator the aggressor is generally the larger of the two.


It is of course possible to change the constitution as well as any other law.

A bureaucracy does (IMO) not consist of the elected members of government, but rather of the civil servants tasked with administering what the government wants done. Or any part of any organisation tasked with complex administration.

And I disagree that the bureaucrats run government, and also, to the extent that they do in that they handle actual administration, that that is a bad thing.

Cut the managerial head off a bureaucracy, and it will not be able to cope with the tasks given to it, short or long term.

However, we may have strayed off topic...


----------



## Apatheticviews

Bjorn said:


> It is of course possible to change the constitution as well as any other law.
> 
> A bureaucracy does (IMO) not consist of the elected members of government, but rather of the civil servants tasked with administering what the government wants done. Or any part of any organisation tasked with complex administration.
> 
> And I disagree that the bureaucrats run government, and also, to the extent that they do in that they handle actual administration, that that is a bad thing.
> 
> Cut the managerial head off a bureaucracy, and it will not be able to cope with the tasks given to it, short or long term.
> 
> However, we may have strayed off topic...


Operation Fast & Furious. Ran by Bureaucrats, not elected officials (other than a funding pen-swipe). This is just example of the "government" not being ran by elected officials.

You also have to remember that nearly all (all but 2) of the United States elected officials (Federal Government) have no *Executive Power*. 2 people are in theory responsible for the running of the entire United States government. The Supreme Court doesn't "Govern" anything. The Legislative Branch doesn't "Govern" anything. Those aren't part of their enumerated powers.

You can disagree all you want, but doesn't mean it isn't true. The President is just as much a Figurehead, as monarch. He (as an individual) is rather inconsequential to the "day to day" operations of the United States.

Even as you divide his power into the cabinet level, we are talking about political appointees, who will only be in a position for a matter of years (4-8). These are not the Subject Matter Experts who actually *run the Department *(Cabinet level organization). The Secretaries are liaisons. People the President is comfortable working with, who have just enough knowledge to make them dangerous, and hopefully enough long-term managerial experience to stay the hell out of the way of people who actually do the work.

Do you honestly believe that we require (as a second person) an active Secretary of Defense? That this isn't something that could be done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Sure, it might be convenient, but if he disappeared tomorrow, no one would know.

As for changing the Constitution. Yes, it is possible. However, it's really really hard to take away a Human Right. That's what we call breaching the social contract. That's what wars are fought over. The 2nd amendment isn't going away, nor are any of the other first 10. We just had a landmark decision clarifying that owning firearms (bearing arms) was an individual right (Supreme Court decision).

That means that government would have to violate the constitution, and basic human rights to take them from us. That means the legislature cannot even present an proposed amendment to change the 2nd, without being in violation of their oaths of office (committing treason).

Our elected officials are required to swear/affirm in their oaths of office that they will Protect, Support, and/or Defend the Constitution of the United States. Our Military is charged with the same in our own oaths.

Changing the Bill of Rights (even through amendment), taking away a Right, is destroying the Constitution. Any man who has sworn such an oath, is a Traitor. It doesn't matter if it's the 2nd, the 3rd, or the 5th.

I understand where you are coming from. Governments have the power to change laws. Just because they do, doesn't mean they should. Just like I have the ability to buy full auto weapons (by going through an extensive process and getting a Tax Stamp from the BATFE), that doesn't mean I will. But... They work for me, not the other way around.

I'm not violating anyone else's rights by owning a firearm, and I am maintaining one of my own. There is no reason why I as a law-abiding citizen shouldn't be allowed to have it.

The problem is that we've seen what bad gun legislation leads to (both in the US, and outside). *We've seen it.* We're not going to repeat our own, and others' mistakes. And we have the grandaddy of our social contract to back us up on the matter (the Constitution).


----------



## Apatheticviews

pleasehelp said:


> I'm getting rather confused by this exchange. To make sure we are all clear. Whether it be common laws, statutes, rules, regulations or the constitution, they can all be amended through various procedures so that what was legal on one day is no longer legal the following day.
> 
> With respect to whether gun control by the legislature SHOULD be permissible, I think it is a more complicated issue; and I think people get so fired up about the constitutional law issue that they don't think about the policy issue. Should we allow people to have the means to rise up to overthrow the government? Or perhaps just to defend their health and property? Or perhaps just for sporting? Or perhaps not at all? Each position raises complicated issues regarding principles or liberty, equality, capitalism, socialism, etc. Frankly, given a blank slate and the opportunity to write a new law regarding gun control, I'm not sure where I would come out. I tend to be fairly pro gun because I am extremely concerned about the implications of ignoring the plain meaning of the words in the constitution. However, that position is motivated far more by a desire to hold the government accountable to the words of the constitution rather than a reasoned view on the underlying policy itself of gun control


Definitely, laws change as societies change. Unfortunately, we generally just tack on more laws vice reviewing the old ones to get rid of the fluff.

Gun Control legislature should definitely be _permissible_. I'm not arguing against well thought out, and useful regulations. However, use the existing regulation, and legislation first. Adding more laws which would just hamper law-abiding citizens, and not affect criminals (or those with criminal intent) is asinine.

Should we have the means to overthrow the government? Yes. Why? We essentially did it to the British, and what's good for the goose is good for the gander. It would be hypocritical to think otherwise. The Declaration says that whenever any government becomes so corrupt, it we should find another, even if we have to destroy the current to do so.

_"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." _

For Health and Property? The previous excerpt mentions Safety, which I believe is very apt for this question. The second is the concept of Castle Doctrine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine

As for sporting? If overthrowing the government, and self defense are justified, then hunting (self preservation) and sporting (which may include hunting), are non-issues. However, the Civilian Marksmanship Program is a great example that US government supports civilian sport shooting, and has for over a century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Marksmanship_Program

I agree, there are a wide variety of factors, and if given a blank slate it's hard to say... but I absolutely, 100% agree we have to hold the government accountable for the words in the Constitution.


----------



## Bjorn

Apatheticviews said:


> Operation Fast & Furious. Ran by Bureaucrats, not elected officials (other than a funding pen-swipe). This is just example of the "government" not being ran by elected officials.
> 
> You also have to remember that nearly all (all but 2) of the United States elected officials (Federal Government) have no *Executive Power*. 2 people are in theory responsible for the running of the entire United States government. The Supreme Court doesn't "Govern" anything. The Legislative Branch doesn't "Govern" anything. Those aren't part of their enumerated powers.
> 
> You can disagree all you want, but doesn't mean it isn't true. The President is just as much a Figurehead, as monarch. He (as an individual) is rather inconsequential to the "day to day" operations of the United States.
> 
> Even as you divide his power into the cabinet level, we are talking about political appointees, who will only be in a position for a matter of years (4-8). These are not the Subject Matter Experts who actually *run the Department *(Cabinet level organization). The Secretaries are liaisons. People the President is comfortable working with, who have just enough knowledge to make them dangerous, and hopefully enough long-term managerial experience to stay the hell out of the way of people who actually do the work.
> 
> Do you honestly believe that we require (as a second person) an active Secretary of Defense? That this isn't something that could be done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Sure, it might be convenient, but if he disappeared tomorrow, no one would know.
> 
> As for changing the Constitution. Yes, it is possible. However, it's really really hard to take away a Human Right. That's what we call breaching the social contract. That's what wars are fought over. The 2nd amendment isn't going away, nor are any of the other first 10. We just had a landmark decision clarifying that owning firearms (bearing arms) was an individual right (Supreme Court decision).
> 
> That means that government would have to violate the constitution, and basic human rights to take them from us. That means the legislature cannot even present an proposed amendment to change the 2nd, without being in violation of their oaths of office (committing treason).
> 
> Our elected officials are required to swear/affirm in their oaths of office that they will Protect, Support, and/or Defend the Constitution of the United States. Our Military is charged with the same in our own oaths.
> 
> Changing the Bill of Rights (even through amendment), taking away a Right, is destroying the Constitution. Any man who has sworn such an oath, is a Traitor. It doesn't matter if it's the 2nd, the 3rd, or the 5th.
> 
> I understand where you are coming from. Governments have the power to change laws. Just because they do, doesn't mean they should. Just like I have the ability to buy full auto weapons (by going through an extensive process and getting a Tax Stamp from the BATFE), that doesn't mean I will. But... They work for me, not the other way around.
> 
> I'm not violating anyone else's rights by owning a firearm, and I am maintaining one of my own. There is no reason why I as a law-abiding citizen shouldn't be allowed to have it.
> 
> The problem is that we've seen what bad gun legislation leads to (both in the US, and outside). *We've seen it.* We're not going to repeat our own, and others' mistakes. And we have the grandaddy of our social contract to back us up on the matter (the Constitution).


It can't be treason to propose an amendment to the constitution.

The supreme court cannot make a ruling that makes it so.

Owning a firearm is not a human right covered by the convention on human rights, nor any other bilateral agreement that would supersede the constitution.

You're elevating the constitution to a religious text, the law does not work that way. Any people may change their constitution however they want to.

The constitution has no valid legal protection against the American people, if they agree to change it.


----------



## JohnRov

Bjorn said:


> It can't be treason to propose an amendment to the constitution.
> 
> The supreme court cannot make a ruling that makes it so.
> 
> Owning a firearm is not a human right covered by the convention on human rights, nor any other bilateral agreement that would supersede the constitution.
> 
> You're elevating the constitution to a religious text, the law does not work that way. Any people may change their constitution however they want to.
> 
> The constitution has no valid legal protection against the American people, if they agree to change it.


No foreign treaty supersedes the Constitution, not sure where you would get that idea. Secondly, article two of said convention lists life as a human right, and the ability to protect it to me would seem implied.


----------



## pleasehelp

Apatheticviews said:


> Definitely, laws change as societies change. Unfortunately, we generally just tack on more laws vice reviewing the old ones to get rid of the fluff.
> 
> Gun Control legislature should definitely be _permissible_. I'm not arguing against well thought out, and useful regulations. However, use the existing regulation, and legislation first. Adding more laws which would just hamper law-abiding citizens, and not affect criminals (or those with criminal intent) is asinine.
> 
> Should we have the means to overthrow the government? Yes. Why? We essentially did it to the British, and what's good for the goose is good for the gander. It would be hypocritical to think otherwise. The Declaration says that whenever any government becomes so corrupt, it we should find another, even if we have to destroy the current to do so.
> 
> _"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." _
> 
> For Health and Property? The previous excerpt mentions Safety, which I believe is very apt for this question. The second is the concept of Castle Doctrine.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine
> 
> As for sporting? If overthrowing the government, and self defense are justified, then hunting (self preservation) and sporting (which may include hunting), are non-issues. However, the Civilian Marksmanship Program is a great example that US government supports civilian sport shooting, and has for over a century.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Marksmanship_Program
> 
> I agree, there are a wide variety of factors, and if given a blank slate it's hard to say... but I absolutely, 100% agree we have to hold the government accountable for the words in the Constitution.


