# anyone here a gun enthusiast?



## gaseousclay

I'm curious how many of you are gun enthusiasts? whether you're into firearms for hunting purposes, a collector or shooting for fun, why do you like guns?

me, I was bitten by the gun bug about 2 yrs ago after reading some hunting magazines that my father in-law had laying around at his house. I have always been indifferent to hunting but upon further research it really started to pique my interest. I then bought some hunting books from random antique and thriftstores and started researching firearms. I eventually enrolled in a hunter safety course through my local DNR and haven't looked back. I haven't gone hunting yet, but I hope to in the near future. 

I now own a Browning A-Bolt Hunter .270 win and a Winchester 9422 lever gun, both of which I haven't even fired  I was also recently gifted a gun safe from a relative, so that was an added bonus.

Anyway, I hope to gradually increase my small collection as there are several firearms I would love to own, such as a Winchester 94AE 30-30 (or even a pre-64 if I could afford one), a Mauser M98, Sako 75 Hunter, Browning BPS Hunter 12ga...the list goes on and on.

for what it's worth, I do not support the NRA nor do I buy into the paranoia surrounding the 2A rights debate. 

What about you?


----------



## El_Abogado

""Gun enthusiasts?"

I also see that self-defense is not listed as a reason for gun "enthusiasm". For what it's worth, I do support the NRA.


----------



## Shaver

We are not allowed to play with guns in England.

But if we were;


----------



## gaseousclay

El_Abogado said:


> ""Gun enthusiasts?" I also see that self-defense is not listed as a reason for gun "enthusiasm". For what it's worth, I do support the NRA.


 there's nothing 'enthusiastic' about self-defense as a means to be a gun owner (if that's your thing), hence, the non-pejorative wording and why I left it out. as for your support for the NRA, good for you. I guess I have no use for a 501c organization that claims to be non-partisan when it clearly is not.


----------



## El_Abogado

I can't think of any gun owner I know who does not have great enthusiasm for the use of a firearm for defense of themselves or others. None would use "gun enthusiast" as a descriptor. 

You are mistaken about the organization. I have worked with them in the past and have known members on their board. They are non-partisan. It is the paucity of gun owners in one of the two major political parties that is the issue.


----------



## gaseousclay

El_Abogado said:


> I can't think of any gun owner I know who does not have great enthusiasm for the use of a firearm for defense of themselves or others. None would use "gun enthusiast" as a descriptor.


 I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You're right, no one would use 'gun enthusiast' as a descriptor for self-defense, which is why I left it out of the thread. I was trying to shed a more positive light on firearms since there are quite a few people out there who view them negatively, especially in the light of the recent shootings.


> You are mistaken about the organization. I have worked with them in the past and have known members on their board. They are non-partisan. It is the paucity of gun owners in one of the two major political parties that is the issue.


 Really? I'm sorry but when you have the likes of Ted Nugent, an NRA boardmember btw, Chuck Norris (and others of their conservative ilk) spouting seditious lies about the President and then use fear tactics to garner Republican support then you have a partisan organization that supports conservative candidates. Obama was given an F rating by the Brady Campaign and he has made it so that gun owners can now carry in national parks, yet, the NRA continues to paint him as an anti-gun commie who wants to take your guns away. when the NRA starts telling the truth and shows non-partisan support of political candidates I'll change my mind. until then, i'll continue to view them as bed fellows with the gun industry, which by the way, is doing well because of Obama.


----------



## El_Abogado

You're trolling, right?

The NRA supported 58 incumbent Democrats in the 2010 Congressional elections. This is not a serious thread and you lack the basic facts for your assertions.


----------



## sbdivemaster

El_Abogado said:


> You're trolling, right?
> 
> The NRA supported 58 incumbent Democrats in the 2010 Congressional elections. This is not a serious thread and you lack the basic facts for your assertions.


This.

Skip it, El_Abo. I'm not really sure how serious someone is that owns two firearms but has never even fired either one.


----------



## Howard

No I'm not a gun enthusiast don't believe in violence.


----------



## sbdivemaster

Howard said:


> No I'm not a gun enthusiast don't believe in violence.


Exactly what is "violent" about shooting paper targets or clay pigeons? Are Olympic shooters, e.g. , violent?


----------



## Bjorn

sbdivemaster said:


> Exactly what is "violent" about shooting paper targets or clay pigeons? Are Olympic shooters, e.g. , violent?


"Gun enthusiast" doesn't necessarily equal target practice. But that's a point of contention.

I can shoot at paper targets without being 'enthusiastic' about guns. "Gun enthusiasm" where I'm from, though, is about hunting and shooting, not about self defense.


----------



## VictorRomeo

My favourite weapon is the Resistance Crossbow from Half-Life 2.... Shoots 12" lenghts of of red-hot steel rebar.... More fun than any gun.


----------



## sbdivemaster

VictorRomeo said:


> My favourite weapon is the Resistance Crossbow from Half-Life 2.... Shoots 12" lenghts of of red-hot steel rebar.... More fun than any gun.


lol For a moment I thought you meant an actual crossbow... something like my Commando:


----------



## Apatheticviews

I was a gun dealer for years. And I can honestly tell you nothing sells guns like Democrats in office. The Democratic party has been pro gun control for a long time, and that alone causes just enough fear (not from anything the Party are doing, but from a personal paranoia level) to sell quite a lot of guns. It was *amazing* how many I sold during the Bush/Kerry campaign.

The NRA is non-partisan, however, their views are often mirrored much more closely by conservatives than liberals, which means they come off as Republican (or Libertarian) vice Democrat. Just like pro-union organizations and the ACLU mirror much more closely with democrats, than republicans. It's just the way people in the organizations are. Not the organizations themselves.

As for the 2A rights, we've seen what the government has done with your 4A rights in airports, your Right to assemble & protest. Even your right to Free Speech wherever the Secret Service "could" be. What makes you think, your second amendment rights are any safer? It's only paranoia if you're wrong. I'm putting these concerns into "healthy dose of caution" category. Maybe the NRA is a little too far to one side on the issue, but I have yet to see a recent piece of gun control legislature that makes any kind of sense. And if it doesn't make sense, then why would we enact it? We should in fact have an organization, specializing in ensuring that it doesn't get in enacted, because it's epically stupid, much like the Assault Weapons Ban (a cosmetic ban which accomplished nothing and expired after 10 years of not doing anything). Oh wait, that would be the NRA. I don't agree with everything they do, and hence I'm not a paying member, but that doesn't mean they aren't a good organization to have around.


----------



## sbdivemaster

^^^

Bravo! So well said.


----------



## El_Abogado

Howard said:


> No I'm not a gun enthusiast don't believe in violence.


You don't believe in violence of any kind?


----------



## Troglodyte

Shaver said:


> We are not allowed to play with guns in England.
> 
> But if we were;


That's the sexy version of my most visible workwear accessory this year! Not a statement to my personal taste, however. Every well-dressed paratrooper is carrying one around here...

Best,
Trog


----------



## Shaver

Troglodyte said:


> That's the sexy version of my most visible workwear accessory this year! Not a statement to my personal taste, however. Every well-dressed paratrooper is carrying one around here...
> 
> Best,
> Trog


Lucky thing! Firearms are heavily controlled in England. We are legally allowed de-commissioned items only. There is an undeniable attraction to these items, however. Muzzle flash like the breath of God. :redface:


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Indeed, I so loved the blued steel version of the Beretta 92F, that served as my side arm during the final years of military service, that I purchased one for my personal collection.  The darned Service made me give theirs back to them!  Personally I think the Sig Saur P226 has the edge over the 92F...Just feels a bit better in the hand.


----------



## Howard

sbdivemaster said:


> Exactly what is "violent" about shooting paper targets or clay pigeons? Are Olympic shooters, e.g. , violent?


violent in general like shooting people, that's what mean.


----------



## Howard

El_Abogado said:


> You don't believe in violence of any kind?


I wasn't brought up to be violent.


----------



## Bandit44

About fifteen years ago, I collected old American doubles, but when I went back to grad school, I sold everything. Although I still would enjoy an opportunity to do some bird hunting, it's no longer an interest that I seek out. Would much rather drop a line in the water, although I don't do much of that anymore. I have an 18 month old son, so I think those hobbies will resurface when he gets old enough to participate. Right now, my primary interest is potty-training.


----------



## Hitch

I've ben a hunter since before I can remember and I own a handful of weapons.


----------



## Balfour

Howard said:


> I wasn't brought up to be violent.


A commendable starting point, but taken to an extreme of never being prepared to contemplate violence say in self-defence or defence of others - well, I've never understood pacifism.


----------



## pleasehelp

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Indeed, I so loved the blued steel version of the Beretta 92F, that served as my side arm during the final years of military service, that I purchased one for my personal collection.  The darned Service made me give theirs back to them!  Personally I think the Sig Saur P226 has the edge over the 92F...Just feels a bit better in the hand.


As a (former) service member, I suspect that you are aware of the interrelated history of the 92fs and p226, which I find quite interesting. It's also interesting to see how much more expensive the p226 is today given how close the prices were in the trials. I've heard rumors for a few years of the US government considering holding trials for a new standard sidearm.

I think the 92fs is a far more attractive pistol, but I also prefer the p226. Its natural resting place isn't quite perfect in my hand (a 1911 sits much better in my hand, but I prefer the cost of 9mm rounds for target shooting) but once I shoot a few rounds to reacquaint myself with the positioning, it shoots very nicely. For my purposes, it doesn't make much of a difference, but I would prefer it if the p226 had an external safety.


----------



## Apatheticviews

pleasehelp said:


> As a (former) service member, I suspect that you are aware of the interrelated history of the 92fs and p226, which I find quite interesting. It's also interesting to see how much more expensive the p226 is today given how close the prices were in the trials. I've heard rumors for a few years of the US government considering holding trials for a new standard sidearm.
> 
> I think the 92fs is a far more attractive pistol, but I also prefer the p226. Its natural resting place isn't quite perfect in my hand (a 1911 sits much better in my hand, but I prefer the cost of 9mm rounds for target shooting) but once I shoot a few rounds to reacquaint myself with the positioning, it shoots very nicely. For my purposes, it doesn't make much of a difference, but I would prefer it if the p226 had an external safety.


Each service has held their own trials regarding the 92fs (M9). It's just not a good "standard" sidearm. It's saving grace was it's high capacity and it's cost (they are crazy cheap compared to anything else in the class), but with the number of women, and smaller men (like myself) in the services now, it just doesn't fit most peoples' hands. The old 1911 had a much slimmer profile, while the sig's & HK's have significant increases in cost. The Glock would probably be the next best option, but when I was still involved in such things, it wasn't even considered (odd considering it's popularity among the federal government).

The USMC & the special forces communities have been leaning towards the .45, as they have found 9mm ball not to be effective for their needs, but that is weighted. I think the Navy & USCG were leaning towards the sig's if I recall correctly, and the Army has been al over the place depending on command. I had not heard how the USAF had went, and they were the real decision makers when it came to the M16 platform, back in the 60s.


----------



## Canadian

I went hunting with my dad yesterday. To me, it's less about holding a 12ga and shooting it, but the memories I've made spending time with my Dad. We're both "enthusiasts" and he shoots trap, skeet and the occasionally tasty animal.

I would like to think, if necessary I could pick up my Tikka and shoot somebody that needed shooting. But I pray to God that I don't ever have to. And quite honestly, if there's shooting to be done, I'd rather do it then my nephew.

Tom


----------



## eagle2250

pleasehelp said:


> As a (former) service member, I suspect that you are aware of the interrelated history of the 92fs and p226, which I find quite interesting. It's also interesting to see how much more expensive the p226 is today given how close the prices were in the trials. I've heard rumors for a few years of the US government considering holding trials for a new standard sidearm.
> 
> I think the 92fs is a far more attractive pistol, but I also prefer the p226. Its natural resting place isn't quite perfect in my hand (a 1911 sits much better in my hand, but I prefer the cost of 9mm rounds for target shooting) but once I shoot a few rounds to reacquaint myself with the positioning, it shoots very nicely. For my purposes, it doesn't make much of a difference, but I would prefer it if the p226 had an external safety.


I suppose I should be more familiar with the interrelated histories of the 92F's and P226's, but alas, other than being an end user of the weapons, I am almost ashamed to say that my understanding of the USAF's decision to go with the Beretta is limited to it's being based primarily on cost. Whatever the deciding factor(s) were, the Beretta 92F represented a vast step forward over the old Smith & Wesson .38 caliber revolvers they replaced!


----------



## Howard

Balfour said:


> A commendable starting point, but taken to an extreme of never being prepared to contemplate violence say in self-defence or defence of others - well, I've never understood pacifism.


When I was growing up I always got the crap kicked out of me by bullies. I couldn't defend myself.


----------



## Shaver

Howard said:


> When I was growing up I always got the crap kicked out of me by bullies. I couldn't defend myself.


aww Howard, that's sad. :frown:


----------



## tocqueville

I don't believe the NRA is non-partisan for a second,


----------



## eagle2250

^^+1 (referring to Shaver's post #30)
...but I would add, Howard, if you know you are going to get your butt kicked anyway, why not strike back at your aggressors and get yourself a bit of payback in the process! It's probably going to hurt about the same, regardless!


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate

tocqueville said:


> I don't believe the NRA is non-partisan for a second,


Although I agree with you, there's room for a chicken-and-egg debate: has the right wing of American politics aligned itself with the NRA, or has the NRA aligned itself with right-wing politics? I read an interesting (highly biased, but oh well) piece on the way positions on the 2nd Amendment have changed since the 1960s, particularly with regard to the influence of radical groups like the Black Panthers or Weathermen.

I have a somewhat odd position on this issue: on a personal level, I abhor violence, but that's my choice and one that I can't justify for a non-religious reason. I don't have a problem with people carrying guns for self-defense, though I don't like it when people try to intimidate others. I have known people who act like bullies because they know that, if they push somebody too far, they have a gun.

On the other hand, guns are kind of awesome, but I can't afford the hobby right now, and I don't live in a good place for gun clubs, as far as I know. I'd like to learn to shoot, though.


----------



## hardline_42

Youthful Repp-robate said:


> Although I agree with you, there's room for a chicken-and-egg debate: has the right wing of American politics aligned itself with the NRA, or has the NRA aligned itself with right-wing politics? I read an interesting (highly biased, but oh well) piece on the way positions on the 2nd Amendment have changed since the 1960s, particularly with regard to the influence of radical groups like the Black Panthers or Weathermen.
> 
> I have a somewhat odd position on this issue: on a personal level, I abhor violence, but that's my choice and one that I can't justify for a non-religious reason. I don't have a problem with people carrying guns for self-defense, though I don't like it when people try to intimidate others. I have known people who act like bullies because they know that, if they push somebody too far, they have a gun.
> 
> On the other hand, guns are kind of awesome, but I can't afford the hobby right now, and I don't live in a good place for gun clubs, as far as I know. I'd like to learn to shoot, though.


As a fellow New Jerseyan, I know how you feel. I grappled with the same conflicting thoughts on the subject. The prevailing attitude here is that only cops and criminals own guns and there's nothing in between. It wasn't until I saw the rest of the country that my thoughts on the matter changed.

Like you, I abhor violence, but I accept that it's often a necessary part of life. We're often protected from the fact that something has to die for us to keep living, and that death is often a violent one. Even though the thought is always in the back of most people's minds, it's easier to stomach when that responsibility lies in the hands of others (in the case of food: the slaughterer/butcher, in the case of defense: the police officer/ soldier) and they go on pretending that "violence never solves anything" or some other equally naive ideology. Often times, those same individuals would have you think that owning those responsibilities for yourself represents some kind of devolution in enlightened thinking.

As for the guns themselves, they're awesome in the same way that any other fine hand tool is awesome. I get the same feeling running my hands over a Colt 1911 that I do with a vintage Stanley plane or a Millers Falls hand drill. I believe that you've got the Bullet Hole indoor range near you in Belleville and also the North Jersey Clay Target Club in Fairfield has an outdoor range. Check and see if they rent firearms and give it a try.


----------



## Shaver

Can the pure and simple beauty of firearms be considered without continually framing the same old political debate?




Heckler & Koch. Up to 700 rounds per minute. Mmmmmmm!


----------



## Shaver

eagle2250 said:


> ^^+1 (referring to Shaver's post #30)
> ...but I would add, Howard, if you know you are going to get your butt kicked anyway, why not strike back at your aggressors and get yourself a bit of payback in the process! It's probably going to hurt about the same, regardless!


Indeed. A maxim of mine (stolen from a TV show, of all places!) "Stand it like a man - and give some back"


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Shaver said:


> Can the pure and simple beauty of firearms be considered without continually framing the same old political debate?


No.

In the US, 2nd Amendment Democrats get the same back of the bus treatment Catholics and Pro-lifers get.

They have no voice and show up only to be lectured to.

I can't understand why they put up with it myself.

I am enthusiastic about target shooting, design, history and self defense.

I'll consider the NRA again when they recind their views on making cult heros out of Ruby Ridge or Waco Wackos.


----------



## Shaver

WouldaShoulda said:


> No.
> 
> In the US, 2nd Amendment Democrats get the same back of the bus treatment Catholics and Pro-lifers get.
> 
> They have no voice and show up only to be lectured to.
> 
> I can't understand why they put up with it myself.
> 
> I am enthusiastic about target shooting, design, history and self defense.
> 
> I'll consider the NRA again when they recind their views on making cult heros out of Ruby Ridge or Waco Wackos.


Vicki Weaver was murdered. The Branch Davidians were murdered. The ATF acted incompetantly at best, certainly maliciously, and had no business being at either location. Murder pure and simple.