Interesting that you think Gun Control legislation should be permissible given some of your other views, particularly that people should be able to arm themselves to overthrow the government. Certainly this legislation could be used to prevent citizens from overthrowing the government. As an aside, in my experience, most legal scholars do not view the declaration of independence as law.

An interesting question you might want to ask yourself (at least I find it interesting) is - who exactly are you referring to when you say that "we" should have the ability to overthrow the government? Does "we" simply refer to a group of people that are strong and wealthy enough to adequately arm themselves to raise an army against the rest of the nation? While the image of American patriots fighting against England to start a new nation raises a great deal of pride in us Americans, I'm not sure many of us would really like the present reality of that situation - people view it favorably from a historical standpoint because people are confident that the good guys won. However, I think that if you carry your argument to its naturally conclusion, "we" referes to the ability of the strong and well-armed to be able to impose their will on others.

It is a difficult and complicated issue. On the one hand, one would like to imagine that there is a check against the powers of a government if the government turns against its people. However, if the supposed check on the government is to allow the strong and armed to overthrow it, then what is to prevent the strong and armed from simply being tyrants?


----------



## Apatheticviews

Bjorn said:


> It can't be treason to propose an amendment to the constitution.
> 
> The supreme court cannot make a ruling that makes it so.
> 
> Owning a firearm is not a human right covered by the convention on human rights, nor any other bilateral agreement that would supersede the constitution.
> 
> You're elevating the constitution to a religious text, the law does not work that way. Any people may change their constitution however they want to.
> 
> The constitution has no valid legal protection against the American people, if they agree to change it.


The treason comes from the violation of their sworn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of United States of America. What else would you call violating your sworn oath of office?

Freedom of Speech, Press, bearing arms, etc (from the Bill of Rights) are Rights (possessed by all men, created equal, aka Human), as defined by our Constitution. *Our Social Contract*. The convention of human rights is just another social contract, and one that was signed 150 years later by different people.

Using this as example, you would say freedom from the Death Penalty is a Human right, but bearing arms is not (even though self preservation is implied throughout the document). The entire concept of a convention of Human Rights is to _protect People against Governments_.

You're right, the People may change the Constitution however they want. By discarding the government, and establishing a new one. That's how a written social contract works. Don't like this one, amend it, or throw it away. Unfortunately, you can't amend a Right. You can clarify, you can expand, but you can't infringe, and you sure as hell can't remove.

Our founding fathers' got it right. They made a document that lasted 200+ years. You can count the number of countries with bicentennial constitutions on one hand and still have fingers left. Because it works. It's dead simple (I've said so before), and it can be understood by anyone with a high school education.

The Constitution has no legal protection against the *American People*. It does however have legal protection against our elected representatives. That's one of the reasons they swear oaths to defend it. That's it's main protection. Congress can't make a law that gets rid of the presidency, because it violates the Constitution. This is an extreme example, but no more extreme than your suggestion of removing an enumerated Right through legislation.

If you can remove this Right, what's next? Removal of Free Speech? The Right for women to vote? Self incrimination. They are all things that can be voted on. They are all in the Constitution. Because they are that important. So important they had to be included in the social contract of our nation.

I hope the day never comes where Americans have to write these words again:
_
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

_But that doesn't change their fundament right to do so, if some group of idiot politicians (aka legislators) decides to break the social contract (aka the Constitution).


----------



## Apatheticviews

pleasehelp said:


> Interesting that you think Gun Control legislation should be permissible given some of your other views, particularly that people should be able to arm themselves to overthrow the government. Certainly this legislation could be used to prevent citizens from overthrowing the government. As an aside, in my experience, most legal scholars do not view the declaration of independence as law.
> 
> An interesting question you might want to ask yourself (at least I find it interesting) is - who exactly are you referring to when you say that "we" should have the ability to overthrow the government? Does "we" simply refer to a group of people that are strong and wealthy enough to adequately arm themselves to raise an army against the rest of the nation? While the image of American patriots fighting against England to start a new nation raises a great deal of pride in us Americans, I'm not sure many of us would really like the present reality of that situation - people view it favorably from a historical standpoint because people are confident that the good guys won. However, I think that if you carry your argument to its naturally conclusion, "we" referes to the ability of the strong and well-armed to be able to impose their will on others.
> 
> It is a difficult and complicated issue. On the one hand, one would like to imagine that there is a check against the powers of a government if the government turns against its people. However, if the supposed check on the government is to allow the strong and armed to overthrow it, then what is to prevent the strong and armed from simply being tyrants?


I think smart gun legislature should be permitted. I've used the things like the FFL system as an example. Law-abiding citizens are willing to fill out paperwork (criminal background check, and the ability to trace gun purchases to a limited degree). Criminals get them from other sources. Laws that are strictly punitive in nature, like saying using a firearm in the commission in a crime elevates it to a felony, would also be permissible. Using the law to record information about the American People.... not so much.

Legislation has to make sense. It can't be about limiting People's Rights, unless it is offering far more protection than the Right is worth. Unfortunately, most legislation just doesn't do that. Its badly worded, and badly executed. The AWB 1994 was a prime example of bad gun control legislation.

When I use the term "We," I mean "We, the People." Simple as that. I am part of this social contract we call the United States, and as such I agree to act in a certain matter in some things. However, it does mean I have to agree with anything my government is doing. Individual Rights come first as long as they do not interfere with other individual Rights. If I'm not hurting (or infringing) on another, then honestly it's probably none of their business. Gun control is like that.

If someone came knocking at my door asking for my guns one day, I can tell you right now they aren't getting them. And based on the speed at which legislation moves, I'll have plenty of foresight. I'll fight tooth & nail. First with words, then with walls, and then with whatever other tools I need or can find.

If that means banding up with the other 25 million (estimated) gun owners in America (which outnumbers our military 25 to 1), then theoretically a man's got to do what a man's got to do.

It is a complicated issue, but both are shows of force. It's an old cold war model. If the citizenry are armed, it prevents tyrants. If the government is armed, it can prevent usurpers. It's an ever present stalemate, until someone steps out of bound, and violates the social contract. A gentleman's agreement if you will.


----------



## pleasehelp

Apatheticviews said:


> I think smart gun legislature should be permitted. I've used the things like the FFL system as an example. Law-abiding citizens are willing to fill out paperwork (criminal background check, and the ability to trace gun purchases to a limited degree). Criminals get them from other sources. Laws that are strictly punitive in nature, like saying using a firearm in the commission in a crime elevates it to a felony, would also be permissible. Using the law to record information about the American People.... not so much.
> 
> Legislation has to make sense. It can't be about limiting People's Rights, unless it is offering far more protection than the Right is worth. Unfortunately, most legislation just doesn't do that. Its badly worded, and badly executed. The AWB 1994 was a prime example of bad gun control legislation.
> 
> When I use the term "We," I mean "We, the People." Simple as that. I am part of this social contract we call the United States, and as such I agree to act in a certain matter in some things. However, it does mean I have to agree with anything my government is doing. Individual Rights come first as long as they do not interfere with other individual Rights. If I'm not hurting (or infringing) on another, then honestly it's probably none of their business. Gun control is like that.
> 
> If someone came knocking at my door asking for my guns one day, I can tell you right now they aren't getting them. And based on the speed at which legislation moves, I'll have plenty of foresight. I'll fight tooth & nail. First with words, then with walls, and then with whatever other tools I need or can find.
> 
> If that means banding up with the other 25 million (estimated) gun owners in America (which outnumbers our military 25 to 1), then theoretically a man's got to do what a man's got to do.
> 
> It is a complicated issue, but both are shows of force. It's an old cold war model. If the citizenry are armed, it prevents tyrants. If the government is armed, it can prevent usurpers. It's an ever present stalemate, until someone steps out of bound, and violates the social contract. A gentleman's agreement if you will.


A couple responses:

1) Whether gun control is "smart" or "makes sense" (which such legislation you say you are willing to accept) is subjective. I find it interesting that you are willing to entertain the idea that gun control is permissible if those controls offer more protection than the right is "worth". These positions are difficult for me to reconcile with a position that gun ownership is truly a right. You are allowing for third parties to make these subjective judgments, which is exactly what is currently occuring in the current US system. I was under the impression from your other posts, that you would not support arms-control in a manner that would prevent an armed uprising against the government.

2) "We" as "we, the people" is difficult to envision as a pracitical reality. The "people" of the United States often have very different views on matters, and don't march to the beat of the same drum. That is one of the things that makes the United States so great. As written in the constitution, "We, the people" was actually a fairly small group of wealthy and powerful individuals that agreed on some high-level topics. If you believe that people should be permitted to arm themselves in a manner to be able to battle against an overreaching government, what is to prevent people from similarly arming themselves to battle against a proper government and taking contol from the weak?


----------



## Apatheticviews

pleasehelp said:


> A couple responses:
> 
> 1) Whether gun control is "smart" or "makes sense" (which such legislation you say you are willing to accept) is subjective. I find it interesting that you are willing to entertain the idea that gun control is permissible if those controls offer more protection than the right is "worth". These positions are difficult for me to reconcile with a position that gun ownership is truly a right. You are allowing for third parties to make these subjective judgments, which is exactly what is currently occuring in the current US system. I was under the impression from your other posts, that you would not support arms-control in a manner that would prevent an armed uprising against the government.
> 
> 2) "We" as "we, the people" is difficult to envision as a pracitical reality. The "people" of the United States often have very different views on matters, and don't march to the beat of the same drum. That is one of the things that makes the United States so great. As written in the constitution, "We, the people" was actually a fairly small group of wealthy and powerful individuals that agreed on some high-level topics. If you believe that people should be permitted to arm themselves in a manner to be able to battle against an overreaching government, what is to prevent people from similarly arming themselves to battle against a proper government and taking contol from the weak?


1. That's why lobby organizations and political parties band exist. Although I don't agree with everything that organizations like the NRA, ACLU, GOP, or Democratic party preach, doesn't mean I can't see their use in protecting my Rights. Any judgement is going to be subjective, and any law is going to be just as subjective, so I personal view is aim for "do minimal harm," and ofttimes do nothing at all. Most times the current legislation/regulations are sufficient to accomplish the goal. If the goal can be met with the current laws, then there is no need for additional laws. If the law needs additional clarification, then keep it minimal. It's the broad strokes I have real opposition to. I would not support any legislation that I perceive to _*infringe* on the right to bear arms_. That's the trick, making a distinction between regulation and infringement. Having a serial number and filling out paperwork for a gun purchase is minimal infringement, so minimal it doesn't affect the right, and it does offer true benefits to public safety. These are just two examples of smart regulation.