----------



## tocqueville

El_Abogado said:


> You're trolling, right?
> 
> The NRA supported 58 incumbent Democrats in the 2010 Congressional elections. This is not a serious thread and you lack the basic facts for your assertions.


58 out of how many Congressional contests? Why are they supporting any candidates? And I'm sure those Democrats had to earn it by being more Catholic than the Pope. In the mean time, my NRA-subscribing uncle was getting NRA mailings in 2008 telling him that Obama was going to take away gun rights. The crazies who mobbed the gun shops back in 2008 after Obama got elected didn't need the NRA to tell them to fear the Communist Muslim Black Man, but the NRA wasn't helping to clarify matters regarding the difference between reality and fantasy. Did it ever state publicly that, in fact, Obama did not intend to take away gun rights and that perhaps one needed to decide whom to vote for based on some other issue?

To be clear, I've had some firearms experience, have taken two fire arms safety courses, and was once qualified on a particular weapon. I have a healthy respect for guns and the various gun hobbies (there are several, really, from collecting antiques to survivalism to hunting to skeet shooting). I would like to own a gun but decline because of my wife's vehement opposition and because I have three small boys--I'm not comfortable with having guns in the house with them, regardless of the safety precautions, safes, etc. Basically, I'm more anti-NRA than I am anti-gun.

As for guns, I find a number of them beautiful. There's something lovely about a the working of a good bolt action, for example. Believe it or not, my Middle School had a rifle range and a collection of ancient .22 bolt actions, which I loved. Shooting them was sort of the graduation prize for completing the school's hunting safety course. Ah, Pennsylvania. Hunter's paradise. Our teacher once brought in his own 1903 Springfield rifle. We got to handle it but, sadly, not shoot it. So cool. (And damn, so heavy!) There's a very different sort of sex appeal to something as coldly efficient as a Glock, kind of a form follows function aesthetic. I suppose if I were to collect, I would want to mix it up, which some selected for pure functionality (Glock) and others for less tangible appeal. Like a classic 1911. I remember reading about how when one of the Missouri class battleships was finally and irrevocably decommissioned in the late 1980s or early 1990s, someone found in some closet somewhere on the ship a few unopened cases of mint 1940s-issued 1911s, the real deal. They got auctioned off. How I would have loved to get my hands on one of those.

FWIW, I've met some SF operators in my day (it comes with living in DC and working in and around the military-industrial complex), and was told that those who get deployed with relatively little logistical support and who might have to forage a little favor 9mm simply because of their ubiquity. If you're in some crap hole in the Middle East and are searching bodies for mags, you're unlikely to find APC ammo.


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate

WouldaShoulda said:


> No.
> 
> In the US, 2nd Amendment Democrats get the same back of the bus treatment Catholics and Pro-lifers get.
> 
> They have no voice and show up only to be lectured to.
> 
> I can't understand why they put up with it myself.
> 
> I am enthusiastic about target shooting, design, history and self defense.
> 
> I'll consider the NRA again when they recind their views on making cult heros out of Ruby Ridge or Waco Wackos.


I agree with the rest of your post, but I hardly think Catholics and anti-abortion activist get treated badly. I have seen absolutely zero discrimination towards Catholics, but my area of the country is heavily Roman Catholic, and so the same may not be true in other parts of the country. Anti-abortion activists, on the other hand, may be widely disrespected among some groups, but their agenda is taken rather seriously and their agenda is well-represented politically in much of the country.

As for Democrats who support the Second Amendment, I can agree with you to an extent. I don't think of myself as a Democrat (I think of myself as one in the small-d sense, which means that I can't be totally satisfied with the way American politics run right now), but there are an awful lot of left-wing people who are irrationally worried about gun control. I, for one, think that the focus should not be on adding regulations but rather on cracking down on the trade in illegal firearms, and on addressing the root causes of crime.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Shaver said:


> Vicki Weaver was murdered. The Branch Davidians were murdered. The ATF acted incompetantly at best, certainly maliciously, and had no business being at either location. Murder pure and simple.


In the US, if a local or Federal authority serves you a warrant, I suggest the servee comply.

They will have a day in court and representation supplied to them.

One does not/should not put their lives, but especially their family's lives, in jeopardy.

That's not patriotic, it's idiotic!!

On another note; I still lament the day the US Army abandoned the .45 for the 9mm


----------



## Shaver

WouldaShoulda said:


> In the US, if a local or Federal authority serves you a warrant, I suggest the servee comply.
> 
> They will have a day in court and representation supplied to them.
> 
> One does not/should not put their lives, but especially their family's lives, in jeopardy.
> 
> That's not patriotic, it's idiotic!!


Do you actually know anything at all about these two events, the circumstances that led up to them and the actions of the individuals involved?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Shaver said:


> Do you actually know anything at all about these two events, the circumstances that led up to them and the actions of the individuals involved?


Yes, it would appear two individuals have familiarized themselves with the facts and have reached seperate conclusions.

These men put their familys at risk and they are dead.

I have a healthy scepticism for power. Not a fatal one!!


----------



## tocqueville

I agree with WouldaShoulda. That said, if one wants to argue that the ATF is incompetent, that's another story.

The incidents in the 1990s were used to fuel bizarre anti-government paranoia of the sort that led to the Oklahama City bombing. Pretty crazy stuff. The NRA dabbled in that, too. Remember the "jackbooted Federal officer" thing what's his name wrote in a mailing?


----------



## Shaver

WouldaShoulda said:


> Yes, it would appear two individuals have familiarized themselves with the facts and have reached seperate conclusions.
> 
> These men put their familys at risk and they are dead.
> 
> I have a healthy scepticism for power. Not a fatal one!!


By 'putting their families at risk' do you 'mean minding their own business in a shack up a mountain in Idaho, refusing to be entrapped by crooked government agents'?

You are surely aware that the American government has conceeded that one of events we are discussing was an illegal act and have subsequently disbursed millions of dollars worth of compensation to the survivors?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Shaver said:


> By 'putting their families at risk' do you 'mean minding their own business in a shack up a mountain in Idaho, refusing to be entrapped by crooked government agents'?
> 
> You are surely aware that the American government has conceeded that one of events we are discussing was an illegal act and have subsequently disbursed millions of dollars worth of compensation to the survivors?


So by your account, had he surrendered peacefully, he could have sued the Government and won with the added benefit of his family being alive??


----------



## Snow Hill Pond

Shaver said:


> By 'putting their families at risk' do you 'mean minding their own business in a shack up a mountain in Idaho, refusing to be entrapped by crooked government agents'?
> QUOTE]
> 
> Shaver, you almost sound...American. No insult intended...


----------



## Shaver

WouldaShoulda said:


> So by your account, had he surrendered peacefully, he could have sued the Government and won with the added benefit of his family being alive??


When did this offer to 'surrender peacefully' take place?

Was it when his son was murdered in cold blood whilst playing in the woods?

Perhaps it was when his wife was gunned down whilst holding their baby in her arms?

Or even was it during the week long seige surrounded by an armed task force who were shooting at anything that moved in the cabin?

I really do not mind discussing this with you but is it at all possible you can bear in mind the facts of the situation and which are a matter of public record?


----------



## Shaver

Snow Hill Pond said:


> Shaver said:
> 
> 
> 
> By 'putting their families at risk' do you 'mean minding their own business in a shack up a mountain in Idaho, refusing to be entrapped by crooked government agents'?
> QUOTE]
> 
> Shaver, you almost sound...American. No insult intended...
> 
> 
> 
> None taken, but - how so?
Click to expand...


----------



## hardline_42

Snow Hill Pond said:


> Shaver, you almost sound...American. No insult intended...


LOL! Given the typical lines in the sand drawn in other similar threads, it's quite refreshing!


----------



## Snow Hill Pond

Shaver said:


> Snow Hill Pond said:
> 
> 
> 
> None taken, but - how so?
> 
> 
> 
> Don't want to put words in your mouth...and correct me if I'm wrong, but by defending the fundamental right of the individual to be proudly and peacefully independent of an all-controlling govenment, corrupt or otherwise.
Click to expand...


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Shaver said:


> When did this offer to 'surrender peacefully' take place?
> 
> Was it when his son was murdered in cold blood whilst playing in the woods?
> 
> Perhaps it was when his wife was gunned down whilst holding their baby in her arms?
> 
> Or even was it during the week long seige surrounded by an armed task force who were shooting at anything that moved in the cabin?
> 
> I really do not mind discussing this with you but is it at all possible you can bear in mind the facts of the situation and which are a matter of public record?


Heaven forbid no, earlier than that. Much earlier.

Wiki;

Weaver, distrustful of the federal government, refused to leave his cabin. U.S. Marshals Service officers made a series of attempts to have Weaver surrender peacefully. Weaver negotiated with US Marshals Ron Evans, W. Warren Mays and David Hunt through third parties from March 5 to October 12, 1991, when prosecutor Ron Evans directed that the negotiations cease.[SUP][14][/SUP] The US Attorney directed that all negotiations would go through Weaver's court-appointed counsel; however, Weaver did not have any contact with the attorney and refused to talk with him. Marshals then began preparing plans to capture Weaver to stand trial on the weapons charges and his failure to appear at the correct trial date.[SUP][7][/SUP]
Although Marshals stopped the negotiations as ordered, they made other contact. March 4, 1992, US Marshals Ron Evans and Jack Cluff drove to the Weaver property and spoke with Weaver posing as real estate prospects.[SUP][14][/SUP] At a March 27, 1992 USMS HQ meeting, Art Roderick code named the operation "Northern Exposure".[SUP][19][/SUP] Surveillance teams were dispatched and cameras were set up to record activity at Weaver's residence. Marshals observed that Weaver and his family responded to vehicles and other visitors by taking up armed positions around the cabin until the visitors were recognized.[SUP][7][/SUP]


----------



## CuffDaddy

Yep, I practically qualify as a "gun nut," which is somewhat at odds with many of my other political views. Just in the last month or so, I've gone into reloading (for any non-firearms folks, that's making your own ammunition from components), which is a whole 'nother world of geeky fun. Most recent firearm acquisition is a mil-surp Enfield rifle.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

tocqueville said:


> I agree with WouldaShoulda. That said, if one wants to argue that the ATF is incompetent, that's another story.


Exactly.

As is frequently the case, there is shared negligence.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Apatheticviews said:


> The old 1911 had a much slimmer profile, while the sig's & HK's have significant increases in cost.


Not really. The Sig was $10 more per pistol. When the original Army trials were held, the Beretta and Sig were the ONLY guns to pass the reliability testing. Those tests weren't perfect, but the demonstrated reliability was the same; the HK offering of the time didn't make the cut to get to cost considerations.



Apatheticviews said:


> The Glock would probably be the next best option, but when I was still involved in such things, it wasn't even considered (odd considering it's popularity among the federal government).


The DoD wants a real safety (an off-switch) or at least a decocker on their service pistols. Whether you agree with it or not, it has made the Glock an non-player in US military service trials.


----------



## tgadd

Sadly, after moving to the wonderful state of Massachusetts from North Carolina, I had to get rid of my guns.

I had two shotguns, a rifle, and a pistol and they've all hopefully gone on to better places.


----------



## Canadian

Cuffdaddy,

I learned how to shoot with the Cadets using a SMLE. I already knew how to shoot, having used all sorts of small arms from my father's collection. Someday, I hope to own my grandfathers guns, because they generally predate WWII. Right now, Dad is hanging onto them as they have sentimental value to him as well as I.


Tom


----------



## CuffDaddy

Canadian said:


> I learned how to shoot with the Cadets using a SMLE. I already knew how to shoot, having used all sorts of small arms from my father's collection. Someday, I hope to own my grandfathers guns, because they generally predate WWII. Right now, Dad is hanging onto them as they have sentimental value to him as well as I.


Nice. I only put three rounds through my new Enfield, but I was impressed at the accuracy (which is what led me to want one in the first place). M1 Garands have gotten stupidly expensive, so if you want Allied mil-surp stuff with a WWII history for less than $1000, it's basically Enfields or Mosin-Nagants (or wierd things from France). The Mosins are cheap as dirt now (about $100-120 out the door), but they're rough.


----------



## tocqueville

CuffDaddy said:


> Nice. I only put three rounds through my new Enfield, but I was impressed at the accuracy (which is what led me to want one in the first place). M1 Garands have gotten stupidly expensive, so if you want Allied mil-surp stuff with a WWII history for less than $1000, it's basically Enfields or Mosin-Nagants (or wierd things from France). The Mosins are cheap as dirt now (about $100-120 out the door), but they're rough.


I believe those French guns have enjoyed a long career in Africa. They're supposed to be quite good.


----------



## Haffman

As with any activity that requires skill and dedication to perfect, I can see the appeal of shooting. 

However, I am completely and fundamentally opposed to civilians having access to weapons designed for military purposes (and even, although less vociferously, replicas of them). 

As for their aesthetic aspects, I find them no more and no less impressive than any other piece of ergonomic machinery. They have some emotive aspects, some positive (playing 'soldiers' as a boy and being in the army cadets) and some negative (there is something just evil looking about them...particularly that H&K) :icon_pale:


----------



## CuffDaddy

tocqueville said:


> I believe those French guns have enjoyed a long career in Africa. They're supposed to be quite good.


Yeah, but I've never seen them for sale in-person (if you're talking about MAS 36's - or really any French service rifle, come to think of it). And it's my understanding that the ammo is hard to find, and what's available is usually corrosive and Berdan primed, which means you can't reload it. Fine for a curio, but if you're going to actually shoot the gun, it means feeding it is expensive, and timely cleaning is _critical_.


----------



## Shaver

WouldaShoulda said:


> Heaven forbid no, earlier than that. Much earlier.
> 
> Wiki;
> 
> Weaver, distrustful of the federal government, refused to leave his cabin. U.S. Marshals Service officers made a series of attempts to have Weaver surrender peacefully. Weaver negotiated with US Marshals Ron Evans, W. Warren Mays and David Hunt through third parties from March 5 to October 12, 1991, when prosecutor Ron Evans directed that the negotiations cease.[SUP][14][/SUP] The US Attorney directed that all negotiations would go through Weaver's court-appointed counsel; however, Weaver did not have any contact with the attorney and refused to talk with him. Marshals then began preparing plans to capture Weaver to stand trial on the weapons charges and his failure to appear at the correct trial date.[SUP][7][/SUP]
> Although Marshals stopped the negotiations as ordered, they made other contact. March 4, 1992, US Marshals Ron Evans and Jack Cluff drove to the Weaver property and spoke with Weaver posing as real estate prospects.[SUP][14][/SUP] At a March 27, 1992 USMS HQ meeting, Art Roderick code named the operation "Northern Exposure".[SUP][19][/SUP] Surveillance teams were dispatched and cameras were set up to record activity at Weaver's residence. Marshals observed that Weaver and his family responded to vehicles and other visitors by taking up armed positions around the cabin until the visitors were recognized.[SUP][7][/SUP]


Apologies for delay in response I have just returned from an evening's boozing with Aryan Nations; those boys really know how to party.

You are quoting from Wikipedia? Are you not aware that creative vandals wreak havoc with the factual content of that site? A singularly unreliable source, even by internet standards.

Anyway, when

a) the FBI follows you around everywhere you go resultant of a spurious accusation by a disgruntled lunatic neighbour

b) the FBI attempts to egg you on to engage in illegal activities (which you politely decline)

c) the FBI attempts to induce you to be an informant (which you politely decline)

d) you are summonsed to court on a trumped up nothing of a charge

e) a magistrate tells you (in error) that you may forfeit your home and your land and also that your children will taken into care if you lose the 'trial'

f) the date of the court hearing is changed without your being informed

g) legal negotiations are terminated without notification or warning

I hope that you are able to discern at which of these stages you need to 'surrender' like a good chap just in case your family might end up being murdered by government agents.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Haffman said:


> However, I am completely and fundamentally opposed to civilians having access to weapons designed for military purposes (and even, although less vociferously, replicas of them).


Fair enough, everyone is entitled to their opinion. (At least here in America!  ) But recognize that free societies have only recently begun to take the approach you advocate. Maybe that new trend is advancement, but it's a relatively new thing, and not something that your forebearers (assuming you are English and not just located in England) or mine though desireable.

And defining "designed for military purposes" is a lot harder to do well than you think. There are plenty of firearms that are every bit as powerful - often more so - as standard-issue service arms. And virtually every feature on any firearm ever was dervied from some feature or technology originally invented for a military purpose. The things you think of as purely "sporting" arms closely resemble the military arms of the previous generation. Even the "assault weapons" that get so much press (though involved in a statistically-insignificant portion of US homicides - many more people die by blunt objects than rifles of all kinds every year) are mostly civilian-ized versions of arms that were common in service 20 or 40 years ago; of course, they're also nearly always semi-automatic, which distinguishes them in real dangerousness from the ones the military actually uses, which tend to be automatic.

At any rate, it's a lengthy discussion, and a complex subject.


----------



## Shaver

[


Snow Hill Pond said:


> Don't want to put words in your mouth...and correct me if I'm wrong, but by defending the fundamental right of the individual to be proudly and peacefully independent of an all-controlling govenment, corrupt or otherwise.


You are absolutely correct. I am a rugged individualist. I am anti-authoritarian. I do not require a feeble, self-serving, transient government to tell me my morals, prescribe my behaviour, nor limit my options.


----------



## Haffman

CuffDaddy said:


> At any rate, it's a lengthy discussion, and a complex subject.


Agreed and I was well aware that the dividing line between a 'military design' (where the firearm is designed primarily for combat purposes independently of whether or not it is adopted as a standard-issue service arm or even primarily used for combat, since we are talking about _design_ - there is a close analogy with knives here) and a 'sporting design' is a hard one to draw. Personally I would draw somewhere beyond automatic and semi-automatic weapons, possibly even at any firearm that has the ability to fire one or two rounds before manual reloading. I just cannot see the benefit to society of civilians having access to these weapons. But I am something of a paternalist.