2. If the government (and the People) is so weak that it can't protect itself from an armed *uprising*, is it the proper government? However, what would necessitate an uprising of that scale? The US is far too big at this point. So it's a theoretical debate only. But yes, it would be small cells of people. Or at largest another confederacy. With the flagrant violations of other Rights enumerated in the Constitution (4th), the States have been fighting back against the federal government more and more over the last decade.


----------



## Bjorn

The constitution does not equal the social contract, and there is indeed the possibility to revoke or change rights (such as the right to bear arms) through changing the constitution. 

Rights are simply permissible actions under current legislation.


----------



## JohnRov

Bjorn said:


> Rights are simply permissible actions under current legislation.


You need to research our Constitution a bit more. Rights are defined as an intrinsic part of who we are as human beings, the Constitution enumerates areas the government may not infringe upon. Were there laws or even an amendment, we would still possess those rights, the government would just be preventing us from exercising them.


----------



## Apatheticviews

JohnRov said:


> You need to research our Constitution a bit more. Rights are defined as an intrinsic part of who we are as human beings, the Constitution enumerates areas the government may not infringe upon. Were there laws or even an amendment, we would still possess those rights, the government would just be preventing us from exercising them.


100% Concur.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Bjorn said:


> The constitution does not equal the social contract, and there is indeed the possibility to revoke or change rights (such as the right to bear arms) through changing the constitution.
> 
> Rights are simply permissible actions under current legislation.


The Constitution is an written Agreement of the People of this Nation.

An Agreement in writing, can generally be defined as a contract.

The People of a Nation is a Society.

It most definitely is a Social Contract.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

"The *social contract* is an intellectual device intended to explain the appropriate relationship between individuals and their governments. Social contract arguments assert that individuals unite into political societies by a process of mutual consent, agreeing to abide by common rules and accept corresponding duties to protect themselves and one another from violence and other kinds of harm."

Ours just happens be on paper, vice purely in the theoretical.

Taken from the above definition, our constitution does indeed do the following:

1) Explain the appropriate relationship between individuals and their government. Voting, and election process. Rights of the People, and privileges/powers of government branches.
2) Not only asserts that we unite into a political society, *but actually is the basis for one*.
3) Outlines duties to protect ourselves and others from harm. Executive Branch Head is Commander in Chief of Military is a prime example of this.

Rights are not permissible actions. Rights are things all men are born with (imbued by a Creator, or Evolution). By your logic, and your own reference, the governments of the world could therefore remove all the human rights that were agreed upon last century?

Your Right to Speak & Assemble, etc in Sweden are such simple things that you would give them to your government, letting them strip you of those Rights via Legislation?


----------



## Bjorn

Parliament legislates, rather than government. It's the same in the US afaik, and the constitution may be amended. 

The social contract is (as stated) an intellectual device. 

In Sweden, there is a constitution as well, and there are rules on how to amend it (although we change rather than amend, it amounts to the same procedure). It covers the same general areas as the US constitution does.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Bjorn said:


> Parliament legislates, rather than government. It's the same in the US afaik, and the constitution may be amended.
> 
> The social contract is (as stated) an intellectual device.
> 
> In Sweden, there is a constitution as well, and there are rules on how to amend it (although we change rather than amend, it amounts to the same procedure). It covers the same general areas as the US constitution does.


Congress (what you call Parliament) is the Legislative Branch of the US Government (1 of 3 Branches). It has specific powers granted by the Constitution, and it is a part of the government. Therefore the statement "rather than government" cannot apply, since it assumes that Congress is an outside organization.

Second, Congress does not have the power to directly Amend the Constitution. They can propose an Amendment to the Constitution, which then must be ratified by the states. It is actually through the "unused" means of a national convention where we could see major overhauls to the Constitution, without legislators violating their oaths.

But to put it simply. 27 actual changes in 200 years. The first 10 were in one fell swoop, as our Bill of Rights, essentially making it "18" actual changes. Yes, it can be changed. It's fairly easy to do. Assuming, you have good enough reason to do it. If you don't you have a hell of a lot of backlash, because it requires 2/3 votes from both houses, and 3/4 states ratification. The process is simple. The execution is tricky.


----------



## keysort

The argument for gun control often begins with, "Our founding fathers could never have imagined AK-47s and M-16s and Glocks." If technological advances are adequate excuses to alter the Constitution, imagine that argument's effect on free speech! Could the founding fathers have imagined that someone in any part of the world could talk to a little stick in front of a plastic box that beams invisible rays into space then back down so that someone in their home can watch them on their talking plastic box?

I would not accept that satellites, internet and television are grounds for 1st Amendment reduction. Therefore, I will not accept that automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines are grounds for 2nd Amendment reduction.


----------



## Howard

This gun violence is getting way outta control,people are shooting people just about every day,How do you stop this?


----------



## Apatheticviews

Howard said:


> This gun violence is getting way outta control,people are shooting people just about every day,How do you stop this?


If you hadn't noticed, people are violent creatures. If they didn't have guns, they would use knives, bats, sticks, cudgels, or just plain intimidation. Blaming violence on guns, is like blaming carpentry on hammers.

People who LEGALLY own guns aren't the problem. People who possess them illegally are. There are already laws about that. Lots of them.

Your phrasing is vague, and it just doesn't hold up to the actual MATH. Here's the quick math:

Approximately 7500 guns are used each year in crime, of the 70 MILLION in the US. That's 00.1~%. (About 1 in 1000)

About 30,000 gun deaths every year. Over half are Suicides. But, in a country of 308 MILLION, that would equate to .00974% (About 1 in 10,000 including suicides, 1 in 20,000 excluding).

Compare that to number of Motor Vehicle Deaths per year (remember the number of suicides will be significantly lower,if not down right non-existent)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

I don't see anyone trying to "ban" cars.


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Howard said:


> This gun violence is getting way outta control,people are shooting people just about every day,How do you stop this?


Round up all the guns, all the guns everywhere Howard, and the violence will stop. It's possible right?

Isn't gun ownership for all but a select few outlawed in NYC? Why then do so many shootings occur? Could it be because bad people don't want to give up their firearms? (this category includes many governments)

The principal of firearm ownership for "Average" citizens in any society requires understanding history and the inherent nature of mankind as a species.

Times change but the nature of mankind has not changed since we began walking upright and living in society's.

See I grew up with a Grandfather who showed my brother and I pictures of German soldiers herding hundreds of Jews into trains with a single pistol while he explained that if a government turns on you and you do not have a firearm you are nothing more than a sheep being lead to the slaughter,....

You say, but this is an antiquated principal and we, as humans, have learned our lesson right? Yea right.

If you want to know exactly what the founding fathers of the United States were thinking when they wrote the second amendment it's possible to find out. Inform yourself and think about it for awhile.

You seem like a very bright fellow Howard and if you disagree with this position all I ask is that you come up with a specific realistic proposal that ensures that "Ordinary" citizens, as the permanent political ruling class like to call us, are protected from crime and a government that has turned against it's own citizens.


----------



## Jovan

Sure, but guns are a more impersonal weapon. It's easier to shoot someone from afar than get up close and stick 'em with a knife.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Jovan said:


> Sure, but guns are a more impersonal weapon. It's easier to shoot someone from afar than get up close and stick 'em with a knife.


Except that most gun violence is done with handguns, and most of that is done "up close" (about 15 feet).


----------



## Jovan

You're splitting hairs. It wasn't an anti- or pro-gun sentiment, just an observation.


----------



## Bjorn

keysort said:


> The argument for gun control often begins with, "Our founding fathers could never have imagined AK-47s and M-16s and Glocks." If technological advances are adequate excuses to alter the Constitution, imagine that argument's effect on free speech! Could the founding fathers have imagined that someone in any part of the world could talk to a little stick in front of a plastic box that beams invisible rays into space then back down so that someone in their home can watch them on their talking plastic box?
> 
> I would not accept that satellites, internet and television are grounds for 1st Amendment reduction. Therefore, I will not accept that automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines are grounds for 2nd Amendment reduction.


In practice, there have been amendments to freedom of speech due to media and technological advances. Also, the freedoms are constantly reconstrued due to changes in society. Your founding fathers wouldn't recognise your constitution and what it means to you any more than ancient Romans would understand current real estate law, though much of their legal practices are probably still valid and in place in most countries.

You may not accept that change needs to affect legislation at all levels, but saying that these founding fathers had it all figured out is a tad conservative even by religious standards.


----------



## Bjorn

127.72 MHz said:


> Round up all the guns, all the guns everywhere Howard, and the violence will stop. It's possible right?
> 
> Isn't gun ownership for all but a select few outlawed in NYC? Why then do so many shootings occur? Could it be because bad people don't want to give up their firearms? (this category includes many governments)
> 
> The principal of firearm ownership for "Average" citizens in any society requires understanding history and the inherent nature of mankind as a species.
> 
> Times change but the nature of mankind has not changed since we began walking upright and living in society's.
> 
> See I grew up with a Grandfather who showed my brother and I pictures of German soldiers herding hundreds of Jews into trains with a single pistol while he explained that if a government turns on you and you do not have a firearm you are nothing more than a sheep being lead to the slaughter,....
> 
> You say, but this is an antiquated principal and we, as humans, have learned our lesson right? Yea right.
> 
> If you want to know exactly what the founding fathers of the United States were thinking when they wrote the second amendment it's possible to find out. Inform yourself and think about it for awhile.
> 
> You seem like a very bright fellow Howard and if you disagree with this position all I ask is that you come up with a specific realistic proposal that ensures that "Ordinary" citizens, as the permanent political ruling class like to call us, are protected from crime and a government that has turned against it's own citizens.


You can just vote them out and elect a new government.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Jovan said:


> You're splitting hairs. It wasn't an anti- or pro-gun sentiment, just an observation.


I wasn't rebutting your statement. Just providing an additional "tongue in cheek observation." The written form didn't convey it well.


----------



## Howard

127.72 MHz said:


> Round up all the guns, all the guns everywhere Howard, and the violence will stop. It's possible right?
> 
> Isn't gun ownership for all but a select few outlawed in NYC? Why then do so many shootings occur? Could it be because bad people don't want to give up their firearms? (this category includes many governments)
> 
> The principal of firearm ownership for "Average" citizens in any society requires understanding history and the inherent nature of mankind as a species.
> 
> Times change but the nature of mankind has not changed since we began walking upright and living in society's.
> 
> See I grew up with a Grandfather who showed my brother and I pictures of German soldiers herding hundreds of Jews into trains with a single pistol while he explained that if a government turns on you and you do not have a firearm you are nothing more than a sheep being lead to the slaughter,....
> 
> You say, but this is an antiquated principal and we, as humans, have learned our lesson right? Yea right.
> 
> If you want to know exactly what the founding fathers of the United States were thinking when they wrote the second amendment it's possible to find out. Inform yourself and think about it for awhile.
> 
> You seem like a very bright fellow Howard and if you disagree with this position all I ask is that you come up with a specific realistic proposal that ensures that "Ordinary" citizens, as the permanent political ruling class like to call us, are protected from crime and a government that has turned against it's own citizens.


I'm not saying that we should ban guns but we have to do something about the violence that happens every day in our world,I'm sure a lot of people have guns in their homes for protection.I'm mean you can't ban knives or any other foreign object cause we need it for our defense one day someone will come up to you with an object so what do you do?


----------



## Apatheticviews

Howard said:


> I'm not saying that we should ban guns but we have to do something about the violence that happens every day in our world,I'm sure a lot of people have guns in their homes for protection.I'm mean you can't ban knives or any other foreign object cause we need it for our defense one day someone will come up to you with an object so what do you do?


Getting a Concealed Carry Permit is "doing something" as is having a firearm in one's home. Just like having jumper cables and a spare tire in your car. It's having a tool in case of an emergency.

Having access to emergency tools, and skills is a choice, as is choosing not to.

What would you think of someone who chose not to go a doctor/hospital with a broken arm? Choosing not acknowledge an emergency and then use right tool.


----------



## Jovan

Apatheticviews said:


> I wasn't rebutting your statement. Just providing an additional "tongue in cheek observation." The written form didn't convey it well.


Ah, my mistake.


----------



## Howard

And today in the news one girl got shot and killed just because some guy thought that she was a he.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Howard said:


> And today in the news one girl got shot and killed just because some guy thought that she was a he.


That's a problem with the guy, not with the gun.

We don't blame drinking & driving on the car. We blame it on the idiot behind the wheel. If someone uses a dangerous tool, any tool, to commit murder, ignore the tool for the moment, and look at it for what it is. Murder. It doesn't matter what you kill someone with. It matters that you killed them. It matters that they are dead.


----------



## Jovan

^ Spot on. And I'm one of those dadgum liberal folk who are supposed to all be against guns!


----------



## Bjorn

Apatheticviews said:


> That's a problem with the guy, not with the gun.
> 
> We don't blame drinking & driving on the car. We blame it on the idiot behind the wheel. If someone uses a dangerous tool, any tool, to commit murder, ignore the tool for the moment, and look at it for what it is. Murder. It doesn't matter what you kill someone with. It matters that you killed them. It matters that they are dead.


Perhaps it would get a little bit harder killing people if we had less guns.

Do we apply the same sentiment to all weapons? WMD:s? In that case, why are we actively infringing on Iran and North Koreas right to self defense? Why the ban on chemical and biological weapons?

In those cases, it's all about the hardware. Only regarding conventional firearms are we not allowed to claim that there's a connection between guns and people getting shot.

Also, there's has been tremendous effort on making cars safer for traffic and pedestrians. Since their primary purpose is transport, making them safer has been an improvement to their general function. Making guns safer would sort of defeat the purpose.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Bjorn said:


> Perhaps it would get a little bit harder killing people if we had less guns.
> 
> Do we apply the same sentiment to all weapons? WMD:s? In that case, why are we actively infringing on Iran and North Koreas right to self defense? Why the ban on chemical and biological weapons?
> 
> In those cases, it's all about the hardware. Only regarding conventional firearms are we not allowed to claim that there's a connection between guns and people getting shot.
> 
> Also, there's has been tremendous effort on making cars safer for traffic and pedestrians. Since their primary purpose is transport, making them safer has been an improvement to their general function. Making guns safer would sort of defeat the purpose.


Really? DC had a complete gun ban, and that didn't do squat. Chicago, and New York are two of cities with the highest "gun violence" rates, and also the most strict gun laws.

*Banning an item doesn't make it less likely to be used violently.*

As for making guns safer, we have numerous laws just for that. Including the requirement for "drop safeties," consistent standards for manufacture (both weapon, and ammunition), and training requirements for concealed handgun permit holders.


----------



## Howard

Apatheticviews said:


> That's a problem with the guy, not with the gun.
> 
> We don't blame drinking & driving on the car. We blame it on the idiot behind the wheel. If someone uses a dangerous tool, any tool, to commit murder, ignore the tool for the moment, and look at it for what it is. Murder. It doesn't matter what you kill someone with. It matters that you killed them. It matters that they are dead.


Well,I guess the guy who he shot is the fool who did something stupid.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Howard said:


> Well,I guess the guy who he shot is the fool who did something stupid.


Not all. There's an old saying.

"Just because someone incited a riot, is no excuse to riot."

In general terms, "stupidity" is not reason enough to get shot. Stupidity is generally passive in nature. You usually need to do something active to justify getting shot.


----------



## Howard

Apatheticviews said:


> Not all. There's an old saying.
> 
> "Just because someone incited a riot, is no excuse to riot."
> 
> In general terms, "stupidity" is not reason enough to get shot. Stupidity is generally passive in nature. You usually need to do something active to justify getting shot.


That incident would've been avoided if she had taken off her hoodie to reveal that she was a she.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Howard said:


> That incident would've been avoided if she had taken off her hoodie to reveal that she was a she.


The incident would have been avoided if this idiot wouldn't have used his tool for the wrong reasons.

He murdered another person. He murdered another person.

This wasn't a gun related killing. It was killing that happened to have a gun involved. If this knucklehead didn't have a gun, he would have used a bat, or a knife, or a tire iron.


----------



## Howard

Apatheticviews said:


> The incident would have been avoided if this idiot wouldn't have used his tool for the wrong reasons.
> 
> He murdered another person. He murdered another person.
> 
> This wasn't a gun related killing. It was killing that happened to have a gun involved. If this knucklehead didn't have a gun, he would have used a bat, or a knife, or a tire iron.


or even your fists,I've read about people starting fights with their fists.


----------



## Howard

See how stupid people are in today's crazy world,shooting a baby girl in the eye because it misfired.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Howard said:


> See how stupid people are in today's crazy world,shooting a baby girl in the eye because it misfired.


The article doesn't say anything about "misfiring." It says the gunman "missed" his intended target. Those two terms mean very specific things when dealing with firearms.

But this again isn't about gun violence. This is about violence. Someone meant to do harm to another, and someone else got in the way.

You brought up two key points:

1) Stupid people.
2) Crazy world.


----------



## Pentheos

Howard said:


> or even your fists,I've read about people starting fights with their fists.


Why would anyone even write this?


----------



## Elev8

Apatheticviews said:


> That's a problem with the guy, not with the gun.
> 
> We don't blame drinking & driving on the car. We blame it on the idiot behind the wheel. If someone uses a dangerous tool, any tool, to commit murder, ignore the tool for the moment, and look at it for what it is. Murder. It doesn't matter what you kill someone with. It matters that you killed them. It matters that they are dead.


This topic interests me greatly for reasons I won't go into.
Regrettably I just don't have time to read the prior 25 pages worth of posts here however, so apologies if this has already been addressed, perhaps someone would be kind enough to briefly reprise for my benefit?

How exactly is a gun realistically classified as a tool? By what definition?

A tool, generally speaking, has a primary purpose other than killing or inflicting harm on other living beings.
A gun does not. The only purpose of a gun is to kill or inflict harm.
Therein IMO lies the vital (hehe) distinction, which must logically preclude guns from classification as tools.

By the same definition, of course myriad tools may be misused as weapons. This is unavoidable and cannot be legislated for. But weapons would _not _be misused as tools.

The main (I would expect) counter argument to this would be the "gun primarily a deterrent" argument. This is a fallacy, because the deterrent effect does NOT depend on the gun having capability to wound or kill. An identical looking but non-functioning item logically must have the same deterrent effect as a functioning gun. Therefore a gun is not primarily a deterrent.

The only difference between a functioning gun and it's identical non-functioning counterpart, aside from the capability to wound or kill, is in the mind and perception of the person wielding it (because only they know the capability they hold). I cannot conceive of any positive benefit or effect which accrues to anyone merely by the presence of that perception. Therefore, IMO, the need to enshrine it in law just seems perverse. Even more so when the harmful & negative effects are considered, obviously.

It seems to me objectively the "pro" argument is tenuous and weak at best, and overwhelmingly overmatched by the "anti".

The real problem is that objectivity usually has very little to do with this topic.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Elev8 said:


> This topic interests me greatly for reasons I won't go into.
> Regrettably I just don't have time to read the prior 25 pages worth of posts here however, so apologies if this has already been addressed, perhaps someone would be kind enough to briefly reprise for my benefit?
> 
> How exactly is a gun realistically classified as a tool? By what definition?
> 
> A tool, generally speaking, has a primary purpose other than killing or inflicting harm on other living beings.
> A gun does not. The only purpose of a gun is to kill or inflict harm.
> Therein IMO lies the vital (hehe) distinction, which must logically preclude guns from classification as tools.
> 
> By the same definition, of course myriad tools may be misused as weapons. This is unavoidable and cannot be legislated for. But weapons would _not _be misused as tools.
> 
> The main (I would expect) counter argument to this would be the "gun primarily a deterrent" argument. This is a fallacy, because the deterrent effect does NOT depend on the gun having capability to wound or kill. An identical looking but non-functioning item logically must have the same deterrent effect as a functioning gun. Therefore a gun is not primarily a deterrent.
> 
> The only difference between a functioning gun and it's identical non-functioning counterpart, aside from the capability to wound or kill, is in the mind and perception of the person wielding it (because only they know the capability they hold). I cannot conceive of any positive benefit or effect which accrues to anyone merely by the presence of that perception. Therefore, IMO, the need to enshrine it in law just seems perverse. Even more so when the harmful & negative effects are considered, obviously.
> 
> It seems to me objectively the "pro" argument is tenuous and weak at best, and overwhelmingly overmatched by the "anti".
> 
> The real problem is that objectivity usually has very little to do with this topic.


Below is the definition of a "tool" as taken from www.dictionary.com.

Let's see.

1) A gun is an implement held in the hand for performing/facilitating mechanical (it is a a machine) operations (killing as you put it).
2) a instrument of manual operation
4) a mechanical device, a machine
5)_ Firearms are a tool for killing/violence._

As your definition is not valid, your counterargument is invalid. Firearms are tools in the traditional sense meeting not only one (the requirement) of the five listed accepted definitions, but four. I imagine grabbing the Websters, or Oxfords dictionary would yield similar results.

As for use as a deterrent argument. It is a non-sequitor to the tool argument. But the deterrent argument relies on the assumptions that the predator _assumes_ the victim has a means of defense. At that point, the first predatory instinct kicks in "the easy kill is the only kill."

This is why women are victimized more than men. Not because they are weaker, but because they are perceived as weaker prey.

A potential victim who appears capable of self defense is quickly passed over for easier prey. Hyenas don't go usually go after lions, and when they do, they have a bad day.

"tool   [tool] https://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html Show IPA
*noun**1.*an implement, especially one held in the hand, as ahammer, saw, or file, for performing or facilitating mechanical operations.

*2.*any instrument of manual operation.

*3.*the cutting or machining part of a lathe, planer, drill, orsimilar machine.