Anyway, I am sure you are abreast of my reasoning and I have no desire to rain any further on this gun-lover's parade. I was in two minds about posting at all with my namby-pamby viewpoint .


----------



## CuffDaddy

Haffman, I appreciate the restraint. This is certainly an issue that can cause emotions to run high, and (at least in America) civil discourse and rational thought on the subject are hard to come by. 

I'll leave you with this: If you ever happen to end up in my part of the world, I would be delighted to take you to the range where I am a member and let you experience some shooting of your own. Once people do a bit of it, the appeal becomes evident, and the cost/benefit analysis begins to be more complete.


----------



## Haffman

CuffDaddy said:


> Haffman, I appreciate the restraint. This is certainly an issue that can cause emotions to run high, and (at least in America) civil discourse and rational thought on the subject are hard to come by.
> 
> I'll leave you with this: If you ever happen to end up in my part of the world, I would be delighted to take you to the range where I am a member and let you experience some shooting of your own. Once people do a bit of it, the appeal becomes evident, and the cost/benefit analysis begins to be more complete.


I will gladly accept this gracious offer and may even have some (rusty) experience to bring to this endeavour...having tried my hand many times with the Browning 9mm, SA-80, A2 light support weapon, Bren gun, Minimi, MP5 and even our dear friend the Lee Enfield. 'He who groups well shoots well'. I still don't think it will change my views and I will even venture to change yours afterwards...but the drinks will be on me :smile:


----------



## pleasehelp

Apatheticviews said:


> Each service has held their own trials regarding the 92fs (M9). It's just not a good "standard" sidearm. It's saving grace was it's high capacity and it's cost (they are crazy cheap compared to anything else in the class), but with the number of women, and smaller men (like myself) in the services now, it just doesn't fit most peoples' hands. The old 1911 had a much slimmer profile, while the sig's & HK's have significant increases in cost. The Glock would probably be the next best option, but when I was still involved in such things, it wasn't even considered (odd considering it's popularity among the federal government).
> 
> The USMC & the special forces communities have been leaning towards the .45, as they have found 9mm ball not to be effective for their needs, but that is weighted. I think the Navy & USCG were leaning towards the sig's if I recall correctly, and the Army has been al over the place depending on command. I had not heard how the USAF had went, and they were the real decision makers when it came to the M16 platform, back in the 60s.


I didn't realized that other branches had held trials since the 1983/4 trials when the 92fs/m9 was adopted. Certain branches (or sub groups) of the military have adopted other sidearms, but I didn't realize that it was pursuant to trials. I'd be very interested in reading about anything you have on those trials. There was talk of another round of joint trials a few years ago, but as far as I know they are postponed indefinitely.


----------



## pleasehelp

eagle2250 said:


> I suppose I should be more familiar with the interrelated histories of the 92F's and P226's, but alas, other than being an end user of the weapons, I am almost ashamed to say that my understanding of the USAF's decision to go with the Beretta is limited to it's being based primarily on cost. Whatever the deciding factor(s) were, the Beretta 92F represented a vast step forward over the old Smith & Wesson .38 caliber revolvers they replaced!


They were the only two candidates to qualify in the joint military trials in the 1980s to replace the 1911 with a 9mm. Gun people have debated the decision ever since. I'm partial to the p226.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Haffman said:


> I will gladly accept this gracious offer and may even have some (rusty) experience to bring to this endeavour...having tried my hand many times with the Browning 9mm, SA-80, A2 light support weapon, Bren gun, Minimi, MP5 and even our dear friend the Lee Enfield. 'He who groups well shoots well'. I still don't think it will change my views and I will even venture to change yours afterwards...but the drinks will be on me :smile:


Cannot wait, though I suppose I will have to. (BTW, changing my mind will be a tough-ish proposition, inasmuch as I used to have views closer to where yours currently are and have moved away from them.)


----------



## CuffDaddy

pleasehelp said:


> I didn't realized that other branches had held trials since the 1983/4 trials when the 92fs/m9 was adopted. Certain branches (or sub groups) of the military have adopted other sidearms, but I didn't realize that it was pursuant to trials. I'd be very interested in reading about anything you have on those trials. There was talk of another round of joint trials a few years ago, but as far as I know they are postponed indefinitely.


Given the relative *UN*importance of handguns to combat effectiveness, they should stay postponed until there's a lot of loose change in the federal coffers. The marginal additional effectiveness of one modern 9mm service pistol over another can't justify the millions and millions that acquiring a new arsenal and attendant relacement parts, etc., would entail. And, with the _possible_ exception of special operations units, the same is true of different calibers. Nobody ever won or lost a war because their issue sidearm was not as good as the other side's.

Far more rational and likely, in my view, would be a recognition that the old interpretation of treaties prohibiting hollow-point ammo is obsolete. Given modern HP's, 9mm is quite effective, and gives up nothing to .45 ACP ball. And I think it's pretty reasonable that soldiers ought to be able to carry the same ammunition that the government gives law enforcement to use on citizens.


----------



## pleasehelp

CuffDaddy said:


> Given the relative *UN*importance of handguns to combat effectiveness, they should stay postponed until there's a lot of loose change in the federal coffers. The marginal additional effectiveness of one modern 9mm service pistol over another can't justify the millions and millions that acquiring a new arsenal and attendant relacement parts, etc., would entail. And, with the _possible_ exception of special operations units, the same is true of different calibers. Nobody ever won or lost a war because their issue sidearm was not as good as the other side's.
> 
> Far more rational and likely, in my view, would be a recognition that the old interpretation of treaties prohibiting hollow-point ammo is obsolete. Given modern HP's, 9mm is quite effective, and gives up nothing to .45 ACP ball. And I think it's pretty reasonable that soldiers ought to be able to carry the same ammunition that the government gives law enforcement to use on citizens.


I think your view on the relative unimportance of sidearms in military combat is widely shared, and I suspect largely responsible for the delayed trials. I can't say that I've thought through the debate on rules of combat regarding ammo.

My personal use of handguns has always been limited to target shooting. I like using a 9mm because you can shoot a thousand rounds without breaking the bank.


----------



## El_Abogado

Haffman said:


> However, I am completely and fundamentally opposed to civilians having access to weapons designed for military purposes (and even, although less vociferously, replicas of them).


Most, if not all, the good firearms and cartridges trace their lineage to weapons and ammunition designe for military purposes. . . .

Haffman, though I disagree with your views I appreciate your civility in discussing them.


----------



## El_Abogado

CuffDaddy said:


> The DoD wants a real safety (an off-switch) or at least a decocker on their service pistols. Whether you agree with it or not, it has made the Glock an non-player in US military service trials.


Interestingly, when private contractors are carrying pistols, more often than not, those pistols are Glocks, usually G19s. No doubt, part of the reason for their frequency of use is cost. They are also easy to manipulate and pretty rugged.


----------



## CuffDaddy

pleasehelp said:


> My personal use of handguns has always been limited to target shooting. I like using a 9mm because you can shoot a thousand rounds without breaking the bank.


I started handloading in large part because feeding my 10mm was breaking me! 9mm is definitely the most economical. And even though I've got more powerful guns around, a 9mm is the home defense gun. With modern hollow-points, I'm pretty confident it would do the job if it was ever needed (it won't be, of course).


----------



## CuffDaddy

El_Abogado said:


> Interestingly, when private contractors are carrying pistols, more often than not, those pistols are Glocks, usually G19s. No doubt, part of the reason for their frequency of use is cost. They are also easy to manipulate and pretty rugged.


Yep, the cost and reliability is a great combination. Of course, the lack of an external safety leads to a higher incidence of accidental/negligent discharges. I'm just old-fashioned and think pistols should either have a very long and heavy pull (like a revolver) or a safety. But they're marvelous pieces of engineering.


----------



## El_Abogado

CuffDaddy said:


> Yep, the cost and reliability is a great combination. Of course, the lack of an external safety leads to a higher incidence of accidental/negligent discharges. I'm just old-fashioned and think pistols should either have a very long and heavy pull (like a revolver) or a safety. But they're marvelous pieces of engineering.


Not me. I think the people carrying them should be properly trained and motivated There are few ADs. There are lots of NDs from people who have no interest in their use, nor desire to use deadly force in defense of themselves or others. Social work would be more meaningful to them and society.

Follow the four rules of gun safety, respect the weapon and the taking of life, and NDs are far less likely to happen.

But if by a pistol with a safety, you mean the Almighty's handgun, brought Earth by John Moses Browning, then I agree. That is what we should carry and use. Intended for military (cavalry) use and over 100 years old. Real Trad.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Well, there are lots of documented cases of Glock ND's by CCW's, police officers, DEA agents, etc. It only takes one mistake (finger on the trigger, or shirttail/toggle in holster, etc.) for that gun to go bang.

I do, of course, like the JMB safety arrangement. Whether it's on a 1911, a Hi-Power, a CZ, a S&W polymer, or another pistol, a frame-mounted, down-to-fire rideable safety is my preference. The safety comes off when you take your full grip, so it's not really an extra step.


----------



## Apatheticviews

The biggest safety is located between the owner's ears. Everything else is a secondary device. If you don't engage that primary safety, you'll get an AD/ND.

TV's and potted plant's were the biggest "victims" when I was in the trade. People doing drills, and forgetting rule #1. (as well as 2, 3, & 4).


----------



## Howard

Shaver said:


> aww Howard, that's sad. :frown:


The only way I could get away from bullies is to run away and talk to my Mother.


----------



## Howard

eagle2250 said:


> ^^+1 (referring to Shaver's post #30)
> ...but I would add, Howard, if you know you are going to get your butt kicked anyway, why not strike back at your aggressors and get yourself a bit of payback in the process! It's probably going to hurt about the same, regardless!


Hey Eagle do you know what it feels like to get beat up by a bully? getting knocked in the jaw, face down and running to your Mother? I'm pretty sure you do.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Apatheticviews said:


> The biggest safety is located between the owner's ears. Everything else is a secondary device. If you don't engage that primary safety, you'll get an AD/ND.


Of course. But my personal view (which I don't expect others to share) is that relying *solely *on good habits/discipline to the exclusion of a manual safety is like relying on your good driving to obviate the need for a seatbelt or airbag. I don't plan on using those to save my life, either, but I still want them on my car.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Yes Howard, I suspect many of us know what it feels like to be "beat up by a bully!" However, I've never been much for that "turn the other cheek" philosophy. I'm more of an "eye for an eye" sort of guy. I'd rather get in a few licks and make the B*****ds pay (even if just a little bit) for choosing me as their victim. The reality is that no one ever really wins a fight. The next bay, both winners and losers, hurt like hell! So what's to lose? We might as well stand up for what we believe.


----------



## Shaver

Howard said:


> The only way I could get away from bullies is to run away and talk to my Mother.


Hello Howard, childhood can be very difficult. It is all behind you now though, eh?

From what you say, it sounds like your mum was a very supportive lady and that is a great positive which you may take from the experience.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Shaver said:


> Apologies for delay in response I have just returned from an evening's boozing with Aryan Nations; those boys really know how to party.
> 
> You are quoting from Wikipedia? Are you not aware that creative vandals wreak havoc with the factual content of that site? A singularly unreliable source, even by internet standards.
> 
> Anyway, when
> 
> a) the FBI follows you around everywhere you go resultant of a spurious accusation by a disgruntled lunatic neighbour
> 
> b) the FBI attempts to egg you on to engage in illegal activities (which you politely decline)
> 
> c) the FBI attempts to induce you to be an informant (which you politely decline)
> 
> d) you are summonsed to court on a trumped up nothing of a charge
> 
> e) a magistrate tells you (in error) that you may forfeit your home and your land and also that your children will taken into care if you lose the 'trial'
> 
> f) the date of the court hearing is changed without your being informed
> 
> g) legal negotiations are terminated without notification or warning
> 
> I hope that you are able to discern at which of these stages you need to 'surrender' like a good chap just in case your family might end up being murdered by government agents.


I didn't say the government was blameless.

I said he shares blame in not protecting his family.

But you may go on and on and on...

I'll blame the alcohol!!


----------



## Shaver

WouldaShoulda said:


> I didn't say the government was blameless.
> 
> I said he shares blame in not protecting his family.
> 
> But you may go on and on and on...
> 
> I'll blame the alcohol!! :smile:


Hmmm I do not believe that he shares any blame. However, moving on: Waco.

You have characterised these unfortunates as 'Wackos'. Now I will concede that, unlike the Weavers, the survivors of the Waco massacre have not been recognised as victims of outrageous Federal activity by a court, _as yet_. However given that a government will always make every effort to disguise unlawful killing then this is really not so surprising. Still, all in all, the officially acknowledged sequence of events leading up to and including the seige quite starkly illustrates the illegal, dishonest, aggresive and downright murderous tactics inflicted upon these hapless isolationists.

The Justice Department recommended that Richard Rogers, the FBI hostage team commander responsible for both Ruby Ridge and Waco, face criminal charges as 'The rules of engagement not only departed from the FBI's standard deadly force policy, but also contradicted the Constitution of the United States'. However political wrangling has commuted this penalty to a mere disciplinary.

It is worth noting that the Davidians were cleared of all the serious criminal charges, being those which were fabricated as pretext for the slaughter.

Being a Wacko does not grant permission for the FBI to execute you in your own home.


----------



## Troglodyte

CuffDaddy said:


> Well, there are lots of documented cases of Glock ND's by CCW's, police officers, DEA agents, etc. It only takes one mistake (finger on the trigger, or shirttail/toggle in holster, etc.) for that gun to go bang.


Living and working among the Afghans, I required all of my advisor team to have their pistols off safe at all times. No NDs, no green-on-blue attempts. It's all about the man behind the gun, or as my sergeant major put it in a different war, "the loose nut behind the rear sight."

Trog


----------



## Troglodyte

Using the less sexy vesrion of Mr Shaver's weapon of choice, I should add. Not Glocks. But I imagine the principle of "no external safety" remains the same if the safety is always off.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Troglodyte said:


> Living and working among the Afghans, I required all of my advisor team to have their pistols off safe at all times. No NDs, no green-on-blue attempts. It's all about the man behind the gun, or as my sergeant major put it in a different war, "the loose nut behind the rear sight."
> 
> Trog


Given where you are, I'm in no position to argue with any decision you make. Weighing the risks, the rewards, knowing the individuals involved, etc., I'm sure it's the right decision for your group. BTW, are the pistols Berettas? Are they carried hammer down, with a DA pull on the first shot?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Shaver said:


> Being a Wacko does not grant permission for the FBI to execute you in your own home.


I'm not aware of anyone who has suggested or implied otherwise.

I will however, suggest showing up to court when you are supposed to and when an officer comes to your door reply by saying "Hello Sir, how may I help you??" the first time. Not allowing things to escalate and placing one's family in harms way.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

tocqueville said:


> I agree with WouldaShoulda. That said, if one wants to argue that the ATF is incompetent, that's another story.
> 
> The incidents in the 1990s were used to fuel bizarre anti-government paranoia of the sort that led to the Oklahama City bombing.


1) Exactly.

2) With the fall of the American Mafia and before 911 the FBI didn't have a lot to do. There has always been an element of bizarre anti-government paranoia but the "Angry White Man" was the new Bogeyman of the 90s.

It just filled the gap between Gotti and OBL!!


----------



## Shaver

WouldaShoulda said:


> I'm not aware of anyone who has suggested or implied otherwise.
> 
> *I will however, suggest showing up to court when you are supposed to and when an officer comes to your door reply by saying "Hello Sir, how may I help you??" the first time. Not allowing things to escalate and placing one's family in harms way.
> *


I have already explained quite clearly how this is inapplicable in both cases (see my previous posts).

The FBI/ATF were determined to instigate and escalate the situation whatever the response of the innocents involved.

You have demonstrated that you believe it a fitting subject for mockery that a government agency murders men, women and children in their own homes and for no reason at all. Absolutely shameful.


----------



## Bjorn

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) Exactly.
> 
> 2) With the fall of the American Mafia and before 911 the FBI didn't have a lot to do. There has always been an element of bizarre anti-government paranoia but the "Angry White Man" was the new Bogeyman of the 90s.
> 
> It just filled the gap between Gotti and OBL!!


"Falling down"?


----------



## Shaver

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) Exactly.
> 
> 2) With the fall of the American Mafia and before 911 the FBI didn't have a lot to do. There has always been an element of bizarre anti-government paranoia but the "Angry White Man" was the new Bogeyman of the 90s.
> 
> It just filled the gap between Gotti and OBL!!


Please refrain from starting another contentious political debate when you are patently unable to substantiate your claims. Thank you.


----------



## Apatheticviews

CuffDaddy said:


> Of course. But my personal view (which I don't expect others to share) is that relying *solely *on good habits/discipline to the exclusion of a manual safety is like relying on your good driving to obviate the need for a seatbelt or airbag. I don't plan on using those to save my life, either, but I still want them on my car.


There's a big difference between sharing the road (which is what necessitates seatbelts & airbags) and handling a firearm. If you were the only one on the road at all times, seatbelts & airbags could be optional. You aren't however, which means you need protection from other drivers. A safety on a firearm doesn't protect you from someone else however. It protects you from yourself, much "more" like a parking brake (on an automatic). With proper disciple, it is unnecessary.

I personally like grip safeties, like those found on the 1911. Without a firm grip, the trigger/hammer mechanism is disconnected, and he weapon will not fire. I'm not opposed to the more traditional safety, however, many are like lipstick on a pig.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Apatheticviews said:


> There's a big difference between sharing the road (which is what necessitates seatbelts & airbags) and handling a firearm. If you were the only one on the road at all times, seatbelts & airbags could be optional.


And a safety is optional. I want the option. And I would like it if all those around me opted for it, too! I don't like to count on me or anyone around me being perfect.

I would add, of course, that the location and operation of the safety are key. I like the ones configured like the thumb safety on a 1911 - you take it off as part of establishing your grip, so it adds no time to getting the gun into use. I don't care for the Beretta's safety, for instance, with its slide-mounted location. It's slightly fiddly.

As for the pig bit, that doesn't apply to true safeties on any hammer-fired gun... it means you can carry them cocked and locked.


----------



## pleasehelp

CuffDaddy said:


> And a safety is optional. I want the option. And I would like it if all those around me opted for it, too! I don't like to count on me or anyone around me being perfect.
> 
> I would add, of course, that the location and operation of the safety are key. I like the ones configured like the thumb safety on a 1911 - you take it off as part of establishing your grip, so it adds no time to getting the gun into use. I don't care for the Beretta's safety, for instance, with its slide-mounted location. It's slightly fiddly.
> 
> As for the pig bit, that doesn't apply to true safeties on any hammer-fired gun... it means you can carry them cocked and locked.


For what it's worth (and on this subject matter, I'm the first to admit that my opinion isn't worth much), I agree. I would greatly prefer if the p226 had an external thumb safety. Relying solely on a safety is a terrible idea, but I like the extra degree of protection against accidents.


----------



## El_Abogado

CuffDaddy said:


> Well, there are lots of documented cases of Glock ND's by CCW's, police officers, DEA agents, etc. It only takes one mistake (finger on the trigger, or shirttail/toggle in holster, etc.) for that gun to go bang..


I too have heard the stories. Of course, who can forget the DEA agent who was the only person in the room "professional" enough to handle a Glock -- right before he ND'ed a round into his leg. . .

I've trained with 1911s, Glocks and M9s, HKs and Sigs. For me, either multiple safeties (grip and thumb) or "none" (in the trigger), just as long as it's the same trigger pull every time. DA/SA pistols, such as the M9, are abominations.


----------



## Troglodyte

CuffDaddy said:


> BTW, are the pistols Berettas? Are they carried hammer down, with a DA pull on the first shot?


Yes on both. We put a lot of bullets downrange before we deployed, to get folks used to the difference between the DA trigger pull on the first shot and the lighter pull on the second, with an emphasis on hitting with that first, harder shot.

I also agree that not everybody is sufficiently diligent to carry this way, not even everybody here. There are many people out there who test the limits of both of the first two amendments...

Best,
Trog


----------



## Shaver

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) Exactly.
> 
> 2) With the fall of the American Mafia and before 911 the FBI didn't have a lot to do. There has always been an element of bizarre anti-government paranoia but the "Angry White Man" was the new Bogeyman of the 90s.
> 
> It just filled the gap between Gotti and OBL!!


WouldaShoulda, may I ask:

are you in awe of authority?

Do you find yourself unable to resist orders given to you by a man in a uniform?

Do you automatically believe the official version of events?

There is no shame in this and many psychological studies have shown that most people will become blindly obedient if directed to undertake an act by an authority figure. The Milgram experiment is an archetypical example of this effect.

Perhaps this explains why you are unable to imagine that a government may not act in the best interests of its citizens, and further why you are obsessed with immediately surrendering to any and all authority.


----------



## Apatheticviews

CuffDaddy said:


> And a safety is optional. I want the option. And I would like it if all those around me opted for it, too! I don't like to count on me or anyone around me being perfect.
> 
> I would add, of course, that the location and operation of the safety are key. I like the ones configured like the thumb safety on a 1911 - you take it off as part of establishing your grip, so it adds no time to getting the gun into use. I don't care for the Beretta's safety, for instance, with its slide-mounted location. It's slightly fiddly.
> 
> As for the pig bit, that doesn't apply to true safeties on any hammer-fired gun... it means you can carry them cocked and locked.


The pig bit applied mainly to "fiddly" safety mechanisms, like those found on the beretta. The safety should never be awkward to engage/disengage. The 1911 is a great example of a nice smooth safety mechanism. You can disengage the thumb safety without changing your grip, or without true conscious thought. It becomes part of the "draw."

I was never able to get the same fluidity with the beretta's, and it always felt like the gun was fighting me. Safety ergornomics are a key factor in gun design.

The Glock has a safety, but it disengages if you are following the 4 basic safety principles. Don't put your finger on the trigger. I preferred the Springfield XD (a very similar design), which has the addition of a grip safety, which means firm grip to fire. This "reduces" holster shots when reholstering. My carry piece however is a 1911. I did opt for a weapon with a thumb safety, however my decision was based on other concern (availability of parts, takedown power, etc).


----------



## Apatheticviews

El_Abogado said:


> I too have heard the stories. Of course, who can forget the DEA agent who was the only person in the room "professional" enough to handle a Glock -- right before he ND'ed a round into his leg. . .
> 
> I've trained with 1911s, Glocks and M9s, HKs and Sigs. For me, either multiple safeties (grip and thumb) or "none" (in the trigger), just as long as it's the same trigger pull every time. *DA/SA pistols, such as the M9, are abominations.*


Ummm....HK, & Sig do the same thing depending on model.


----------



## Howard

Shaver said:


> Hello Howard, childhood can be very difficult. It is all behind you now though, eh?
> 
> From what you say, it sounds like your mum was a very supportive lady and that is a great positive which you may take from the experience.


Yep My Mother is quite the rock.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Troglodyte said:


> Yes on both. We put a lot of bullets downrange before we deployed, to get folks used to the difference between the DA trigger pull on the first shot and the lighter pull on the second, with an emphasis on hitting with that first, harder shot.
> 
> I also agree that not everybody is sufficiently diligent to carry this way, not even everybody here. There are many people out there who test the limits of both of the first two amendments...
> 
> Best,
> Trog


Well, that long-and-heavy first pull makes it pretty close to a revolver. It's the shortness and relative lightness of the Glock trigger that makes the lack of a safety troublesome on those.

By the way, *thanks very much* for your service.


----------



## bllusc

Hello All,

As a cop and former army officer, I am a small "e" enthusiast as the firearms are part of the job. I believe in violence, it has saved my life. When I started my policing career in 1990 I was handed a revolver and twelve bullets. 6 in the cylinder and 6 in the pocket. I asked, "what if I get into a gunfight?" The quartermaster guffawed and sent me on my way. Nearly 23 years later still no gunfight but broken hand twice and other interesting tales. They replaced the revolver with a glock 22, nice pistol, good for combat shooting and when I left the big Metropolitan City Force for the Canadian version of the State Police, I was issued a Sig Sauer P229. A cadillac of a pistol. We also carry a version of the M4 carbine. And as a supervisor I also carry a taser....I need a gun bearer.

The worst thing about carrying a gun is that they are heavy, tear the lining of suit jackets, and when you try to take a leak, pull your belt out of your trousers every time and you get to struggle with both your gun and pistol to control them simultaneously.

Brian


----------



## pleasehelp

CuffDaddy said:


> By the way, *thanks very much* for your service.


Ditto on this.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Shaver said:


> Perhaps this explains why you are unable to imagine that a government may not act in the best interests of its citizens, and further why you are obsessed with immediately surrendering to any and all authority.


It is foolish to have come to this conclusion.

I have no idea why you fail to see that both of us agree that the Government overextended it's power and authority.

We both agree that we should be suspicious of power and authority.

In these cases I object to holding the "victims" harmless or making folk heroes out of them.

It's really quite simple.

You seem very emotional for Royal subject.

Are you sure you aren't Italian??


----------



## Balfour

I haven't read the traffic on this thread in full, but perhaps I should. Mr. Shaver being described as both American and Italian in a single thread - there must be something in it!:wink2:


----------



## Apatheticviews

Balfour said:


> I haven't read the traffic on this thread in full, but perhaps I should. Mr. Shaver being described as both American and Italian in a single thread - there must be something in it!:wink2:


Is there a lot of difference between the two?


----------



## Balfour

I couldn't really say, but the discordance lies in Mr. Shaver's demonstrable Englishness!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Bjorn said:


> "Falling down"?


Not surprisingly, Hollywood was quick to jump on and exploit Angry White Man-Mania!!


----------



## msphotog

I know I'm late to this party, but I do want to add my 2 cents, or maybe I mean add my 6 pistols, 7 revolvers and 8 rifles. All these and I don't own nearly as many as a lot of people I know. I'm kind of AR-15 poor, having only one, but the Remington 700-7mm-08, 6mmPPC benchrest rifle, .204 varmint rifles(2), an old Nylon 66 .22, a Winchester 1873 in .45 Colt and even a nearly new Chinese SKS, should make up for the lack of more than one AR-15.
Of all these guns, my favorite is a Kimber Team Match stainless .45. I also keep plenty of ammo for all the guns, just in case I have a hard time getting more in the future. I shoot once a week at a local range, at paper targets or steel knock-downs. I wouldn't want me shooting at me with a .45!
Shaver- Come out to West Texas, and we'll show you not only a sh!t load of shooting fun, but also a bunch of drilling rigs. They're everywhere!

Oh, and BTW, I'll be clinging to my Kimber .45 until they pry it from my cold, dead fingers...


----------



## Shaver

msphotog said:


> I know I'm late to this party, but I do want to add my 2 cents, or maybe I mean add my 6 pistols, 7 revolvers and 8 rifles. All these and I don't own nearly as many as a lot of people I know. I'm kind of AR-15 poor, having only one, but the Remington 700-7mm-08, 6mmPPC benchrest rifle, .204 varmint rifles(2), an old Nylon 66 .22, a Winchester 1873 in .45 Colt and even a nearly new Chinese SKS, should make up for the lack of more than one AR-15.
> Of all these guns, my favorite is a Kimber Team Match stainless .45. I also keep plenty of ammo for all the guns, just in case I have a hard time getting more in the future. I shoot once a week at a local range, at paper targets or steel knock-downs. I wouldn't want me shooting at me with a .45!
> Shaver- Come out to West Texas, and we'll show you not only a sh!t load of shooting fun, but also a bunch of drilling rigs. They're everywhere!
> 
> Oh, and BTW, I'll be clinging to my Kimber .45 until they pry it from my cold, dead fingers...


msphotog, if I am ever out your way I will definitely take you up on that kind offer. 

Although in England firearms are illegal, Manchester is referred to as GUNchester in the popular press for a very good reason..............


----------



## Shaver

Balfour said:


> I haven't read the traffic on this thread in full, but perhaps I should. Mr. Shaver being described as both American and Italian in a single thread - there must be something in it!:wink2:


I cannot think of two finer nations to be ascribed as demonstrating characteristics from. Both America and Italy are first rate countries with people and culture of which I am remarkably fond.


----------



## Shaver

WouldaShoulda said:


> It is foolish to have come to this conclusion.
> 
> I have no idea why you fail to see that both of us agree that the Government overextended it's power and authority.
> 
> We both agree that we should be suspicious of power and authority.
> 
> In these cases I object to holding the "victims" harmless or making folk heroes out of them.
> 
> It's really quite simple.
> 
> You seem very emotional for Royal subject.
> 
> Are you sure you aren't Italian??


In good grace I choose to believe that this is a cessation of hostility which you are extending. So I will desist.

Unless you mention pro-life, of course, in which case I will kick off apocalyptically. :icon_smile_wink:

You must not imagine me as emotional. All of my posts will benefit from being received in the same cool calculation with which they are delivered.


----------



## El_Abogado

Apatheticviews said:


> Ummm....HK, & Sig do the same thing depending on model.


Right. Didn't say otherwise. I am only saying that I have a strong dislike for pistols with the first shot being double action. Doesn't mean I won't use one of those pistols; I have to qualify with the M9.


----------



## cdavant

"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away...:"

If you want to see the gun folks come out, just ask where to put the pocket on a MTM jacket for concealed carry. I've bought only two pistols, but inherited half-a-dozen more plus a dozen rifles and shotguns. I spend one hour a year on the pistol range making sure I can still put one shot from a Kahr or Glock 19 with laser sights pretty much exactly where I want it. I'll spot you the second shot if I need two. Those 9mm kick. I still carry a lot when I'm alone in the early morning and I worry my paranoid schizophrenic neighbor might be off his meds and coming home.


----------



## The FourHorseMen

My weapon of choice would be the REC7 6.8 SPC (Barrett firearms)


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Shaver said:


> We are not allowed to play with guns in England.


Ah-hem, some of us are...or rather were.


----------



## Shaver

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Ah-hem, some of us are...*or rather were*.


ah yes, of course, you had your license withdrawn after that unfortunate incident. Stephen Waldorf, was it?

NB: this is a joke, albeit in very poor taste. A joke never-the-less. To my knowledge the Earl has not gunned down anybody by mistake.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Shaver said:


> ah yes, of course, you had your license withdrawn after that unfortunate incident. Stephen Waldorf, was it?


Yea, that was it!


----------



## Chouan

Given the recent sad events in New England, and the suggestion that teachers be armed tp prevent such an occurrence in the future, what would the enthusiasts recommend that they be armed with?


----------



## Shaver

Playground monitor.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

To answer this I will alter 1 Corinthians 13:11 - When I was a soldier, I spake as a soldier, I understood as a soldier, I thought as a soldier: but when I became a police officer, I put away soldierish things.


----------



## Chouan

When I heard the suggestion I couldn't beleive that they were being serious!


----------



## Howard

No I'm not a gun enthusiast.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Shaver said:


> Playground monitor.


Nah.

Too much recoil and can't be reloaded fast enough.

Though I have to admit, one shot should do!!


----------



## VictorRomeo

Chouan said:


> When I heard the suggestion I couldn't beleive that they were being serious!


Coming from a society where our police force do not bear arms, I find it an utterly alien notion that a proposed solution sould be to buy way more guns and arm teachers up. Lunacy. Nothing but sheer lunacy.


----------



## Shaver

VictorRomeo said:


> Coming from a society where our police force do not bear arms, I find it an utterly alien notion that a proposed solution sould be to buy way more guns and arm teachers up. Lunacy. Nothing but sheer lunacy.


The sensible solution would, of course, be to issue a small handgun (perhaps a snubnose .38 revolver or even a Derringer gambler) to the pupils.


----------



## Jovan

Yeesh, can anyone start a gun thread anymore without people from other countries wagging their finger at us? You have your ways, we have ours. Deal with it. I might point out that Canada has roughly the same amount of gun ownership, but a fraction of the shooting deaths per year. Shouldn't we be trying to find out why that is? Does anyone even bother to look at what the _societal_ issues may be, rather than just blaming the tools used? Certainly they are _part_ of the problem, but for all the people who don't have a history of violence or mental instability yet shoot up public schools, there are far more who wouldn't.

The media have been absolutely cringe-worthy and despicable in their coverage, from shoving mics into the faces of six year old kids and asking them to recall what happened (like a kid that age really needs to) to ONCE AGAIN putting the blame on violent video games -- forgetting that most gamers are pretty well adjusted people and make up much more of the population than they used to. If you guys are taking all this stuff at face value instead of examining the issues for yourself, well, I'm disappointed. You're doing exactly what they want you to do.

Sorry, it just cheeses me off. For the record... I'm liberal on most issues (social), centre on some others (like taxation of businesses), but definitely conservative when it comes to the right to bear arms.


----------



## hardline_42

^^Well said, Jovan. Everyone is quick to blame the guns, as if they were responsible for evil. The most deadly attack on US soil prior to 9/11 was the Oklahoma City bombing. One-hundred-sixty-eight people died, including 19 children under the age of 6, and not a single firearm was used. No one went on a quest to ban "assault fertilizer" nor did the other side demand buildings be armed with bombs of their own. Sometimes, when evil people are bent on doing evil things, nothing can stop them. Not even banning guns/knives/martial arts/golf clubs/lawn darts/medicine balls/etc.


----------



## Shaver

Jovan, hardline - are you reading a different thread to me? Where's the 'finger-wagging' or blame? 



For the record, and for those who do not have time (or even inclination) to read the preceeding 5 pages, I like guns.


----------



## hardline_42

Shaver said:


> Jovan, hardline - are you reading a different thread to me? Where's the 'finger-wagging' or blame?
> 
> For the record, and for those who do not have time (or even inclination) to read the preceeding 5 pages, I like guns.


Shaver, I keep forgetting you're from the UK. Your freedom-loving attitude always confuses me :biggrin:

This is not the first gun thread, and one of your "not-so silent" compatriots likes to dance in the blood.


----------



## Shaver

hardline_42 said:


> Shaver, I keep forgetting you're from the UK. Your freedom-loving attitude always confuses me :biggrin:


Thank you. :icon_smile_wink:



hardline_42 said:


> This is not the first gun thread, and one of your "not-so silent" compatriots likes to dance in the blood.


Ah, I see. Dare I ask - which one?


----------



## Jovan

Indeed, and just recently in a country that forbids civilians from owning firearms, someone went on a knifing spree. Certainly, if I wanted to and couldn't afford a firearm or pass a background check, I could use any number of kitchen implements against someone.

Everyone I know who owns an "assault-style" weapon wouldn't even use it for self-defence. The AR-15, which has gotten a lot of hate from ultra-liberals recently from the role it played in the Colorado shooting, is basically a _toy_ compared to a lot of stuff out there. The original design was made as a target rifle and should have stayed that way, but it is fun to shoot. Part of why I think those pieces of s*** should be phased out already... but that's neither here nor there. I don't know. Maybe I have no stake in this. I've only ever done target shooting and the crime here isn't high enough that I'd even consider concealed carry. But I feel others should have that sense of security if they want it -- and can competently handle it.