*4.*the machine itself; a machine tool.

*5.*anything used as a means of accomplishing a task orpurpose: _Education is a tool for success."

_


----------



## Apatheticviews

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...or-murder-over-knifing-suspected-burglar.html

No guns in Britain either.


----------



## pleasehelp

Elev8 said:


> This topic interests me greatly for reasons I won't go into.
> Regrettably I just don't have time to read the prior 25 pages worth of posts here however, so apologies if this has already been addressed, perhaps someone would be kind enough to briefly reprise for my benefit?
> 
> How exactly is a gun realistically classified as a tool? By what definition?
> 
> A tool, generally speaking, has a primary purpose other than killing or inflicting harm on other living beings.
> A gun does not. The only purpose of a gun is to kill or inflict harm.
> Therein IMO lies the vital (hehe) distinction, which must logically preclude guns from classification as tools.
> 
> By the same definition, of course myriad tools may be misused as weapons. This is unavoidable and cannot be legislated for. But weapons would _not _be misused as tools.
> 
> The main (I would expect) counter argument to this would be the "gun primarily a deterrent" argument. This is a fallacy, because the deterrent effect does NOT depend on the gun having capability to wound or kill. An identical looking but non-functioning item logically must have the same deterrent effect as a functioning gun. Therefore a gun is not primarily a deterrent.
> 
> The only difference between a functioning gun and it's identical non-functioning counterpart, aside from the capability to wound or kill, is in the mind and perception of the person wielding it (because only they know the capability they hold). I cannot conceive of any positive benefit or effect which accrues to anyone merely by the presence of that perception. Therefore, IMO, the need to enshrine it in law just seems perverse. Even more so when the harmful & negative effects are considered, obviously.
> 
> It seems to me objectively the "pro" argument is tenuous and weak at best, and overwhelmingly overmatched by the "anti".
> 
> The real problem is that objectivity usually has very little to do with this topic.


Setting aside whether a gun is a tool (which seems like a similar argument as to whether or not billiards is a sport), why are you anti-gun? I actually find the discussion extremely interesting, particularly when removed from the discussion of the second amendment. I don't necessarily have a fully reasoned position on the topic myself. My gut feelings on the subject certainly change based upon the location and type of guns (it seems hard to make one policy that covers a shotgun in rural MS and an UZI in Manhattan), although I try not to take positions based upon my gut feelings.


----------



## Apatheticviews

pleasehelp said:


> Setting aside whether a gun is a tool (which seems like a similar argument as to whether or not billiards is a sport), why are you anti-gun? I actually find the discussion extremely interesting, particularly when removed from the discussion of the second amendment. I don't necessarily have a fully reasoned position on the topic myself. My gut feelings on the subject certainly change based upon the location and type of guns (it seems hard to make one policy that covers a shotgun in rural MS and an UZI in Manhattan), although I try not to take positions based upon my gut feelings.


Keep in mind that Full-Auto (like the Uzi in your example) is HIGHLY regulated, and a completely different process than getting a Shotgun.

In VA, which is very gun friendly, you can walk in fill out 2 forms of paper (which results in a criminal background check), and usually walk out the same day. For an "Uzi" (which I assume you mean Full Auto weapon) you have to adhere to the NFA regulations (which can result in a 3-6 month wait even if you have already one):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-firearms.html

The problem is that many people either don't understand this, or intentionally misrepresent this. Putting an Uzi in the same class as a Shotgun, is like calling a BB gun an Assault Rifle. They may look alike, but they are orders of magnitude in difference.


----------



## Bjorn

A fully automatic submachinegun is a close range suppression weapon used by military and police in combat situations. I trained with one. It would be awkward to use for self defence as the bullets are likely to end up both in and around the target. Why should civvies be allowed to own them at all? I don't think I'll ever understand this...


----------



## Jovan

Obviously, because Americans need fully automatic weaponry to take back the Godless liberal country the USA has become.

Am I right? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Apatheticviews

Bjorn said:


> A fully automatic submachinegun is a close range suppression weapon used by military and police in combat situations. I trained with one. It would be awkward to use for self defence as the bullets are likely to end up both in and around the target. Why should civvies be allowed to own them at all? I don't think I'll ever understand this...


*Why shouldn't a law abiding citizen be allowed to own ANYTHING?*

The NFA has amazingly strict regulations compared to the standard firearms purchase process. For the most part, those who possess NFA weapons own them legally. Very rarely are they used to commit crime.

I'm a free man, born in a free country, and frankly it's not my neighbor nor my government's (who works for me/us) right to tell me what I "need." The guy down the street doesn't "need" a Hummer that burns 12mpg. You don't "need" a dozen suits, or watches, or shoes. People get by with significantly less. We get things because we have worked hard to have them, and we have an interest in them.

Firearms are legal in the US, and protected by our Constitution (and other laws). People are allowed to have them if they meet the regulatory guidelines in place. Simple as that. The regulatory guidelines are limited by the Constitution (Right to bear arms cannot be infringed), which creates an unbreakable loop.

--------------------

A couple articles though, on NFA weapons and self defense though.

https://www.afn.org/~guns/ayoob.html

https://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_168_28/ai_112685749/


----------



## Apatheticviews

Jovan said:


> Obviously, because Americans need fully automatic weaponry to take back the Godless liberal country the USA has become.
> 
> Am I right? :icon_smile_big:


Violently overthrowing our last government gave us a little bit of historical perspective.


----------



## Bjorn

Apatheticviews said:


> *Why shouldn't a law abiding citizen be allowed to own ANYTHING?*
> 
> The NFA has amazingly strict regulations compared to the standard firearms purchase process. For the most part, those who possess NFA weapons own them legally. Very rarely are they used to commit crime.
> 
> I'm a free man, born in a free country, and frankly it's not my neighbor nor my government's (who works for me/us) right to tell me what I "need." The guy down the street doesn't "need" a Hummer that burns 12mpg. You don't "need" a dozen suits, or watches, or shoes. People get by with significantly less. We get things because we have worked hard to have them, and we have an interest in them.
> 
> Firearms are legal in the US, and protected by our Constitution (and other laws). People are allowed to have them if they meet the regulatory guidelines in place. Simple as that. The regulatory guidelines are limited by the Constitution (Right to bear arms cannot be infringed), which creates an unbreakable loop.
> 
> --------------------
> 
> A couple articles though, on NFA weapons and self defense though.
> 
> https://www.afn.org/~guns/ayoob.html
> 
> https://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_168_28/ai_112685749/


Not unbreakable. Can be changed.


----------



## Jovan

Apatheticviews said:


> Violently overthrowing our last government gave us a little bit of historical perspective.


Don't take it too seriously, I was just having a bit of fun.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Jovan said:


> Don't take it too seriously, I was just having a bit of fun.


So was I!


----------



## Apatheticviews

Bjorn said:


> Not unbreakable. Can be changed.


So can the fundamental laws of physics.

But Congress doesn't have the authority to change it. And there are enough people who are opposed to it, that maintaining the status quo is the most likely course.


----------



## JohnRov

Bjorn said:


> Not unbreakable. Can be changed.


We've addressed this in this thread over and over. It could be changed, but the citizens don't want it changed. The Bill of Rights is fundamental to our identity as a people.


----------



## Bjorn

JohnRov said:


> We've addressed this in this thread over and over. It could be changed, but the citizens don't want it changed. The Bill of Rights is fundamental to our identity as a people.


Bet you I could find some Americans who would like to change that bit. I don't know how well entrenched that view is for example with the spanish 'minority'.

All legislation change. Inevitably.


----------



## Jovan

Some Americans. Not enough. And it won't change anyway.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Bjorn said:


> Bet you I could find some Americans who would like to change that bit. I don't know how well entrenched that view is for example with the spanish 'minority'.
> 
> All legislation change. Inevitably.


I bet you I could find some Swede's claiming to be Jesus reborn.

In a country of 300+ Million people, there are 600 million opinions, depending on the day of the week, and the phase of the moon.

Our Constitution _*IS NOT LEGISLATION*_. I'm not sure you understand this. Our Constitution can be amended through a joint effort of the Legislative Process and the State Ratification Process, but the Constitution itself *is not a Legislative document*. Congress, the Legislative Branch of the USA, as empowered by the Constitution can only suggest changes. The People have to make them, and it requires a heck of a lot more than a simple majority to do.

Our Supreme Court, the Judicial Branch of our Government, has affirmed the individual Right pursuant to the Second Amendment. This is actually resulting in *LESS GUN LAWS* in our country, because they are in direct violation to Constitution. You can't build a wall, when the bricks are being torn from underneath.


----------



## JohnRov

Bjorn said:


> Bet you I could find some Americans who would like to change that bit. I don't know how well entrenched that view is for example with the spanish 'minority'.
> 
> All legislation change. Inevitably.


As Apatheticviews pointed out, it's not legislation. Not to be insulting but you seem not to have a good grasp on the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and laws in the US. Poll after poll has demonstrated lack of support for further gun control, much less the modification of the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## Apatheticviews

JohnRov said:


> As Apatheticviews pointed out, it's not legislation. Not to be insulting but you seem not to have a good grasp on the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and laws in the US. Poll after poll has demonstrated lack of support for further gun control, much less the modification of the 2nd Amendment.


To be fair, our Constitution differs significantly from Sweden's. Theirs can be amended through the Legislative process, and from what I am able to discern, the government (of Sweden) views "Rights" more as privileges guaranteed through legislation.

In essence, their government grants them Rights, whereas we (as defined in our documents) have them through basic existence. Their government tells them how and when they can execute, while ours can only place "necessary" limitations.

If you look up Freedom of the Press for both countries, you will see this viewpoint plain as day. I can only imagine it permeates both cultures to the point where we will never be able to understand each other philosophically.


----------



## Jovan

Sweden is far from a terrible country though, and I doubt they'd take away their citizen's rights at the drop of a pen.


----------



## Bjorn

Apatheticviews said:


> To be fair, our Constitution differs significantly from Sweden's. Theirs can be amended through the Legislative process, and from what I am able to discern, the government (of Sweden) views "Rights" more as privileges guaranteed through legislation.
> 
> In essence, their government grants them Rights, whereas we (as defined in our documents) have them through basic existence. Their government tells them how and when they can execute, while ours can only place "necessary" limitations.
> 
> If you look up Freedom of the Press for both countries, you will see this viewpoint plain as day. I can only imagine it permeates both cultures to the point where we will never be able to understand each other philosophically.


This actually makes very little difference, and is mainly because of differences in judicial tradition and legal theory, as Sweden adheres more to the civil law system while the US adheres to the common law system, and as Sweden adheres to legal positivism and the US more to natural law.

This in no way infers that the US constitution is not legislation, nor that there is a vast difference between US and Swedish constitutions. To clarify: it makes no practical difference if one states that rights are present in nature or given by the legislator. You may think that the difference is huge but in practice the mechanisms to change and amend and the propensity to do so is very equal.