One thing I don't understand is why we only need to pass a background check and have a wait period to own a firearm. That's all good and well, but it doesn't mean someone is competent enough to just go off and plink some soda cans as soon as the wait period is over. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that they pass a course to be able to own one. After all, do we not require our citizens pass a driving test for automobiles? A motorcycle course for driving motorcycles? Those are in place to protect others and the owners themselves. When you have a deadly piece of equipment that can accidentally injure or kill someone because some people don't even know what trigger discipline is... that isn't unreasonable at all.


----------



## Jovan

Gentlemen, seeing the posts of Chouan and VictorRomeo, I may have kneejerked. As has been said, it has happened in other gun threads. My apologies.


----------



## hardline_42

Jovan said:


> One thing I don't understand is why we only need to pass a background check and have a wait period to own a firearm. That's all good and well, but it doesn't mean someone is competent enough to just go off and plink some soda cans as soon as the wait period is over. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that they pass a course to be able to own one. After all, do we not require our citizens pass a driving test for automobiles? A motorcycle course for driving motorcycles? Those are in place to protect others and the owners themselves. When you have a deadly piece of equipment that can accidentally injure or kill someone because some people don't even know what trigger discipline is... that isn't unreasonable at all.


Jovan, you forget that the majority of the requirements for gun-ownership are imposed by the states. While it may be very easy to legally acquire a firearm in Arizona, for example, the same is not true for New Jersey. Speaking as someone with a squeaky clean background, it took me no less than seven months to jump through all of the procedural hoops just to be eligible to purchase a long gun (rifle or shotgun). The same procedure needs to be repeated for any handguns I wish to buy and I can only purchase one in any 30 day period. On top of that, at the time of purchase, I have to submit to yet another background check. I think such a drawn out procedure is an infringement and a hardship. The harder it is to own firearms legally, the more illegal guns are in demand.

With regards to driving tests, the obvious difference is that driving is not a constitutional right. However, beyond that, a license is only required if you wish to drive on public roads. You can legally drive all you want on your own property or even a racetrack without requiring a drivers license or passing any government test and you can certainly purchase a vehicle without having done so as well. The same goes for firearms. You can use one on your property (as long as local ordinances allow it) or at a gun range without any kind of government mandated test. However, for carrying a concealed firearm in public, most if not all states that allow it require some sort of training or proof of training before issuing such a permit.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond

Jovan said:


> One thing I don't understand is why we only need to pass a background check and have a wait period to own a firearm. That's all good and well, but it doesn't mean someone is competent enough to just go off and plink some soda cans as soon as the wait period is over. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that they pass a course to be able to own one. After all, do we not require our citizens pass a driving test for automobiles? A motorcycle course for driving motorcycles? Those are in place to protect others and the owners themselves. When you have a deadly piece of equipment that can accidentally injure or kill someone because some people don't even know what trigger discipline is... that isn't unreasonable at all.


Your position is entirely reasonable. However, the 2nd amendment is very clear:

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

A strict reading of this would mean that even a background check and a waiting period may be unconstitutional.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Jovan said:


> The media have been absolutely cringe-worthy and despicable in their coverage, from shoving mics into the faces of six year old kids and asking them to recall what happened (like a kid that age really needs to) to ONCE AGAIN putting the blame on violent video games -- forgetting that most gamers are pretty well adjusted people and make up much more of the population than they used to. *If you guys are taking all this stuff at face value instead of examining the issues for yourself, well, I'm disappointed. You're doing exactly what they want you to do.
> *


I'm so happy I could cry. I think I've gotten through to him!!


----------



## mrkleen

Snow Hill Pond said:


> Your position is entirely reasonable. However, *the 2nd amendment* is very clear:
> 
> "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> A strict reading of this would mean that even a background check and a waiting period may be unconstitutional.


By definition, an amendment is a MODIFICATION of a document. The fact that there are 27 of them, shows that over time things change or require modifications. The 21st repealed the 18th. Suggesting that something is etched in stone with no chance of modification shows a deep misunderstanding of the Constitution as a living document.

At one point in our history - black Americans were considered a fraction of a person, women could not vote, there were separate lunch counters and gay Americans could not openly serve in the military. Times change, things change. That is the nature of a civil society.

What happened in CT last week is a game changer. Lucky for the NRA, more of the proposals being brought forth do not propose to limit gun rights - simply impose common sense restrictions on weapons and accessories on the peripheral (extended magazine clips, assault weapons, the gun show loophole). Those in favor of gun rights can get on board and participate in the discussion - or they can stand in the way and get steamrolled - but the winds have changed. Period. Full Stop.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

VictorRomeo said:


> Coming from a society where our police force do not bear arms, I find it an utterly alien notion that a proposed solution sould be to buy way more guns and arm teachers up. Lunacy. Nothing but sheer lunacy.


Agreed. Here in Sweden, we thought, oh right they're finally going to do something. But no, suddenly we hear the NRA say, "its so dangerous now that we need to give the teachers guns"


----------



## IvanD

I am probably going to get slated for this, but here goe's.
Like Shaver I am from the UK, where we have some of the strictest gun controls around, but since the age of 14, I have legally owned a shotgun. So yes, I suppose I am a gun enthusiast.
My gun is used solely for sporting purposes, and the thought of using a gun in anger has never crossed my mind.
It is my opinion, that any gun is an inanimate object and on its own, poses no danger or threat to anyone.
It is only when it is placed in someones hands that it becomes a weapon, and then it is only as dangerous as the person holding it.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

The idiotic comparison of guns with knives, bricks, hammers and clubs is as idiotic as comparing an armoured tank with a bicycle.

This young man, wouldn't have been able to kill over 20 people if he'd only been armed with a knife. But with an automatic weapon.......Yea, you see how idiotic it is to keep blaming the madman with a gun rather than the guns themselves.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond

mrkleen said:


> By definition, an amendment is a MODIFICATION of a document. The fact that there are 27 of them, shows that over time things change or require modifications. The 21st repealed the 18th. Suggesting that something is etched in stone with no chance of modification shows a deep misunderstanding of the Constitution as a living document.
> 
> At one point in our history - black Americans were considered a fraction of a person, women could not vote, there were separate lunch counters and gay Americans could not openly serve in the military. Times change, things change. That is the nature of a civil society.
> 
> What happened in CT last week is a game changer. Lucky for the NRA, more of the proposals being brought forth do not propose to limit gun rights - simply impose common sense restrictions on weapons and accessories on the peripheral (extended magazine clips, assault weapons, the gun show loophole). Those in favor of gun rights can get on board and participate in the discussion - or they can stand in the way and get steamrolled - but the winds have changed. Period. Full Stop.


Sorry for not being clear in my post. I was strictly addressing Jovan's suggestion that one must pass a course to get a weapon. I agree that the weapon issue is one that needs to be addressed, but the solution must also respect the 2nd Amendment. Unless of course, the solution is to repeal said amendment.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Earl of Ormonde said:


> The idiotic comparison of guns with knives, bricks, hammers and clubs is as idiotic as comparing an armoured tank with a bicycle.
> 
> This young man, wouldn't have been able to kill over 20 people if he'd only been armed with a knife. But with an automatic weapon.......Yea, you see how idiotic it is to keep blaming the madman with a gun rather than the guns themselves.


In the UK and other countries you are familiar with, was there an incident or series of incidents that called for weapons bans or did the Governments act premptively to make sure ordinary people remained unarmed??

The way Japan banned swords for instance??


----------



## Jovan

hardline_42 said:


> Jovan, you forget that the majority of the requirements for gun-ownership are imposed by the states. While it may be very easy to legally acquire a firearm in Arizona, for example, the same is not true for New Jersey. Speaking as someone with a squeaky clean background, it took me no less than seven months to jump through all of the procedural hoops just to be eligible to purchase a long gun (rifle or shotgun). The same procedure needs to be repeated for any handguns I wish to buy and I can only purchase one in any 30 day period. On top of that, at the time of purchase, I have to submit to yet another background check. I think such a drawn out procedure is an infringement and a hardship. The harder it is to own firearms legally, the more illegal guns are in demand.
> 
> With regards to driving tests, the obvious difference is that driving is not a constitutional right. However, beyond that, a license is only required if you wish to drive on public roads. You can legally drive all you want on your own property or even a racetrack without requiring a drivers license or passing any government test and you can certainly purchase a vehicle without having done so as well. The same goes for firearms. You can use one on your property (as long as local ordinances allow it) or at a gun range without any kind of government mandated test. However, for carrying a concealed firearm in public, most if not all states that allow it require some sort of training or proof of training before issuing such a permit.


No, that's overkill for sure. Probably meant to stop the gun violence over there, but as you say it may be doing more harm than good. I'm just proposing common sense.



Snow Hill Pond said:


> Your position is entirely reasonable. However, the 2nd amendment is very clear:
> 
> "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> A strict reading of this would mean that even a background check and a waiting period may be unconstitutional.


Psft. The people who interpret it that way can get back to me when background checks are even performed half the time. A lot of them would have revealed mentally unstable people who are unfit to carry a gun, some of who used them to murder their ex-girlfriends or wives. And rights can be taken away -- ex-felons, for example, can't vote or own firearms until a specific time.



WouldaShoulda said:


> I'm so happy I could cry. I think I've gotten through to him!!


You may believe that if you wish. My views have changed over time, that is no secret -- but not due to someone who has constantly taken a patronizing with me and tried to pass it off being cute with your little winkie faces. It's a shame I've never gotten through to you, even when I (and the other moderators at the time) pointed out your obvious race baiting.



mrkleen said:


> By definition, an amendment is a MODIFICATION of a document. The fact that there are 27 of them, shows that over time things change or require modifications. The 21st repealed the 18th. Suggesting that something is etched in stone with no chance of modification shows a deep misunderstanding of the Constitution as a living document.
> 
> At one point in our history - black Americans were considered a fraction of a person, women could not vote, there were separate lunch counters and gay Americans could not openly serve in the military. Times change, things change. That is the nature of a civil society.
> 
> What happened in CT last week is a game changer. Lucky for the NRA, more of the proposals being brought forth do not propose to limit gun rights - simply impose common sense restrictions on weapons and accessories on the peripheral (extended magazine clips, assault weapons, the gun show loophole). Those in favor of gun rights can get on board and participate in the discussion - or they can stand in the way and get steamrolled - but the winds have changed. Period. Full Stop.


I don't think he was defending that particular interpretation of the second amendment, just that it will be interpreted that way. I'm on the fence about magazine sizes, but who arbitrarily decides what is an "assault weapon"? Is it something like looks like, say, an AP9 or is under a certain length? No, because a full length, semi-auto AR-15 could also be called an "assault weapon" simply because it resembles the full-auto/burst M16. For that matter, so could Kalashnikov type rifles. Heck, even semi auto hunting shotguns have been called "assault weapons" when their finish and design is clearly not for going after people. IIRC, Kerry got no small amount of crap for accepting one of those as a gift.

I don't propose to know what the solution is, but it's not all black and white.



Earl of Ormonde said:


> Agreed. Here in Sweden, we thought, oh right they're finally going to do something. But no, suddenly we hear the NRA say, "its so dangerous now that we need to give the teachers guns"


And you think the NRA speaks for everyone in this country? Regardless of what people want to think, those loons aren't here to protect the interests of gun owners, they're here to protect the interest of gun _manufacturers_.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond

Earl of Ormonde said:


> The idiotic comparison of guns with knives, bricks, hammers and clubs is as idiotic as comparing an armoured tank with a bicycle.
> 
> This young man, wouldn't have been able to kill over 20 people if he'd only been armed with a knife. But with an automatic weapon.......Yea, you see how idiotic it is to keep blaming the madman with a gun rather than the guns themselves.


Earl, I respect your position, but I think you're taking this argument a little too far. The murderer was crazy (and smart). If guns were outlawed, he could have built a bomb to blow up the school (or shopping mall or church). He could have driven his car through a busy crosswalk. The whole situation is effed up. I hurt for the victims. But you can't stop crazy.


----------



## Langham

WouldaShoulda said:


> In the UK and other countries you are familiar with, was there an incident or series of incidents that called for weapons bans or did the Governments act premptively to make sure ordinary people remained unarmed??
> 
> The way Japan banned swords for instance??


There were a couple of serious incidents in the UK that led to a ban, first on rifles I believe, and then on handguns. In one, a young man went beserk with an AK47 in a small town, mowing down anyone who crossed his path; the other involved shootings (with a pistol) in a school. There was only muted opposition to this ban by the gun lobby, such as it is, as most firearms here are shotguns, which are exempt.

I think if I lived in the states I might wish to carry a gun, just in case. I understand the attachment there to the constitutional right to carry arms. I'm not sure that this privilege necessarily extends to the right to ownership of assault rifles or automatic weapons, however.


----------



## hardline_42

mrkleen said:


> By definition, an amendment is a MODIFICATION of a document. The fact that there are 27 of them, shows that over time things change or require modifications. The 21st repealed the 18th. Suggesting that something is etched in stone with no chance of modification shows a deep misunderstanding of the Constitution as a living document.


Mrkleen, you are 100% correct. However, this means that the only proper, legal means to allow the Constitution to "live", as you put it, is to follow the steps as outlined in Article V. In short, the amendment must be proposed by either Congress or the States and the States must ratify the amendment via votes by State legislatures or Constitutional conventions, depending on how the amendment was proposed. Any other method to try and curtail the rights protected by the 2nd Amendment is unconstitutional, plain and simple.



Earl of Ormonde said:


> Agreed. Here in Sweden, we thought, oh right they're finally going to do something. But no, suddenly we hear the NRA say, "its so dangerous now that we need to give the teachers guns"


First of all, the NRA does not speak for all gun owners. Second, the NRA has made no official comment regarding Newtown that I know of. Please link a source if you know otherwise. Third, issuing firearms to teachers might not be the answer, but plastering "Gunfree Zone" signs all over the place has irrefutably proven to, at best, make no impact on the safety of those residing inside and, at worst, made them an easy target.



Earl of Ormonde said:


> The idiotic comparison of guns with knives, bricks, hammers and clubs is as idiotic as comparing an armoured tank with a bicycle.
> 
> This young man, wouldn't have been able to kill over 20 people if he'd only been armed with a knife. But with an automatic weapon.......Yea, you see how idiotic it is to keep blaming the madman with a gun rather than the guns themselves.


E of O, the two worst crimes on US soil (OKC and 9/11) have not involved firearms at all and the bodycounts of these tragedies eclipse those of gun-related incidents several times over. Second, how do you know that he would not have been able to kill over 20 people with a knife? The victims were all school children and women. Third, he did not have an automatic weapon. Automatic weapons have been under a de facto ban in the US since the 1930s. He used common handguns in a common caliber. It is not "idiotic" to blame the madman with the gun, anymore than it is to blame the madman with the boxcutter or the madman with the fertilizer and the rental van. No one ever blames the planes for 9/11, yet somehow, guns are infused with some magical evil that makes them responsible for what their operators do.


----------



## Bjorn

WouldaShoulda said:


> In the UK and other countries you are familiar with, was there an incident or series of incidents that called for weapons bans or did the Governments act premptively to make sure ordinary people remained unarmed??
> 
> The way Japan banned swords for instance??


Ordinary people never had a right to bear arms in Japan. Swords were even reserved for the samurai nobility. Why do you think the monks created unarmed combat techniques?

In the UK and "other countries", people are armed. When going hunting...

I do find it odd that people can stomach being "gun enthusiasts" this particular week. Perhaps giving that a weeks rest would be in good taste.


----------



## hardline_42

Langham said:


> I'm not sure that this privilege necessarily extends to the right to ownership of assault rifles or automatic weapons, however.


Langham, please understand this: regardless of how the media portrays the firearms used in these tragedies, both assault rifles and automatic weapons are heavily regulated. Since their practical banning in 1934 only two homicides have been carried out using legal automatic firearms, one of those by a police officer. It is very difficult, expensive, intrusive and time consuming to own a fully-automatic firearm in the few states that allow it. However, it is the gun-control advocates' job to blur the lines so that the average person believes they are banning this when in reality they are making millions of law-abiding citizens into criminals simply because they own this.


----------



## Jovan

Earl of Ormonde said:


> The idiotic comparison of guns with knives, bricks, hammers and clubs is as idiotic as comparing an armoured tank with a bicycle.
> 
> This young man, wouldn't have been able to kill over 20 people if he'd only been armed with a knife. But with an automatic weapon.......Yea, you see how idiotic it is to keep blaming the madman with a gun rather than the guns themselves.


Actually...

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/world/asia/man-stabs-22-children-in-china.html?_r=0


----------



## Shaver

It never ceases to amaze me what an inflammatory topic firearms can be.


----------



## Jovan

Maybe I will take Bjorn's suggestion and give it a rest. Not necessarily for the same reason as he asks though.


----------



## hardline_42

Shaver said:


> It never ceases to amaze me what an inflammatory topic firearms can be.


You just killed like 15 liberal kittens wearing Che Guevara shirts.


----------



## Shaver

hardline_42 said:


> You just killed like 15 liberal kittens wearing Che Guevara shirts.


I'm not sure what that means but it sounds like it might be a...... a good thing?


----------



## hardline_42

Shaver said:


> I'm not sure what that means but it sounds like it might be a...... a good thing?


:icon_smile_big:


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Bjorn said:


> ....Perhaps giving that a weeks rest would be in good taste.


One would think so.

But the Usual American Media Suspects will not allow this or any tragedy go to waste.

The Post's View
No 'excuse for inaction' on gun control


----------



## Haffman

IvanD said:


> It is my opinion, that any gun is an inanimate object and on its own, poses no danger or threat to anyone.
> It is only when it is placed in someones hands that it becomes a weapon, and then it is only as dangerous as the person holding it.


That is in it's way literally correct, but where does it get us ? You could say the same about flamethrowers, LAWS rockets, tanks, F14 aircraft...even nuclear weapons for goodness sake.