Natural law or legal positivism are just two different viewpoints on the same subject, and while it makes a difference in how one has to argue to affect change, it makes very little difference to how difficult it is in the end to do it. There have been the same difficulties since the Romans.

It also has nothing to do with whether people should be allowed to own submachineguns. Which, additionally, they are in Sweden as well...


----------



## Bjorn

In general, the view that there is anything radically different with the law in the country you live in is not true.

I'm not arguing for a ban on privately owned fully automatic weapons in the US, rather a ban on it anywhere. I just don't see the point of allowing it and I don't recognise the right to own one as something either ordained by nature (a natural right) or a right that has such merits in itself that it should be granted in legislation to the people (positivistic right). 

In any civil war or insurrection, the military always takes part on both sides, thus providing weapons for the oppressed. Or weapons can be bought by the insurgents. In a democratic society, arming people to ensure the possibility of a bloody insurrection does not make sense when weighed against the risks of having an armed society.

It's perfectly ok to be a fan of ones constitution, it just grows very tedious when any suggestion of change is met with the reply that such a change would be unconstitutional. Rights and rules do need to be argued on their merits in current society, either from natural or positivistic points of view. 

Constitutions generally are very flexible to change. They allow rules enforcing differences based on race one decade, only to prohibit them the next. Or smoking in public places, or driving while intoxicated, or beating ones wife or child. As society changes, so do the meaning if the words in the constitution.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Bjorn said:


> In general, the view that there is anything radically different with the law in the country you live in is not true.
> 
> I'm not arguing for a ban on privately owned fully automatic weapons in the US, rather a ban on it anywhere. I just don't see the point of allowing it and I don't recognise the right to own one as something either ordained by nature (a natural right) or a right that has such merits in itself that it should be granted in legislation to the people (positivistic right).
> 
> In any civil war or insurrection, the military always takes part on both sides, thus providing weapons for the oppressed. Or weapons can be bought by the insurgents. In a democratic society, arming people to ensure the possibility of a bloody insurrection does not make sense when weighed against the risks of having an armed society.
> 
> It's perfectly ok to be a fan of ones constitution, it just grows very tedious when any suggestion of change is met with the reply that such a change would be unconstitutional. Rights and rules do need to be argued on their merits in current society, either from natural or positivistic points of view.
> 
> Constitutions generally are very flexible to change. They allow rules enforcing differences based on race one decade, only to prohibit them the next. Or smoking in public places, or driving while intoxicated, or beating ones wife or child. As society changes, so do the meaning if the words in the constitution.


There are indeed massive differences in the law. In how it is built, and how it is enforced.

I'm not debating about whether anyone should have automatic weapons. I'm saying that the right to bear arms is fundamental, and that banning a specific class of "arms" (machine guns) leads to banning another class of arms (pistols, rifles, shotguns). That's the definition of infringing. You'll note I have no issue with proper (and well written) regulation, just banning. If you think my argument is a stretch, look up the Chicago Handgun Ban, and the DC Firearms Ban.

Relying on the military to protect your rights, or protect you from the oppressors is a fool's path. What are the risks of having law-abiding citizens owning weapons? Is it that YOU don't trust your fellow man. You don't trust your neighbor to legally possess an item. On the reverse of that, I don't trust a government to make that decision, and neither did the framers of my countries Constitution.

I have no problem with changing the constitution. I have issues with removing Rights, as enumerated in the constitution. Rights are fundamental, and although they should be clarified, that isn't job of the Legislative Branch. It's the duty of the Judicial Branch. What you are suggesting is that Legislation has the only role in this process.

Our constitution and our legal code are two different things. That is something you are not seeing. The examples you cite are part of the legal code, not part of the constitution in the US. The Legal code uses the constitution as a guidelines, but they are not same document(s), nor are they modified the same way.

The legal code is amazingly fluid, and can adjust to all of your cited examples quickly. The judicial process can review the code to ensure its adherence to the Constitution. What the legal code cannot do is change the constitution. That's a different process.

The Constitution itself was built like an Engineer would build something. Solid foundation, with the ability to ADD nearly anything as needed. Removing things (Rights) from that foundation are nearly impossible because they go against sworn oaths, enumerated powers, and the roles & responsibilities of people involved.

A ban on fully automatic weapons is not a change to the Constitution. It is a change to the legal code, which violates the Constitution. Regulating fully automatic weapons (which we have) is merely an additional safeguard (weighed against the risks of public safety), which doesn't cross that line. Even *suggesting* a law to _remove_ (not clarify, interpret, or regulate) the 2nd amendment is an act of Treason by our elected officials. It violates their oath of office. That's why they don't even suggest it. The argument in the US is about the *level* of gun control. The amount of regulation, and whether specific regulation is good or bad.

Should everyone have machine guns? Or be armed at all? Of course not. Should anyone be able to tell me that I am not allowed to arm myself. Hell no. People (not individuals) are inherently violent creatures. Biblically speaking we had four people on the planet before the first murder was committed with arms. But we never blame the stone for that one. It's not the guns, it's the people who do violence on each other. There isn't enough military nor police to protect us, nor will there ever be. That leaves self-reliance.


----------



## Jovan

^ And that is why, despite that I'm a liberal on most issues, I have no desire to take away handguns, rifles, or shotguns from law abiding citizens.


----------



## Bjorn

That argument is circular, there aren't any legal rules that can't be changed. Any legal rule that states that legal rules can't be changed can in itself be changed by a majority. I recognise that it's hard to change, and that a vast majority is required in all states, but you're elevating the constitution to a religious document. 

And the support for a right to bear arms as a natural right is flimsy at best. Most countries recognise for example the right to life, self defence etc but you will find the right to bear arms absent from (for example) the human rights convention. 

The US right to bear arms and the UK bill of rights seemingly had a great deal in common, and the British seem to think most of that document to be obsolete. 

To bear arms is (in my opinion rightfully) defined as the right and duty to fight for ones (king and) country, in the military. It seems to have separated from that in the US to become something else entirely. 

Which is beside the point. Being that the merits of a right to own and wear weapons may be discussed and questioned. It doesn't really matter what the supreme court says, as they are only ever interpreting current law. 

I wouldn't hold up gun ownership to be a problem in the league of poverty, illiteracy, racial prejudice or low rise pants, but this is a thread about guns.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Bjorn said:


> That argument is circular, there aren't any legal rules that can't be changed. Any legal rule that states that legal rules can't be changed can in itself be changed by a majority. I recognise that it's hard to change, and that a vast majority is required in all states, but you're elevating the constitution to a religious document.
> 
> And the support for a right to bear arms as a natural right is flimsy at best. Most countries recognise for example the right to life, self defence etc but you will find the right to bear arms absent from (for example) the human rights convention.
> 
> The US right to bear arms and the UK bill of rights seemingly had a great deal in common, and the British seem to think most of that document to be obsolete.
> 
> To bear arms is (in my opinion rightfully) defined as the right and duty to fight for ones (king and) country, in the military. It seems to have separated from that in the US to become something else entirely.
> 
> Which is beside the point. Being that the merits of a right to own and wear weapons may be discussed and questioned. It doesn't really matter what the supreme court says, as they are only ever interpreting current law.
> 
> I wouldn't hold up gun ownership to be a problem in the league of poverty, illiteracy, racial prejudice or low rise pants, but this is a thread about guns.


The rules can be changed, but it can't come form Congress. It would have to come from the National Convention process. This bypasses the Oath restriction, and allows the People to modify the Constitution directly. This is how the Constitution could be potentially revamped. But in 200+ years, it has never been used. The document works. As I mentioned before, it was built like an engineer builds things. Solid foundation. Checks & Balances. And also failsafes. There are several built in to prevent an overreaching government form imposing its will on the People it serves.

We're not talking about most countries. We're talking about the US. In the US, the Right to Bear arms is an extension of self defense. Both by the State and the Individual. It is not the Right & Duty to fight for ones country. That duty is outlined differently, and as I have stated before the Government works for us. Not the other way around. The government only has the powers we give it. Those powers are outlined in that document.

It absolutely matters what the Supreme Court says, because although they "only ever interpret current law," they set precedent for future laws in doing so. By interpreting the Right to bear arms as individual, they have in turn ensured that Legislation cannot be enacted which would infringe that individual Right. It's hard(er) to pass a law which is known to be Unconstitutional. It's nearly impossible to enforce one, as lobbying organizations have already began suing the government the moment it hits the books. This is a failsafe, like others I have mentioned before.

Gun ownership is not a problem. Gun misuse may be however. Law abiding citizens buy guns in a lawful fashion. Criminals acquire them illegally, and use the as such. We have laws which deal with both sets of people. It's a crime to acquire a gun illegally already. It's often considered a more heinous crime to be in possession of weapon during a crime. We have a solid legal code already designed to deal with the issue. The problem is that some people think that if you ban guns from law abiding citizens, it will result in criminals not having guns. This is asinine. All that will happen is that only the criminals will have guns, as they have already proven they don't care about the impact of the law.

Banning guns doesn't create enough of a benefit to justify it. It's impossible to do, due to the sheer number that are already in civilian's hands legally (estimated 70+ million). And it violates our Social Contract with each other and the Government. Regulating guns however, does provide actual benefit, without creating the same problems.

Just to give you a little math though. If 70 million guns are legally owned, and the average gun owner possess 4 (estimates based on the FBI/ATF records), that leaves 17.5 million gun owners (not including spouses, and immediate family). The US Military is dwarfed by that number. Current US police forces are dwarfed by that number.

Who would collect all these guns? I can guarantee that as soon as it was tried, you would have an armed rebellion. Which is exactly what the framers planned. Another check and balance. The framers of our constitution didn't trust the British government when they declared independence, and they really didn't trust future versions of themselves either. They knew governments overreached their power. They lived through it. They expected it to happen again, so they built the Constitution with that in mind, and specifically limited the power of the government down to its stated powers.

It's not that the Constitution is a Religious document, it is that it is a well written piece of work, which has lasted over 200 years. It's elegant in its simplicity. Its also an agreement between my ancestors about how this country will be ran (on a macro level). If someone wants to change that, they need to go through the processes outlined, or alternately they need to have a complete rebellion.

Those are the two choices. As rebellion is unlikely, that leaves using the rules that were set up in the beginning. Those rules ensured that no one branch had more power than another, and that the government served the People.

What you suggest is that Legislation become dominant in the process (which is prohibited) and that we end up with a weaker Judicial Branch (like Sweden). Without the Constitutionality check, Legislation would constantly change what is constitutional, via legislation. The framers didn't want that. So they build it safeguards.

Your implication is much like a ten year old constantly changing the rules to a game so that he has the advantage. It doesn't work in monopoly and it doesn't work in the Constitution, because the rules are clearly written down.