Of course these things are inanimate objects. But the question to ask _- for what purpose have they been designed? _And then - _is this purpose appropriate for civilian use or not?

_


----------



## Haffman

I am not sure this subject, at this of all times, is appropriate for mirth!


----------



## Shaver

Haffman said:


> That is in it's way literally correct, but where does it get us ? You could say the same about flamethrowers, LAWS rockets, tanks, F14 aircraft...even nuclear weapons for goodness sake.
> 
> Of course these things are inanimate objects. But the question to ask _- for what purpose have they been designed? _And then - _is this purpose appropriate for civilian use or not?
> 
> _


Hmmm exhibit A - the motor vehicle. Responsible directly and indirectly for considerably more death than civilian firearms.



Haffman said:


> I am not sure this subject, at this of all times, is appropriate for mirth!


If you are not sure, please allow me to reassure you - it is.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Jovan said:


> Actually...
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/world/asia/man-stabs-22-children-in-china.html?_r=0


Article~


> No motive was given for the attack, *which resembled a string of similar assaults against Chinese schoolchildren in 2010 that killed nearly 20 and wounded more than 50. *The most recent such attack took place in August, when a man broke into a middle school in the southern city of Nanchang and stabbed two students before fleeing.
> *Most of the attackers have been mentally disturbed men involved in personal disputes or unable to adjust to the rapid pace of social change in China, underscoring grave weaknesses in the antiquated Chinese medical system's ability to diagnose and treat psychiatric illness. *
> In one of the worst attacks, a man described as an unemployed, middle-aged doctor *killed eight children with a knife *in March 2010 to vent his anger over a thwarted romantic relationship


I just wanted to ad how the NYT appears to offer excuses for even Batshitcrazy Chinese knife murders.

See how the blame is shifted to the "New China" i.e. Capitalism and failure to recognize the Batshitcrazy and not treat the poor dears properly before they snap??

I mean, who could blame them??


----------



## Haffman

Shaver said:


> Hmmm exhibit A - the motor vehicle. Responsible directly and indirectly for considerably more death than civilian firearms.
> 
> If you are not sure, please allow me to reassure you - it is.


Sorry Shaver, both of these replies are beneath you.


----------



## Shaver

Haffman said:


> Sorry Shaver, both of these replies are beneath you.


Oh. Funny then, that I believe them and stand by them. :icon_pale:


----------



## Haffman

Shaver said:


> Oh. Funny then, that I believe them and stand by them. :icon_pale:


If you believe that the motor vehicle, like the AR-15, is designed for the purpose of efficiently killing people in combat then there's not much I can say to help you.

As to the second point, think it over. You might change your mind.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Snow Hill Pond said:


> But you can't stop crazy.


The well intended believe one can simply slow crazy down long enough for the cops to show up.

If they just opened Krispy Kremes at every school, they would be there all the time!!


----------



## Langham

hardline_42 said:


> Langham, please understand this: regardless of how the media portrays the firearms used in these tragedies, both assault rifles and automatic weapons are heavily regulated. Since their practical banning in 1934 only two homicides have been carried out using legal automatic firearms, one of those by a police officer. It is very difficult, expensive, intrusive and time consuming to own a fully-automatic firearm in the few states that allow it. However, it is the gun-control advocates' job to blur the lines so that the average person believes they are banning this when in reality they are making millions of law-abiding citizens into criminals simply because they own this.


The reporting that I saw of the recent incident did not give very precise details of the weapon, just a picture of what looked to my uninformed eye like some sort of assault rifle, along with the fact that very many rounds were fired, from which I assumed the rest.

What I was getting at in my earlier post - naive of me perhaps - was that it should be at least technically possible to ban weapons of the types that have been used in these incidents, but not weapons of a type that are suitable for self-defence but awkward for massacres (pistols up to a certain calibre perhaps) - without infringing any constitutional right.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Since gaining independence, Ireland always had strict firearms laws - especially handguns, rifles and semi/automatic. Obtaining a licence for a handgun/rifle is almost on impossible. Shotguns are more readily available but only for those working the land. I've never seen a handgun in the flesh in Ireland let alone a semi/automatic weapon. I shot clay twice and remains my only experience with firearms. To be found in possession of an illegally licensed firearm is at least a 10 year stay in prison. 

I'll not shy from the fact that if we has the same lax and liberal approach to firearms as is in the USA, we'd be blowing each other's heads off every day - I really do believe that. People who have called themselves proud Irishmen have carried out similar acts of depravity with firearms, bombs and whatever else.

So you see the problem for the USA is the fact that the genie is out of the bottle so to speak and has no intention of climbing back in.

Regardless of how you feel about outsiders looking in and shaking heads in disbelief and revulsion - as you do when your sensitivities are challenged by another nation I might add - you as a nation have a decision to make; and that is do you want to change/amend/repeal the second amendment to your constitution.

Constitutions change all the time. They are brought up to date. What was right for a country 50 or 200 years ago may not be right today. Ireland hold referendums all the time and some of which have been deeply contentious. The Nineteenth Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland is a great example whereby we relinquished our territorial claim to what you know as Northern Ireland. I can't begin to tell you how contentious this was. But we did it none the less as it was for a (proven) greater good. Other examples are where we voted to introduce divorce - another very contentious issue particularly given the influence the Catholic Church had on this country in the 1980's. It scraped through. Actually that one is interesting as I can draw a certain similarity between it(the church) and the influence the NRA and other gun lobby groups has on the American psyche.

But the point still remains and I tend to believe that the only way to more these issues forward is by plebicite. A daunting proposal perhaps, but essential none the less in my most humble of opinions.

Oh, and maybe it's just me, but the suggestion that anyone 'here likes to dance in the blood' is really beyond the pale.


----------



## hardline_42

Haffman said:


> If you believe that the motor vehicle, like the AR-15, is designed for the purpose of efficiently killing people in combat then there's not much I can say to help you.
> 
> As to the second point, think it over. You might change your mind.


The AR-15 is, and always has been, a civilian sporting rifle, specifically designed for that purpose. It is also the most commonly owned sporting rifle in the US. The M-16 is a military rifle based on the AR-15 platform (and conceived AFTER the design of the AR-15, not the other way around). The shift from the .30-06 M1 to the much smaller .223 was partially motivated by the idea that a wounded enemy soldier used up more resources on the battlefield than a dead one. So, in fact, both of your suppositions are incorrect: the AR-15 was neither designed for combat, nor was it, or any derivative firearm, designed for "efficiently killing people."

And, while cars may not be designed for lethal force, they're quite adept at it. So, what are we trying to argue here? A moral point, or the prevention of actual, factual, statistical deaths? I guarantee you that banning cars will prevent far more deaths than banning guns ever will, but the masses want an emotional victory not a practical one.


----------



## Shaver

Haffman said:


> If you believe that the motor vehicle, like the AR-15, is designed for the purpose of efficiently killing people in combat then there's not much I can say to help you.


I don't believe that I said, or alluded to, anything of the sort.



Haffman said:


> As to the second point, think it over. You might change your mind.


I have given the matter some thought. It occurs to me, perhaps, that you believe the subject here is a different subject to the one I am addressing.


----------



## Haffman

hardline_42 said:


> The AR-15 is, and always has been, a civilian sporting rifle, specifically designed for that purpose. It is also the most commonly owned sporting rifle in the US. The M-16 is a military rifle based on the AR-15 platform (and conceived AFTER the design of the AR-15, not the other way around). .


From Wikipedia - you can at least see there is some confusion?:
The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective firerifle for the United States armed forces. Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the AR-15 design to Colt. The select-fire AR-15 entered the US military system as the M16 rifle. Colt then marketed the Colt AR-15 as a semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle for civilian sales in 1963.[SUP][8][/SUP] Although the name "AR-15" remains a Colt registered trademark, variants of the firearm are independently made, modified and sold under various names by multiple manufacturers*.*


----------



## Haffman

hardline_42 said:


> And, while cars may not be designed for lethal force, they're quite adept at it. So, what are we trying to argue here? A moral point, or the prevention of actual, factual, statistical deaths? I guarantee you that banning cars will prevent far more deaths than banning guns ever will, but the masses want an emotional victory not a practical one.


Do you leave in a world of absolutes or one where a society can make a reasonable risk:benefit analysis of decisions that are made?


----------



## VictorRomeo

Shaver said:


> Hmmm exhibit A - the motor vehicle. Responsible directly and indirectly for considerably more death than civilian firearms.


That is a consequense - predominantly - of vehicular misuse and/or mechanical failure. The incident in Connecticut is very, very different. Purpose is the most apt word I can thing of. I'm fairly certain you get that though.


----------



## hardline_42

Langham said:


> The reporting that I saw of the recent incident did not give very precise details of the weapon, just a picture of what looked to my uninformed eye like some sort of assault rifle, along with the fact that very many rounds were fired, from which I assumed the rest.
> 
> What I was getting at in my earlier post - naive of me perhaps - was that it should be at least technically possible to ban weapons of the types that have been used in these incidents, but not weapons of a type that are suitable for self-defence but awkward for massacres (pistols up to a certain calibre perhaps) - without infringing any constitutional right.


I completely understand. In Connecticut, these laws are already in place. The images you saw were probably of the most evil-looking AR-15 the media could get their hands on. The truth is that this rifle was found in the gunman's car, but the firearms actually used were exactly what you described as suitable for self-defense - pistols of a comparatively small and common caliber: 9mm. It's difficult to make sense of what the media portrays versus the reality of the situation, especially viewing it as an outsider from a country with a different culture, unaware of the convoluted laws that often purposely distort the lines of what is and is not legal.


----------



## Shaver

VictorRomeo said:


> That is a consequense - predominantly - of vehicular misuse and/or mechanical failure. The incident in Connecticut is very, very different. Purpose is the most apt word I can thing of. I'm fairly certain you get that though.


Purpose I get. If you wish to murder someone it is always preferable to run them over. The consequence of this can be a negligible punishment, suspended jail sentence or similar.

All and all, though, there was no purpose which I can perceive to this most recent tragedy.


----------



## Langham

hardline_42 said:


> It's difficult to make sense of what the media portrays versus the reality of the situation, especially viewing it as an outsider from a country with a different culture, unaware of the convoluted laws that often purposely distort the lines of what is and is not legal.


That I understand.

I still find difficulty with the idea of the young man's mother giving him access to weapons when he clearly needed help in other ways.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Shaver said:


> Purpose I get. If you wish to murder someone it is always preferable to run them over. The consequence of this can be a negligible punishment, suspended jail sentence or similar.
> 
> All and all, though, there was no purpose which I can perceive to this most recent tragedy.


Vehicular manslaughter carries far too light a consequense here. And there is no question your second statement rings true. Hence the great debate of our time. Humankind have always had a certain predisposition towards homicide. The trick is to make it as hard as possible and, well, I'm stating the bleedingly obvious here; a gun makes it way too easy. Especially when they're ubiquitous.


----------



## hardline_42

Haffman said:


> From Wikipedia - you can at least see there is some confusion?:
> The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective firerifle for the United States armed forces. Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the AR-15 design to Colt. The select-fire AR-15 entered the US military system as the M16 rifle. Colt then marketed the Colt AR-15 as a semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle for civilian sales in 1963.[SUP][8][/SUP] Although the name "AR-15" remains a Colt registered trademark, variants of the firearm are independently made, modified and sold under various names by multiple manufacturers*.*


The difference is that the AR-15 is NOT a select-fire rifle and, as such, is NOT and has NEVER been in use by the military for combat purposes. It is NOT designed to "efficiently kill people in combat." That the military used the AR-15's platform and modified it into a select-fire assault rifle, capable of firing in full-auto has absolutely no bearing on the AR-15 as it currently exists, anymore than the military's adoption and adaptation of the farmer and hunter's Mossberg 500 pump shotgun into the military Mossberg 590 makes the former "more lethal."



Haffman said:


> Do you leave in a world of absolutes or one where a society can make a reasonable risk:benefit analysis of decisions that are made?


Of course not. Is it reasonable to allow individuals the ownership and control of multi-ton, high-speed vehicles when public transportation is much less lethal and only requires a slight inconvenience to the individual? Or, is your freedom to travel as you please more important than the lives taken by those who misuse motor vehicles? A simple analysis of the lives lost versus lives saved by firearms on a daily basis would open a few eyes. On the other hand, how many lives are saved by a person not having to wait for a bus or train?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

hardline_42 said:


> And, while cars may not be designed for lethal force, they're quite adept at it. So, what are we trying to argue here? A moral point, or the prevention of actual, factual, statistical deaths? I guarantee you that banning cars will prevent far more deaths than banning guns ever will, but the masses want an emotional victory not a practical one.


Like "tax the rich" even if the result is less revenue??

I'm beginning to see a pattern....


----------



## WouldaShoulda

hardline_42 said:


> Is it reasonable to allow individuals the ownership and control of multi-ton, high-speed vehicles when public transportation is much less lethal and only requires a slight inconvenience to the individual? Or, is your freedom to travel as you please more important than the lives taken by those who misuse motor vehicles? A simple analysis of the lives lost versus lives saved by firearms on a daily basis would open a few eyes. On the other hand, how many lives are saved by a person not having to wait for a bus or train?


...and you have not even mentioned the added benefit of saving the planet!!


----------



## Haffman

hardline_42 said:


> The difference is that the AR-15 is NOT a select-fire rifle and, as such, is NOT and has NEVER been in use by the military for combat purposes. It is NOT designed to "efficiently kill people in combat." That the military used the AR-15's platform and modified it into a select-fire assault rifle, capable of firing in full-auto has absolutely no bearing on the AR-15 as it currently exists, anymore than the military's adoption and adaptation of the farmer and hunter's Mossberg 500 pump shotgun into the military Mossberg 590 makes the former "more lethal."


Since you don't find the first line of the Wikipedia article satisfactory, you might find this link of interest:

https://www.ar15.com/content/articles/history/birth.html


----------



## Haffman

hardline_42 said:


> Of course not. Is it reasonable to allow individuals the ownership and control of multi-ton, high-speed vehicles when public transportation is much less lethal and only requires a slight inconvenience to the individual? Or, is your freedom to travel as you please more important than the lives taken by those who misuse motor vehicles? A simple analysis of the lives lost versus lives saved by firearms on a daily basis would open a few eyes. On the other hand, how many lives are saved by a person not having to wait for a bus or train?


Just so that I am clear that you are not engaging in sophistry, you believe that civilian multi-ton, high-speed vehicles should be banned?

You genuinely believe there is a meaningful comparison with restrictions on the civilian ownership of assault weapons?


----------



## hardline_42

VictorRomeo said:


> Vehicular manslaughter carries far too light a consequense here. And there is no question your second statement rings true. Hence the great debate of our time. Humankind have always had a certain predisposition towards homicide. The trick is to make it as hard as possible and, well, I'm stating the bleedingly obvious here; a gun makes it way too easy. Especially when they're ubiquitous.


Victor, if you take a look at the statistics over the last decades, gun-ownership in the US has increased exponentially, while gun-violence has either dropped or stayed the same. There is no correlation between the number of guns and the amount of gun-violence. But your post asks a poignant (IMO) question: why guns? As I've pointed out in other posts, the highest body counts for crimes in this country are those in which guns were not involved. Shaver pointed out that a vehicle is a much "better" choice as a weapon both for it's capability for carnage and it's lack of stigma as a "killing machine." 
I know this will anger some, but the culture of violence starts at home. It would be impossible to ban depictions of gun-violence both on the big and small screen without violating the first amendment. But access to these need to be limited within the home. If you teach a child the correct use of a firearm in a safe environment under supervision, it's no more dangerous to him than the chainsaw in your garage. But, if you let Hollywood educate your child on guns while at the same time making them taboo, you're setting up this child curiosity to lead him or her into danger. MHO, as a father, of course.


----------



## hardline_42

Haffman said:


> Just so that I am clear that you are not engaging in sophistry, you believe that civilian multi-ton, high-speed vehicles should be banned?
> 
> You genuinely believe there is a meaningful comparison with restrictions on the civilian ownership of assault weapons?


Haffman, of course I don't believe that cars should be banned. I value my freedom to move as I please and motor vehicles are the best tool to accomplish this. What I do genuinely believe is that there is an emotional component to the gun debate that needs to be eliminated before any meaningful dialogue can take place. If you only look at statistics, cars are more deadly than guns. Case closed. It's fact. If all a person really wants is to make the world a safer place at all costs, then start with the big stuff. But, somewhere along the line, guns have become insatiable killing machines, able to twist a person's mind the moment their hand touches the cold steel. My example is simply to point out the emotional connection people have with guns that doesn't exist with other artifacts despite their inherent danger.


----------



## mrkleen

Bjorn said:


> Perhaps giving that a weeks rest would be in good taste.





WouldaShoulda said:


> One would think so.


Typical Fixed News / Woulda BS - taking the first half of Bjorn's quote...and deleting it, so it looks like he is supporting your position.

What he actually said IN FULL was:



Bjorn said:


> I do find it odd that people can stomach being "gun enthusiasts" this particular week. Perhaps giving that a weeks rest would be in good taste.


He was talking about YOUR SIDE of this debate...and it being distasteful to stand for "gun rights" a few days after the incident in CT. But NICE TRY.


----------



## Haffman

hardline_42 said:


> Haffman, of course I don't believe that cars should be banned. I value my freedom to move as I please and motor vehicles are the best tool to accomplish this. What I do genuinely believe is that there is an emotional component to the gun debate that needs to be eliminated before any meaningful dialogue can take place. If you only look at statistics, cars are more deadly than guns. Case closed. It's fact. If all a person really wants is to make the world a safer place at all costs, then start with the big stuff. But, somewhere along the line, guns have become insatiable killing machines, able to twist a person's mind the moment their hand touches the cold steel. My example is simply to point out the emotional connection people have with guns that doesn't exist with other artifacts despite their inherent danger.


hardline, I have not disagreed with you that more people are killed in America from car crashes than guns. However, I cannot think of a modern society that can exist without automobiles in civilian ownership. To my knowledge, it hasn't been done. So we have to try and live with, and hopefully ameliorate, the consequences in the interests of the mobile society we all depend upon.