----------



## Apatheticviews

https://rt.com/news/uk-marching-ban-rights-343/

UK marching Ban.

Applicable because of the infringement of Rights aspect.

Start banning one Right, and you have precedent to ban others. Gun Control leads to freedom of speech, due process, and a heck of a lot worse things.


----------



## Bjorn

Apatheticviews said:


> https://rt.com/news/uk-marching-ban-rights-343/
> 
> UK marching Ban.
> 
> Applicable because of the infringement of Rights aspect.
> 
> Start banning one Right, and you have precedent to ban others. Gun Control leads to freedom of speech, due process, and a heck of a lot worse things.


I think all rights need to be valid on their own merits, not in the merit of being one among other rights.


----------



## pleasehelp

It's actually quite amusing how few of these comments relate to opinions on gun control itself. It seems the overwhelming majority of them relate to thoughts/arguments around legal systems rather than actually discussing the arguments around gun control itself. I wonder if people are too concerned with the legal arguments to be able to speak in a vaccum about to what extent gun control should exist (rather than a discussion about what legal processes would need to be undertaken for it to exist).


----------



## hardline_42

pleasehelp said:


> It's actually quite amusing how few of these comments relate to opinions on gun control itself. It seems the overwhelming majority of them relate to thoughts/arguments around legal systems rather than actually discussing the arguments around gun control itself. I wonder if people are too concerned with the legal arguments to be able to speak in a vaccum about to what extent gun control should exist (rather than a discussion about what legal processes would need to be undertaken for it to exist).


I think you should go back and read the 25 pages prior to this one. It's been beaten to death six was from Sunday.


----------



## Bjorn

pleasehelp said:


> It's actually quite amusing how few of these comments relate to opinions on gun control itself. It seems the overwhelming majority of them relate to thoughts/arguments around legal systems rather than actually discussing the arguments around gun control itself. I wonder if people are too concerned with the legal arguments to be able to speak in a vaccum about to what extent gun control should exist (rather than a discussion about what legal processes would need to be undertaken for it to exist).


Agreed. So to what extent?

I'm for limiting ownership to single fire guns and hunting rifles. And to people who are active members in shooting clubs and/or have and maintain a hunting license.


----------



## hardline_42

Bjorn said:


> Agreed. So to what extent?
> 
> I'm for limiting ownership to single fire guns and hunting rifles. And to people who are active members in shooting clubs and/or have and maintain a hunting license.


Do you support ownership of firearms for personal defense?


----------



## Bjorn

hardline_42 said:


> Do you support ownership of firearms for personal defense?


No. I don't support that


----------



## hardline_42

Bjorn said:


> No. I don't support that


Well, I do.

There you go. Twenty-six page thread summed up in two posts.


----------



## Bjorn

hardline_42 said:


> Well, I do.
> 
> There you go. Twenty-six page thread summed up in two posts.


Pretty much


----------



## Apatheticviews

Bjorn said:


> I think all rights need to be valid on their own merits, not in the merit of being one among other rights.


Rights don't exist in a vacuum though. Freedom of Speech, and Freedom to Assemble go hand in hand. Self defense (the Right to Life) goes hand in hand with Right to Bear Arms. The Right to Protest means nothing if the People don't have the ability to out the government.

US Supreme Court rulings seldom are resolved on a single Right. It is often a combination of Rights that is needed to determine an outcome of whether a law is constitutional or not.


----------



## Apatheticviews

pleasehelp said:


> It's actually quite amusing how few of these comments relate to opinions on gun control itself. It seems the overwhelming majority of them relate to thoughts/arguments around legal systems rather than actually discussing the arguments around gun control itself. I wonder if people are too concerned with the legal arguments to be able to speak in a vaccum about to what extent gun control should exist (rather than a discussion about what legal processes would need to be undertaken for it to exist).


The problem is that you have two extremes in the viewpoint. Minimal/No regulation vs Banning/Extreme Regulation. It's a opinion that it's hard to be moderate on.

Personally, I think we should have:

a) Laws that ensure arms that are manufactured in the US are as safe as they can be, within the confines of the tool (we do)
b) Laws that prohibit felons from buying guns (we do)
c) A method of tracking who bought the gun (we do)
d) Laws that provide additionally penalties when guns are used in a crime (we do)
e) Penalties for those who provide guns to those not allowed to have them (we do)
f) A government that enforces the laws on the books (we need)

What I don't think we should have:

a) Wholesale banning of a class of weapons
b) *Law-abiding* citizens not able to purchase a firearm if they so desire
c) The act of self defense criminalized


----------



## Howard

hardline_42 said:


> Do you support ownership of firearms for personal defense?


I support it but unless you really need it then there's no need to keep it in the house.


----------



## hardline_42

Howard said:


> I support it but unless you really need it then there's no need to keep it in the house.


Kind of like fire extinguishers, seat belts and health insurance. You don't really need it until you need it. And when you do need it, it's never near enough at hand.


----------



## Jovan

Then where are you going to keep it if not on your person?


----------



## JohnRov

Howard said:


> I support it but unless you really need it then there's no need to keep it in the house.


That would be more dangerous, not less.


----------



## Jovan

As long as you have a gun locker to keep them away from children or prying eyes...


----------



## Tooch

I'm probably going to regret this, since discussions over firearms policy usually get heated, but I've written a bit on this subject. Here's a link to a chapter in a (now-stalled) book I was writing on how scofflaws limit the power of governments. This chapter, appropriately enough, covered responses around the world to gun-control laws: Scofflaws and gun control.

Have at it.


----------



## hardline_42

^^ Wow that was a great read. I can see why your agent hated it.


----------



## Tooch

Thanks! 

His reaction held things up, but the recent self-publishing revolution has me reconsidering the project. I may just bypass the traditional channels if I blow the dust off the manuscript.


----------



## Bjorn

Apatheticviews said:


> The problem is that you have two extremes in the viewpoint. Minimal/No regulation vs Banning/Extreme Regulation. It's a opinion that it's hard to be moderate on.
> 
> Personally, I think we should have:
> 
> a) Laws that ensure arms that are manufactured in the US are as safe as they can be, within the confines of the tool (we do)
> b) Laws that prohibit felons from buying guns (we do)
> c) A method of tracking who bought the gun (we do)
> d) Laws that provide additionally penalties when guns are used in a crime (we do)
> e) Penalties for those who provide guns to those not allowed to have them (we do)
> f) A government that enforces the laws on the books (we need)
> 
> What I don't think we should have:
> 
> a) Wholesale banning of a class of weapons
> b) *Law-abiding* citizens not able to purchase a firearm if they so desire
> c) The act of self defense criminalized


Question on item a in your second list: should anti aircraft guns be legal? Flame throwers? Machine guns? Fully automatic assault rifles? Submachineguns? Needle guns with poison? Tactical nuclear weapons? Armed unmanned aircraft? Grenades? Cal .50 sniper rifles?

We had some really nice aircraft cannons on our JA37:s. I remember they told me they could shoot hole-in-hole at 1 km range if bolted down properly. Wouldn't mind having one of those pointed at the door.

Also, I don't really care for a majority of all the law abiding citizens being armed. I don't trust them with guns.

In fact, when in uniform, any rational man will make sure to find out who the reckless morons in ones party are, and then make sure never to step in front of them. Even though they get rigorous training. There's always a couple of dingbats with poor impulse control, low self esteem, or just generally have their thumbs in their asses competence wise. They need to be factored in.

You take a driving test to operate a vehicle. Any complicated tool requires training before anyone let's you use it professionally. There's absolutely no reason to let people in general have guns. People are always law abiding up until the point that they are not.


----------



## Bjorn

Tooch said:


> I'm probably going to regret this, since discussions over firearms policy usually get heated, but I've written a bit on this subject. Here's a link to a chapter in a (now-stalled) book I was writing on how scofflaws limit the power of governments. This chapter, appropriately enough, covered responses around the world to gun-control laws: Scofflaws and gun control.
> 
> Have at it.


Well I think it's hogwash, but well written hogwash nonetheless.

A compliance problem can be met with both control and information. Noone is vested enough in gun control to go that extra mile. So you get noncompliance.


----------



## Tooch

> A compliance problem can be met with both control and information. Noone is vested enough in gun control to go that extra mile. So you get noncompliance.


That's not a small obstacle, though. The U.S. is well-endowed with enthusiastic drug prohibitionists, who have escalated their tactics (civilian police forces now use military weapons and tactics to a much greater degree than in the past), but use of illegal drugs seems to rise and fall within steady limits without regard to the law. Prices, a strong indicator of availability, have only temporarily spiked in response to crackdowns. I think that, in democratic countries (and even undemocratic ones) there's a limit to the tactics and disruptions even supporters of a given law are willing to tolerate in the enforcement of that law.

I suppose we could go to extremes and see if that would result in large-scale compliance, but I think that would destroy public support for the law (as seems to be happening with marijuana restrictions in the U.S.). If I recall correctly, the Ottoman Empire once enforced the death penalty for tobacco use and possession. The law was eventually repealed as tobacco use became widely popular despite widespread executions.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Bjorn said:


> Question on item a in your second list: should anti aircraft guns be legal? Flame throwers? Machine guns? Fully automatic assault rifles? Submachineguns? Needle guns with poison? Tactical nuclear weapons? Armed unmanned aircraft? Grenades? Cal .50 sniper rifles?
> 
> We had some really nice aircraft cannons on our JA37:s. I remember they told me they could shoot hole-in-hole at 1 km range if bolted down properly. Wouldn't mind having one of those pointed at the door.
> 
> Also, I don't really care for a majority of all the law abiding citizens being armed. I don't trust them with guns.
> 
> In fact, when in uniform, any rational man will make sure to find out who the reckless morons in ones party are, and then make sure never to step in front of them. Even though they get rigorous training. There's always a couple of dingbats with poor impulse control, low self esteem, or just generally have their thumbs in their asses competence wise. They need to be factored in.
> 
> You take a driving test to operate a vehicle. Any complicated tool requires training before anyone let's you use it professionally. There's absolutely no reason to let people in general have guns. People are always law abiding up until the point that they are not.


Go to the BATFE's website and find out which of those are legal. But I stress again, it's not the tool it's the person. All of the items you mention are already restricted in some fashion, through normal regulation.

Not trusting you fellow man, is not reason enough to take away his Rights. I don't trust my fellow man enough to speak coherently most of the time, but I wouldn't dream of taking away his freedom of speech. Even when they are saying the most despicable things on the planet.

I like to find out who the "dingbats" in my party are also. Except I choose to include all the human race in that party, and identify potential criminals as the "dingbats." Be aware, be prepared.

You CAN take a driving test to operate a vehicle. Many don't. You CAN take a firearms safety course to learn how to use a weapon. As a matter of fact many states REQUIRE it to issue handgun permits (VA does).