With regard to civilian access to firearms designed for military purposes, I can think of a number of modern societies where this has been successfully banned, in so far as something can be. I also struggle to think of a rationale for civilians to have access to military weapons. You and I seem to disagree on the military pedigree of the AR-15, I await your comment on the article I have offered (from a AR-15 enthusiast website it appears, from a simple Google search).

When I was young, I was rather interested in military aircraft. I never conceived of a situation where I might be able to own one however, or a tank, or a Stinger missile. I would never have killed anyone with them, just used them for target practice. However, I accept that in a civil society we have limits on our freedoms. Apart from possibly shotguns and .22 rifles for target practice, I do not think civilians should have access to firearms, especially those clearly designed for combat.


----------



## Haffman

Furthermore, it has just occurred to me that 'AR' is probably an acronym for 'assault rifle' which would seem a rather strange name for a gun originally designed for sport :icon_scratch:


----------



## hardline_42

Unfortunately, I can't participate in this discussion anymore tonight, so I apologize if my response isn't as well-developed as it should be.



Haffman said:


> hardline, I have not disagreed with you that more people are killed in America from car crashes than guns. However, I cannot think of a modern society that can exist without automobiles in civilian ownership. To my knowledge, it hasn't been done. So we have to try and live with, and hopefully ameliorate, the consequences in the interests of the mobile society we all depend upon.


Again, I have no interest in banning vehicles, but it would be an interesting experiment. As most often happens with these things, I imagine that those who live in rural and suburban communities would be most inconvenienced, while those in the cities would be least affected yet the latter would be the most vocal in creating such a ban. Regardless, my point is that the ability to move freely is something treasured by most if not all western societies, and the motor vehicle is the tool with which to exercise this freedom. The same goes for the ability to protect our freedom. That right is firmly entrenched in our history, our culture and expressly guaranteed by our Constitution and the firearm remains the best tool for the job. For those reasons I think you could never truly understand my standpoint anymore than I could understand the sublteties of the Royal Family (is that supposed to be capitalized?).



Haffman said:


> With regard to civilian access to firearms designed for military purposes, I can think of a number of modern societies where this has been successfully banned, in so far as something can be. I also struggle to think of a rationale for civilians to have access to military weapons. You and I seem to disagree on the military pedigree of the AR-15, I await your comment on the article I have offered (from a AR-15 enthusiast website it appears, from a simple Google search).


I will concede that the AR-15 has strong ties to the military (I apologize if I said anything to the contrary) but I maintain that the AR-15 is not a miltary firearm. It is not, by any deffinition, an assault rifle. It is not select-fire and it is not fully-automatic. It is just a small-caliber semi-automatic rifle that has the misfortune of looking like its big, bad cousin the M-16. I have duck guns capable of far more destruction with a similar rate of fire. To put it in perspective, the AR is my (5'-2", 115lb) wife's gun .



Haffman said:


> Furthermore, it has just occurred to me that 'AR' is probably an acronym for 'assault rifle' which would seem a rather strange name for a gun originally designed for sport :icon_scratch:


A common misconception. "AR" stands for "Armalite Rifle," in reference to the original manufacturer.


----------



## mrkleen

The gun the sicko in CT used can shoot 45 round a minute. No one is using a gun like that to go hunting. Even NRA approved Senator Joe Manchin agrees:

"I just came with my family from deer hunting," he said. "*I've never had more than three shells in a clip*. Sometimes you don't get more than one shot anyway. It's time to get beyond rhetoric, it's time to sit down and move in a responsible way... it should move beyond dialogue, we need action..."


----------



## Haffman

hardline_42 said:


> I will concede that the AR-15 has strong ties to the military (I apologize if I said anything to the contrary) but I maintain that the AR-15 is not a miltary firearm.
> 
> A common misconception. "AR" stands for "Armalite Rifle," in reference to the original manufacturer.


Thank you for clearing up the AR, I did some acronym checks which said 'assault rifle' but what you say makes more sense. I stand by my original comments about the AR-15 being originally designed as a military efficient killing machine and I hope you see the historical facts bear it out. I can see your position on the rest of what you say and respect it and ,like you, I must now retire from the debate.

As a final point, I think too much can be read into someone's current location. One of my parents is American, my brother in law serves in the US military, and I know parts of America as well as my current home in Oxford.the cultural issues raised here are not alien to me. Besides, a discussion of this kind should be relevant for all of us, regardless of location.


----------



## CuffDaddy

I'm loathe to enter into this conversation so shortly after the terrible school shooting... as the father of a young child, I can hardly bear to think about the event, and policy debates feel a bit too soon. But it seems as though the conversation is going to be had.

First, I think it's pretty dubious that, as a matter of public health/policy that banning guns will have a positive impact on crime rates, or even murder rates.

Second, mass killings are possible without firearms of any kind whatsoever. China has suffered from a spate of school stabbings in the last few years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010–2011) . The worst mass school killing in US history did not involve guns. https://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2...he_deadliest_school_massacre_in_american.html

Third, claims that semi-automatic rifles are not used for hunting are empirically false. They are. That may not be their primay use, but they are increasingly used for hunting. And they are used extensively for target shooting, and for various kinds of competition. They make fine home-defense guns (actually less prone to over-penetrating walls and killing innocent bystanders/neighbors/relatives-in-next-room than most handguns). There are millions of them in America. Millions. Not only are the huge, huge, huge majority of them never used in any harmful way, there is ZERO possibility of getting them "off the streets" for 20-30 years, no matter what measures are taken. We could have gone down that path in the 30's or 40's, but we didn't, and that path is not realistically available now.

I'm extremely sympathetic to everyone's impulse to do SOMETHING to ensure this kind of event never happens again. I can just about make myself vomit if I spend more than 30 seconds thinking about it. And maybe some additional form of gun control is the answer; but when I think about it calmly, I'm having a hard time seeing it.


----------



## CuffDaddy

mrkleen said:


> The gun the sicko in CT used can shoot 45 round a minute. No one is using a gun like that to go hunting.


Simply false. I personally know people who use exactly that sort of weapon for hunting. I'm not saying you NEED a gun like that for hunting - although having a second chance to hit a wild boar that is charging you is not worth nothing - but your statement is incorrect.


----------



## Shaver

Haffman said:


> ......... Besides, a discussion of this kind should be relevant for all of us, regardless of location.


I too shall take my leave of the thread, my thrust en precis is this - I do not believe that possession of an item should be prohibited. Ownership should not be a criminal act in and of itself.

I would also like to express my agreement with Haffman's words (as repeated above).


----------



## VictorRomeo

hardline_42 said:


> Victor, if you take a look at the statistics over the last decades, gun-ownership in the US has increased exponentially, while gun-violence has either dropped or stayed the same. There is no correlation between the number of guns and the amount of gun-violence. But your post asks a poignant (IMO) question: why guns? As I've pointed out in other posts, the highest body counts for crimes in this country are those in which guns were not involved. Shaver pointed out that a vehicle is a much "better" choice as a weapon both for it's capability for carnage and it's lack of stigma as a "killing machine."
> I know this will anger some, but the culture of violence starts at home. It would be impossible to ban depictions of gun-violence both on the big and small screen without violating the first amendment. But access to these need to be limited within the home. If you teach a child the correct use of a firearm in a safe environment under supervision, it's no more dangerous to him than the chainsaw in your garage. But, if you let Hollywood educate your child on guns while at the same time making them taboo, you're setting up this child curiosity to lead him or her into danger. MHO, as a father, of course.


But you see, again, it's about purpose. It's a given that one could fashion a weapon with most anything that would and could kill another person in the right set of hands. However to correlate gun control to the chainsaw in your garage or an automobile is a fallacy. The ultimate strawman. Now, and this is something of an assumption, but from reading of the various news sources Nancy Lanza probably thougt she was teaching her child the correct use of a firearm in a safe environment under supervision.

So purpose. It's an undeniable truth that most firearms are built with the purpose of efficiently and effectivly killing other humans - in armed conflict to be specific. How these end up being made available to a wider public and citizenry in general is the bit that I have the problem with.

We are a violent species and Hollywood would not be so successful is we didn't lap their wares up where we despair when the innocent die and relish the moment the bad guy gets his brains blown out.

To be clear though, I'm actually not against guns in principal. And while I'm very glad their not in my life, a gun in the hands of a person who has the need to bear arms and is effectivly regulated, regularly monitored and assessed and proven to be a responsible holder then fine with me.

But the way I see it is that your second amendment is really the question that needs answering; Does the American citizenry really need - in this day and age - to bear arms in order to "maintain a well regulated militia*"? I know things have evolved somewhat(self-defense within the home etc.) but it is this specific item in your constitution that is constantly referred to every time this conversation is had.

(The Brits 'ain't coming back and if they do, you have the *National Guard!)

I'm off to bed!


----------



## Mike Petrik

VictorRomeo said:


> But the way I see it is that your second amendment is really the question that needs answering; Does the American citizenry really need - in this day and age - to bear arms in order to "maintain a well regulated militia*"? I know things have evolved somewhat but it is this specific item in your constitution that is constantly referred to every time something terrible happens.


The words "in order to" are not only nontextual, they are ahistorical. https://constitution.org/cmt/alstyne_2nd.htm. That said, notwithstanding the rather absolutist phrasing common in the Bill of Rights, federal courts have always accommodated reasonable regulation as long as the rights enumerated remain secure. For instance, free speech is subject to permissible time, place and manner regulation. Guns also can be regulated, but the right must remain sufficiently robust to be secure. And of course, the constitution can always be amended. Better that, than simply make stuff up like the SCOTUS did so famously in 1973.


----------



## Jovan

On this subject mrkleen and I may disagree, but I respect his reasonable argument.


----------



## Sober

Being myself a European gun owner, hunter and sport shooter with some personal interest on the matter, I'd like to give some information about gun control laws over here.

Firstly we have European Union (EU) laws. The EU is a political structure similar to a federal government. Under the EU Directive on the control of the acquisition and possession of weapons (a Directive probably being similar to a US Federal Law), EU countries must ensure that a permit is required for handguns and semiautomatic long firearms and must at least register other modern firearms (mainly non-semiautomatic rifles and shotguns). EU countries may, however, introduce more restrictive legislation, which is often the case, for instance by requiring a permit for all firearms or banning a certain types. The EU Directive does not lay down rules concerning carrying of firearms.


At national level the situation varies considerably. Britain probably has the most restrictive gun laws in Western Europe - however, it's still possible for the average law-abiding British citizen to own long firearms (except big bore semiautomatic rifles) and muzzle loading handguns including cap and ball revolvers. Ireland has traditionally followed the restrictive British gun laws but since recently the ownership of handguns for sport shooting is legal. 

In the vast majority of the Western/Central European countries, law-abiding citizens can own a wide range of firearms (including handguns and semiautomatic rifles) for sport-shooting, hunting and collecting purposes and, in some cases, for self-defence. There are some formalities involved, like a background check and having joined a shooting club or having passed an official hunting exam.


----------



## roman totale XVII

CuffDaddy said:


> Second, mass killings are possible without firearms of any kind whatsoever. China has suffered from a spate of school stabbings in the last few years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010–2011)


CD, not directed to you, but I'm just using your particular quote for convenience...It's been quite the fashion this week to make use of this comparison in somehow saying that guns are no more dangerous than, say, knives. But it should be pointed out that these Chinese "mass killings" have actually resulted in a low mortality rate. For example, in the attack last week, the maniac got to around 20 odd kids, same as Newtown, and not one of them died. In fact, none of them were even seriously injured. Guns stand alone in their combination of ease of availability, use and clinical finality.

I say all this as a non gun owing, but enthusiastic, skeet shooter.


----------



## tocqueville

My children's lives are worth more than people's stupid hobby and combat fantasies.

That is the argument, isn't it? Children's lives are an acceptable price to pay for a hobby? For some stupid ideology? A fetish? Wasn't there some cult like that in the Bible, a god that was worshiped through child sacrifice? Frickin' Moloch. You're all out of your minds.


----------



## hardline_42

tocqueville said:


> My children's lives are worth more than people's stupid hobby and combat fantasies.
> 
> That is the argument, isn't it? Children's lives are an acceptable price to pay for a hobby? For some stupid ideology? A fetish? Wasn't there some cult like that in the Bible, a god that was worshiped through child sacrifice? Frickin' Moloch. You're all out of your minds.


Real nice. Way to keep it civil.


----------



## tocqueville

Civil? Like shooting kids? Oh, I forgot. That's patriotic.


----------



## tocqueville

And in what way have I mischaractetized the pro-gun argument? How many more children have to die before the price becomes to high? What's your number? And are you including your own in the body count?


----------



## Hitch

tocqueville said:


> And in what way have I mischaractetized the pro-gun argument?





> Civil? Like shooting kids? Oh, I forgot. That's patriotic.




What a disgusting way to trample on those poor folks who lost there tiny children to a murderer. You should be ashamed.


----------



## hardline_42

Tocque, that's an awful lot of venom in a few posts. No one has even so much as intimated that shooting kids is patriotic, and that is not the "pro-gun" argument. It seems that guns are not for you. That's fine. However, the right to own them is still protected under the ConUS. If you feel as strongly as you do, please write to your legislative representatives and ask that they propose repealing the 2nd amendment.


----------



## tocqueville

If I had representatives, I would.


----------



## tocqueville

Hitch said:


> What a disgusting way to trample on those poor folks who lost there tiny children to a murderer. You should be ashamed.


Ashamed of being indignant? No, sir.


----------



## Hitch

Sorry tocqueville is a moderator/admin and you are not allowed to ignore him or her.

Too bad


----------



## Hitch

tocqueville said:


> Ashamed of being indignant? No, sir.


_And in what way have I mischaractetized the pro-gun argument?

_

_Civil? Like shooting kids? Oh, I forgot. That's patriotic.
_
In your world using murdered children this way isnt anything to be ashamed of. You owe those families and this forum an apology.


----------



## mrkleen

CuffDaddy said:


> Simply false. I personally know people who use exactly that sort of weapon for hunting. I'm not saying you NEED a gun like that for hunting - although having a second chance to hit a wild boar that is charging you is not worth nothing - but your statement is incorrect.


The primary weapon used in the attack was a "Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon," said Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance. The rifle is a Bushmaster version of a widely made AR-15, the civilian version of the M-16 rifle used by the U.S. military. The original M-16 patent ran out years ago, and now the AR-15 is manufactured by several gunmakers. Unlike the military version, the AR-15 is a semiautomatic, firing one bullet per squeeze of the trigger. But like the M-16, ammunition is loaded through a magazine. In the school shooting, police say Lanza's rifle used numerous 30-round magazines.

*An AR-15 is usually capable of firing a rate of 45 rounds per minute in semiautomatic mode*.

https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/us/connecticut-lanza-guns/index.html

EDIT

From the Bushmaster Owners Manual:

Maximum Effective Rate of Fire: 45 Rounds Per Minute

https://www.ar15.com/content/manuals/manual_bushmaster.pdf

Sorry CD...*you are wrong*


----------



## hardline_42

tocqueville said:


> If I had representatives, I would.


Touche. Sounds like you've got an uphill battle ahead of you.


----------



## tocqueville

Hitch said:


> _And in what way have I mischaractetized the pro-gun argument?
> 
> _
> 
> _
> Civil? Like shooting kids? Oh, I forgot. That's patriotic.
> 
> _In your world using murdered children this way isnt anything to be ashamed of.


What on earth are you talking about?


----------



## hardline_42

mrkleen said:


> *An AR-15 is usually capable of firing a rate of 45 rounds per minute in semiautomatic mode*.


I can't think of a single semi-automatic firearm for which this is isn't true. Are you under the impression that's fast? Maybe we should stick to old-fashioned revolvers instead.


----------



## Hitch

tocqueville said:


> What on earth are you talking about?


 Look chump you asked';_And in what way have I mischaractetized the pro-gun argument?

YOUR MISCHARATERIZATION QUOTED BELOW 
_
_Civil? Like shooting kids? Oh, I forgot. That's patriotic.

TO REPEAT;__In your world using murdered children this way isnt anything to be ashamed of._ You owe those families and this forum an apology.


----------



## tocqueville

When I was trained on an m4, I was told to keep it on semi because otherwise I'd just waste ammo. Aim and shoot deliberately. center mass. You can fire as quickly as targets offer themselves.

Frankly I find the "it's not an auto and is thus less dangerous" to be a huge red herring.


----------



## tocqueville

hardline_42 said:


> Touche. Sounds like you've got an uphill battle ahead of you.


I'm an optimist and believe good sense will win the day.


----------



## Hitch

_A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined,but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government

_George Washington


----------



## mrkleen

hardline_42 said:


> I can't think of a single semi-automatic firearm for which this is isn't true. Are you under the impression that's fast? *Maybe we should stick to old-fashioned revolvers instead.*


Fast enough to get it outlawed in the very near future. Better stock up for the zombie apocalypse soon.


----------



## tocqueville

Hitch said:


> _A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined,but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government
> 
> _George Washington


My kids lives are worth more than your fantasy that owning an Ar-15 will keep you free.


----------



## hardline_42

tocqueville said:


> When I was trained on an m4, I was told to keep it on semi because otherwise I'd just waste ammo. Aim and shoot deliberately. center mass. You can fire as quickly as targets offer themselves.
> 
> Frankly I find the "it's not an auto and is thus less dangerous" to be a huge red herring.