There's absolutely no reason why a law-abiding citizens shouldn't be allowed to have them. Except you seem to thing they are all criminals in waiting. Past behavior is indicative of future behavior. People don't just become killers because they possess a gun. That said, killers will find a way whether they have access to guns or not.


----------



## JohnRov

Bjorn said:


> Also, I don't really care for a majority of all the law abiding citizens being armed. I don't trust them with guns.


We're kind of on the same page then, as I don't trust criminals to follow laws regulating or banning guns.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Tooch said:


> That's not a small obstacle, though. The U.S. is well-endowed with enthusiastic drug prohibitionists, who have escalated their tactics (civilian police forces now use military weapons and tactics to a much greater degree than in the past), but use of illegal drugs seems to rise and fall within steady limits without regard to the law. Prices, a strong indicator of availability, have only temporarily spiked in response to crackdowns. I think that, in democratic countries (and even undemocratic ones) there's a limit to the tactics and disruptions even supporters of a given law are willing to tolerate in the enforcement of that law.
> 
> I suppose we could go to extremes and see if that would result in large-scale compliance, but I think that would destroy public support for the law (as seems to be happening with marijuana restrictions in the U.S.). If I recall correctly, the Ottoman Empire once enforced the death penalty for tobacco use and possession. The law was eventually repealed as tobacco use became widely popular despite widespread executions.


That's why one of the sanity checks on any law is whether it's enforceable.


----------



## Jovan

Tooch said:


> I'm probably going to regret this, since discussions over firearms policy usually get heated, but I've written a bit on this subject. Here's a link to a chapter in a (now-stalled) book I was writing on how scofflaws limit the power of governments. This chapter, appropriately enough, covered responses around the world to gun-control laws: Scofflaws and gun control.
> 
> Have at it.





Tooch said:


> Thanks!
> 
> His reaction held things up, but the recent self-publishing revolution has me reconsidering the project. I may just bypass the traditional channels if I blow the dust off the manuscript.


Do it. It really needs to be published.

I remember being on a forum hosted on a UK server. The host shut it down because of "discussion of illegal weaponry"... even though everyone showing off their guns were in countries permitting it. :icon_headagainstwal


----------



## Bjorn

Tooch said:


> That's not a small obstacle, though. The U.S. is well-endowed with enthusiastic drug prohibitionists, who have escalated their tactics (civilian police forces now use military weapons and tactics to a much greater degree than in the past), but use of illegal drugs seems to rise and fall within steady limits without regard to the law. Prices, a strong indicator of availability, have only temporarily spiked in response to crackdowns. I think that, in democratic countries (and even undemocratic ones) there's a limit to the tactics and disruptions even supporters of a given law are willing to tolerate in the enforcement of that law.
> 
> I suppose we could go to extremes and see if that would result in large-scale compliance, but I think that would destroy public support for the law (as seems to be happening with marijuana restrictions in the U.S.). If I recall correctly, the Ottoman Empire once enforced the death penalty for tobacco use and possession. The law was eventually repealed as tobacco use became widely popular despite widespread executions.


Enforcing gun control is not on the same page as executions for tobacco use. The compliance problems on gun control are manageable, all you have to do is change the way people view guns.

Wouldn't be impossible if there was some backbone to it.

There used to be the death penalty for a large number of offences. Adultery for example. They figured out it wasn't much of a deterrent long ago.


----------



## Apatheticviews

Bjorn said:


> Enforcing gun control is not on the same page as executions for tobacco use. The compliance problems on gun control are manageable, all you have to do is change the way people view guns.
> 
> Wouldn't be impossible if there was some backbone to it.
> 
> There used to be the death penalty for a large number of offences. Adultery for example. They figured out it wasn't much of a deterrent long ago.


You're not going to change the way millions of gun owners see guns. We see it as a fundamental Right, and have had that view reaffirmed by our highest court in the land.

You yourself said that even the death penalty wasn't a deterrent for a large number of offenses. It didn't stop adultery, and it won't stop illegal gun ownership.

You can't make them illegal to have, because we have protections against that. The famous grandfather clause. You can't enforce it even if you did. We have too many. And you can't change the way pro-gun people think, any more than you can change someone's political views.


----------



## Howard

hardline_42 said:


> Kind of like fire extinguishers, seat belts and health insurance. You don't really need it until you need it. And when you do need it, it's never near enough at hand.


Our Family doesn't have guns or firearms but we do have utensils,I don't know how effective that could be.


----------



## Bjorn

Apatheticviews said:


> You're not going to change the way millions of gun owners see guns. We see it as a fundamental Right, and have had that view reaffirmed by our highest court in the land.
> 
> You yourself said that even the death penalty wasn't a deterrent for a large number of offenses. It didn't stop adultery, and it won't stop illegal gun ownership.
> 
> You can't make them illegal to have, because we have protections against that. The famous grandfather clause. You can't enforce it even if you did. We have too many. And you can't change the way pro-gun people think, any more than you can change someone's political views.


Opinions and values change all the time. I don't see gun ownership as being a right in the future. I wouldn't miss it. A good case can be made for reducing the number of legal guns.

I would be interested in seeing the effectiveness of gun ownership on for example burglaries in comparison with a good advertised alarm, on robberies in comparison with just giving the money up, on sexual assaults in comparison with self defence/behavioural courses.

There are seemingly several more effective ways to deal with the situations where gun owners tend to rely on their guns.


----------



## hardline_42

Bjorn said:


> There are seemingly several more effective ways to deal with the situations where gun owners tend to rely on their guns.


No there are not. If you strip away all of the unnecessary details in the scenarios you mentioned, the problem is quite simple: the aggressor wishes to obtain something by force from the victim that they cannot otherwise obtain by peaceful means. If the aggressor is resolute in his course, no amount of passive resistance can deter him/her.

When distilled down to it's essence, force can only be stopped with equal or greater force. Even if some global kumbaya-type enlightenment were to take place and every weapon on the planet were melted down and fashioned into a giant buttercup sculpture, the young would still rule over the elderly, the weak over the strong and the many over the few. In other words, those capable of the most force will exert their will over those less capable.

Opinions and values may change, but human nature will not. If you want figures on the effectiveness of gun ownership to deter crime, please re-read this thread. There have been plenty of statistics cited that bear this point out, some regarding the exact scenarios you outlined in your post.


----------



## Tooch

> I remember being on a forum hosted on a UK server. The host shut it down because of "discussion of illegal weaponry"... even though everyone showing off their guns were in countries permitting it.


I've run into that on British forums, too, usually with regard to firearms. I now realize that Americans are _not_ uniquely insular in this world.



> The compliance problems on gun control are manageable, all you have to do is change the way people view guns.


Well ... That's been the dream of many a political movement and virtually all governments -- not just regarding guns, but a multitude of issues.

Occasionally, that dream has been achieved. I think in particular of tobacco in the United States. But that may well have had less to do with "chang[ing] the way people think" than with a cultural shift back to an earlier norm, or at least a cyclical shift. People forget that the phenomenon of everybody smoking anytime, any place lasted only a few decades -- restrictions and even bans (cigarettes were, at one time, banned in 14 states) on tobacco use were common in the 19th century. And despite the anti-tobacco education efforts of recent years, the movement appears to have reached its limits: Nevada has, this year, repealed some of its restrictions on smoking and Louisiana rejected others.

And look to the multi-generational campaign against drug use, often centered on children in the schools. That effort also appears to have reached its limit, with sentiment shifting in recent years to loosening U.S. laws on marijuana, softening penalties against crack cocaine use and growing support for legalization of at least some drugs, even as usage remains essentially constant.

In fact, the phrase "all you have to do is change the way people view ..." may well incorporate one of the more difficult tasks any government may face -- especially if it's actively opposed by an organized movement attempting to shift views in the opposite direction.


----------



## hardline_42

Tooch said:


> In fact, the phrase "all you have to do is change the way people view ..." may well incorporate one of the more difficult tasks any government may face -- especially if it's actively opposed by an organized movement attempting to shift views in the opposite direction.


And yet, all you have to do is turn on the TV or open up a newspaper (more like a news website) and see this difficult task being carried out before your very eyes.


----------



## Bjorn

If you run a server in a particular country, you must obey that nations laws and you must obey the ISPs ethical rules. That's not insular, it's just the way things are. 

If I live in an apartment, and I have a security door that requires blasting or 30 minutes with electrical tools to enter, I'm practically immune to burglary. 

Security is very much a relative. 

I guess we won't get much further in this.


----------



## hardline_42

Bjorn said:


> If you run a server in a particular country, you must obey that nations laws and you must obey the ISPs ethical rules. That's not insular, it's just the way things are.
> 
> If I live in an apartment, and I have a security door that requires blasting or 30 minutes with electrical tools to enter, I'm practically immune to burglary.
> 
> Security is very much a relative.
> 
> I guess we won't get much further in this.


Probably not, but then I don't think we'll ever agree on low rise pants either. I've said it before in this thread and it's worth repeating: firearms are a last resort for personal defense. They should be used in conjunction with other passive means of security (dogs, reinforced doors/windows/locks, alarms etc.). I wouldn't mind having a door that takes 30 minutes with power tool to get through, but I think the criminals would probably just bust through the wall if they were so equipped.


----------



## Regillus

hardline_42 said:


> ...just bust through the wall if they were so equipped.


LOL. Exactly what I was thinking: "Do you have sheetrock walls?" You don't even need equipment; just a big guy with good boots on. Just kick through it.


----------



## Bjorn

Regillus said:


> LOL. Exactly what I was thinking: "Do you have sheetrock walls?" You don't even need equipment; just a big guy with good boots on. Just kick through it.


Eh. Brick? Concrete?

I thought you only kicked through doors in American movies. Your doors/walls must be really thin.

You can't kick through doors in Sweden. Guess it has to do with how much they traditionally need to insulate. Theres most always a thin layer of steel as well.

It's actually a problem for Swedish fire departments etc, that there's often a security door. Takes them 5-10 minutes, and they are professionals.


----------



## hardline_42

Bjorn said:


> Eh. Brick? Concrete?
> 
> I thought you only kicked through doors in American movies. Your doors/walls must be really thin.
> 
> You can't kick through doors in Sweden. Guess it has to do with how much they traditionally need to insulate. Theres most always a thin layer of steel as well.
> 
> It's actually a problem for Swedish fire departments etc, that there's often a security door. Takes them 5-10 minutes, and they are professionals.


Construction methods depend on the region of the US. Even then, very few new homes are built with brick cavity walls, concrete block etc. Most are just vinyl siding over a 1/2" layer of plywood on 6" wood studs every 16" with 5/8" drywall (powdered gypsum and paper) on the inside (sorry for the imperial units). Anyone with an axe and a little bit of elbow grease can cut a hole big enough to get through in short order. And even if the exterior walls were plate steel, there are still the windows. The bottom line is, unless you can afford to live in a zombie-proof house, you have to face the reality that your home is not impenetrable and you have to plan accordingly.


----------