Agreed, 100%. Knowing what you know, how do you feel about the constant assertion that "military-style" firearms are more dangerous than their wood-stocked counterparts? With your training, you surely know how underpowered an AR-15 is compared to your average 30-30 backwoods huntin' rifle. If anyone is capable of having a fact-for-fact, check-your-emotions-at-the-door discussion about the subject, I'd think it'd be you. I honestly look forward to what you have to say on the subject and I'm a bit surprised at your initial over-the-top (IMO) response.


----------



## mrkleen

Hitch said:


> _A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined,but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government
> 
> _George Washington


The boogieman isnt coming to take you guns away....but reasonable restrictions are coming. You dont have to like it, but you will need to abide by it. The CT incident is the tipping point. Period.


----------



## tocqueville

hardline_42 said:


> Agreed, 100%. Knowing what you know, how do you feel about the constant assertion that "military-style" firearms are more dangerous than their wood-stocked counterparts? With your training, you surely know how underpowered an AR-15 is compared to your average 30-30 backwoods huntin' rifle. If anyone is capable of having a fact-for-fact, check-your-emotions-at-the-door discussion about the subject, I'd think it'd be you. I honestly look forward to what you have to say on the subject and I'm a bit surprised at your initial over-the-top (IMO) response.


This is visceral. We are talking about my children. I have lost patience with the argument that this is a tolerable price to pay.

But to respond to your question about the power of the ar15, I have a response---I just need a computer to write it rather than this iPhone. I shut my Internet down on my Mac do that I could finish a report in writing (for the army, as it happens). Typing on this thing is Agravating. But stay tuned. Basically, the low power argument is macabre and inaccurate...

Hardline... I will never get in a shouting match with you.


----------



## hardline_42

mrkleen said:


> The boogieman isnt coming to take you guns away....but reasonable restrictions are coming. You dont have to like it, but you will need to abide by it. The CT incident is the tipping point. Period.


Restrictions are definitely coming. Whether or not they are "reasonable" depends on where you're coming from. It's easy for someone in Boston to take away the rights of someone in rural Georgia, where the police response time is an hour if you're lucky. It's easy for a young person to vote to ban all semi-automatic firearms, but it's not so hot for the arthritic, elderly man who now has to rack the pump and deal with the recoil of a hunting shotgun. It's no big deal for an able-bodied man to say that "nobody NEEDS a gun for self-defense" but the woman in the wheel chair might think differently. For every "enlightened" voter who thinks a certain restriction on freedom "reasonable," there are plenty of other law-abiding citizens who pay the price.


----------



## hardline_42

tocqueville said:


> This is visceral. We are talking about my children. I have lost patience with the argument that this is a tolerable price to pay.
> 
> But to respond to your question about the power of the ar15, I have a response---I just need a computer to write it rather than this iPhone. I shut my Internet down on my Mac do that I could finish a report in writing (for the army, as it happens). Typing on this thing is Agravating. But stay tuned. Basically, the low power argument is macabre and inaccurate...
> 
> Hardline... I will never get in a shouting match with you.


Tocque, I respect you, but please, know this: I am the father of a school-aged child. I am the husband of a school teacher. I am the son of a school teacher. I am the son-in-law and brother-in-law of principals and teachers. My family owns and operates a private school where children from preschool to middle school attend. Believe me, this is visceral. Like you, I don't think it's a tolerable price to pay either. The difference is, I don't believe we're paying the price for the right to bear arms. Guns never used to be a problem. A few decades ago, you could take your rifle to school and go shooting after class. Heck, the schools taught marksmanship in gym class! No, I'm afraid there's something much more sinister for which we are paying the price, but it's not a subject for this forum. I don't wish to get into any shouting matches either, so we'll leave it at that.


----------



## tocqueville

My middle school had a range; I took a hunter safety class and got to shoot .22 rifles in that range, ancient bolt actions the school owned.

The problem is more than just guns, but it's also guns.


----------



## mrkleen

hardline_42 said:


> Restrictions are definitely coming. Whether or not they are "reasonable" depends on where you're coming from. It's easy for someone in Boston to take away the rights of someone in rural Georgia, where the police response time is an hour if you're lucky. It's easy for a young person to vote to ban all semi-automatic firearms, but it's not so hot for the arthritic, elderly man who now has to rack the pump and deal with the recoil of a hunting shotgun. It's no big deal for an able-bodied man to say that "nobody NEEDS a gun for self-defense" but the woman in the wheel chair might think differently. For every "enlightened" voter who thinks a certain restriction on freedom "reasonable," there are plenty of other law-abiding citizens who pay the price.


This is the exact kind of unreasonable BS the NRA has been spewing for years. You guys like to quote the second amendment...but conveniently leave out the parts you dont like. A "*well regulated*" militia - does not mean every paranoid school teacher who is stocking up for the apocalypse or a lunatic from the University of Denver should have unfettered access to weapons that were designed for the battlefield.

You can defend yourself and your family just fine with a 9mm handgun....and hunt with a simple shotgun. A woman in a wheelchair does not need a semi automatic assault weapon...give me a break.


----------



## drlivingston

I am so confused... you mean to tell me that the 2nd amendment didn't grant swimmers and weightlifters permission to shave their upper limbs?


----------



## blue suede shoes

tocqueville said:


> If I had representatives, I would.


*Eleanor Holmes Norton* Member of the from the 's district. 
As a of the , Norton may serve on , as well as speak on the House floor; however, she is not permitted to vote on the final passage of any legislation.


----------



## tocqueville

She means well but does not count.


----------



## Flairball

As to the original question, I am somewhat of a gun enthousiast in that my greatest passion is grouse and woodcock hunting. I enjoy shooting sket and sporting clays. I also do a bit of waterfowling, and big game hunting. I don't own, nor do I have an interest in hand guns.

I find it as disturbing as anyone that the Ct shooting, and others like it have happened. That said, I believe that I, and many others, have benefited from the security that private gun ownership provides. I believe that if guns were banned criminals, and crime would be out of control because there would be no fear of encountering a gun owner.

Something needs to be done, but I think we should concentrate on why there is so much violence, and not so much on how it was perpetrated. I would suggest changes to the judicial system, prisons, education, and our approach to mental health. I see the escalation of violence as a systematic failure, not just a gun control failure.

I found this today. https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/07/14/crime-rates-in-chicago-and-dc-drop-after-gun-control-laws-are-struck-down-2/ 
Just food for thought.

Also, could some of our members in the UK, and other countries with strict gun control give us a little insite into the general state of crime and violence in their country. I remember reading a while back that after the gun ban in the UK that while gun homicides decreased, all other types of crime, violent and other wise increased dramatically.


----------



## blairrob

Snow Hill Pond said:


> Your position is entirely reasonable. However, the 2nd amendment is very clear:
> 
> "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


But unfortunately it's not clear since the founding fathers' statement in the amendment of _'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia' _may be well and fairly interpreted to be at odds with the _'right... to bear arms' _of all citizens, (dependent upon one's take of the authors definition of militia in context) and a reader would then have to determine which phrase takes precedence.
The split in the Supreme Courts judges rendering of the Heller decision clearly tells us that a certain understanding of this section of the 2nd amendment is not available to us and a literal interpretation impossible given it's ambiguity. Scalia suggesting that states and Congress might not violate the Second Amendment by passing and enforcing restrictions on machine guns and such is virtually irrefutable proof of that.



Earl of Ormonde said:


> The idiotic comparison of guns with knives, bricks, hammers and clubs is as idiotic as comparing an a





Earl of Ormonde said:


> rmoured tank with a bicycle.
> 
> This young man, wouldn't have been able to kill over 20 people if he'd only been armed with a knife. But with an automatic weapon.......Yea, you see how idiotic it is to keep blaming the madman with a gun rather than the guns themselves.


Yes, it's a little idiotic to blame either one as the tragedy would not likely have happened without both. The recent mass stabbing in China while obviously horrific would have been much worse with a semi-automatic and large/multiple magazines. Obviously some types of mental illness and large capacity firearms, however infrequently, can and do result in heartbreaking tragedies and thus, very simply, unless you can eliminate entirely one of these two factors the fewer of both of them the less the likelihood is of similar events.



Snow Hill Pond said:


> Earl, I respect your position, but I think you're taking this argument a little too far. The murderer was crazy (and smart). If guns were outlawed, he could have built a bomb to blow up the school (or shopping mall or church). He could have driven his car through a busy crosswalk. The whole situation is effed up. I hurt for the victims. But you can't stop crazy.


While you can't stop crazy you can limit the damage of crazy; just as crazy drivers kill people we still legislate traffic law as they do reduce injury and death at a price of some freedom most see as acceptable, and so to would some increased gun controls, again at the price of some freedoms. Joining a society by definition requires some give and take on freedom issues and the line is drawn differently by virtually everyone and thus creating a need for a 'constitution'. Rationally speaking, it seems obvious to me that as society evolves so do the positions of it's constituents on all manner of public concerns and thus a constitution that is not a 'living, breathing document' is the constitution of a society that will fail.



Jovan said:


> I might point out that Canada has roughly the same amount of gun ownership, but a fraction of the shooting deaths per year. Shouldn't we be trying to find out why that is? Does anyone even bother to look at what the _societal_ issues may be, rather than just blaming the tools used? Certainly they are _part_ of the problem, but for all the people who don't have a history of violence or mental instability yet shoot up public schools, there are far more who wouldn't.


It bears noting that Canada has much more restrictive laws on clips, semis, and licensing such that access to semi-automatic rifles and large clips is much more difficult than in the US, and access to handguns is also more difficult with national waiting period requirements, Dr. approvals, etc. While gun ownership rates here are similarly high ownership of handguns and 'assault' weapons and such is much much less common. It is far harder for a schizophrenic for example to find an AR and clips here than in the US, and thus one bent on New Town like destruction wouldn't do as much damage with his 303 enfield, which is what most of us arounde here have, as Lanza did with his weapons



hardline_42 said:


> ^^Well said, Jovan. Everyone is quick to blame the guns, as if they were responsible for evil. The most deadly attack on US soil prior to 9/11 was the Oklahoma City bombing. One-hundred-sixty-eight people died, including 19 children under the age of 6, and not a single firearm was used. No one went on a quest to ban "assault fertilizer" nor did the other side demand buildings be armed with bombs of their own. Sometimes, when evil people are bent on doing evil things, nothing can stop them. Not even banning guns/knives/martial arts/golf clubs/lawn darts/medicine balls/etc.


But it is very basic common sense that unless one can eliminate evil, one should reduce the capacity of evil to perpetrate terrible crimes, which is the point of gun control laws. A two (or more) pronged approach is obviously required and the decisions include how far society can intrude on the rights of gun owners, the freedoms of the mentally ill, the monetary investment it will provide, and many other such questions.



Jovan said:


> Indeed, and just recently in a country that forbids civilians from owning firearms, someone went on a knifing spree. Certainly, if I wanted to and couldn't afford a firearm or pass a background check, I could use any number of kitchen implements against someone.


But obviously you are likely to be far more dangerous with a Beretta 90two than a chef's knife or a blender, and the death tolls from New Town and China compared bear that out.



Langham said:


> I still find difficulty with the idea of the young man's mother giving him access to weapons when he clearly needed help in other ways.


So true. Obviously it's not just guns, and there is no panacea for mental illness or rage.



Hitch said:


> _A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined,but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government
> 
> _George Washington


Unfortunately arms capable of terrible things are easily available in some locales to the undisciplined or unwell. If George had internet access to the future I suspect he may have phrased his intentions for a free people quite differently.


----------



## Bjorn

Hitch said:


> _A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined,but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government
> 
> _George Washington


He also owned slaves that he had whipped, that worked for him in in humane conditions with no pay, no rights. Which would be a crime today.

Just pointing out that times change and George Washington will not change with them. But we must.


----------



## Langham

Flairball said:


> Also, could some of our members in the UK, and other countries with strict gun control give us a little insite into the general state of crime and violence in their country. I remember reading a while back that after the gun ban in the UK that while gun homicides decreased, all other types of crime, violent and other wise increased dramatically.


The UK Home Office figures suggest a decline in overall crime over the last 20 years, but it is not a very consistent picture - some types of crime have risen, others have fallen, rather difficult to condense into a few sentences. I refer you to the official publication for more insight: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/https://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0708.pdf

More pertinent to the matter in hand, the National Statistics Office here has published a table comparing homicide rates per thousand population in various countries. I don't know whether there is some correlation here with gun control laws, but that seems to be one possibility:


Homicides per million peopleGermany 8.6Spain 9.0Italy 10.4Netherlands 10.9France 11.2England and Wales 11.2EU 12.2Australia 13.3New Zealand 15.1Canada 18.1United States 49.7Source: Eurostat


----------



## Jovan

Flairball said:


> As to the original question, I am somewhat of a gun enthousiast in that my greatest passion is grouse and woodcock hunting. I enjoy shooting sket and sporting clays. I also do a bit of waterfowling, and big game hunting. I don't own, nor do I have an interest in hand guns.
> 
> I find it as disturbing as anyone that the Ct shooting, and others like it have happened. That said, I believe that I, and many others, have benefited from the security that private gun ownership provides. I believe that if guns were banned criminals, and crime would be out of control because there would be no fear of encountering a gun owner.
> 
> Something needs to be done, but I think we should concentrate on why there is so much violence, and not so much on how it was perpetrated. I would suggest changes to the judicial system, prisons, education, and our approach to mental health. I see the escalation of violence as a systematic failure, not just a gun control failure.
> 
> I found this today. https://winteryknight.wordpress.com...rop-after-gun-control-laws-are-struck-down-2/
> Just food for thought.
> 
> Also, could some of our members in the UK, and other countries with strict gun control give us a little insite into the general state of crime and violence in their country. I remember reading a while back that after the gun ban in the UK that while gun homicides decreased, all other types of crime, violent and other wise increased dramatically.


THANK. YOU.

This thread has been so frustrating to read at times. Almost everyone on the anti-gun side isn't addressing the _problem_, they're trying to treat symptoms. Yes, I have no doubt that guns make killing easier. But WHAT causes these people to do these senseless acts of violence? Why is there no _serious_ discussion about mental health needs in this country beyond the scaremongering of media outlets to say, "HE MUST HAVE HAD SCHIZOPHRENIA/AUTISM/BIPOLAR DISORDER!!!" I mean seriously, these journalists are hacks. I've known people with all those conditions, and they are not necessarily prone to acts of random violence, ESPECIALLY not people with autism or Asperger's. Seriously, who wrote that piece of s*** and where was their research?! Autism? FFS!

So we've stigmatised mental illness as being something the "others" have, video games and movies as causing people to suddenly decide to shoot up schools, and the super-libs want to put forth aggressive restrictions. Still haven't even tried to address the root problem... which is WHY DO PEOPLE DO THESE THINGS? Did they need more love at home? Friends who treated them better? Mental health needs? What is it? We always sidetrack ourselves with all this, quite frankly, extraneous BULLSH*T.

Sorry, I'm just really disappointed that every time something like this happens, the same thing happens with the media circus and all the people follow along with it eagerly. No one cares about the person who did it and what caused them to or actually tries to think of steps to PREVENT such a thing in the future by the way they treat other people or raise their children. They're just an "other"! _It could never be someone like me or a person I know who does this. I'm so much better than them._

While I understand tocqueville's anger, he has grossly, GROSSLY mischaracterizedhttps://www.google.com/search?hl=en...&sa=X&ei=4mrRUOLRI4zvqQG06IBQ&ved=0CDIQvwUoAA what we've said. And I'm pretty disappointed.


----------



## Shaver

Flairball said:


> As to the original question, I am somewhat of a gun enthousiast in that my greatest passion is grouse and woodcock hunting. I enjoy shooting sket and sporting clays. I also do a bit of waterfowling, and big game hunting. I don't own, nor do I have an interest in hand guns.
> 
> I find it as disturbing as anyone that the Ct shooting, and others like it have happened. That said, I believe that I, and many others, have benefited from the security that private gun ownership provides. I believe that if guns were banned criminals, and crime would be out of control because there would be no fear of encountering a gun owner.
> 
> Something needs to be done, but I think we should concentrate on why there is so much violence, and not so much on how it was perpetrated. I would suggest changes to the judicial system, prisons, education, and our approach to mental health. I see the escalation of violence as a systematic failure, not just a gun control failure.
> 
> I found this today. https://winteryknight.wordpress.com...rop-after-gun-control-laws-are-struck-down-2/
> Just food for thought.
> 
> Also, could some of our members in the UK, and other countries with strict gun control give us a little insite into the general state of crime and violence in their country. I remember reading a while back that after the gun ban in the UK that while gun homicides decreased, all other types of crime, violent and other wise increased dramatically.


We do not have strict gun control in the UK. Certain weapons are prohibited from our possession, but that seems to be a wish rather than a reality. For example, Manchester has earned the dubious sobriquet of GUNchester - and not because there is a lack of 'gats' in circulation.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Tocqueville, well said sir. I agree with everything you said.

To all you legal gun owners, sports shooters, hunters, whatever - STOP blaming mental illness, stop blaming society, stop distancing yourselves from the NRA, stop blaming the manufacture and import of firearms, stop saying that other forms of killing are available for such killers. Whoever mentioned the cars and bomb, really? Get a grip!!! Stop equating organised terrorism and organsied gangland warfare with the acts of individual killers.

Why do you think all these people at all these massacres in the US have used firearms??? Because they are readily available, and they do the job quickly and effectively without having to get too down and dirty thus avoiding an even greater psychological involvement, for example, when using knives,swords, clubs. 

If the firearms weren't so readily available half of those killers would think twice about going on a killing spree where they knew they would have to get up close and perosnal and involved with every single victim before murdering them. 
A firearm is manufactured for one purpose and one purpose only to fire bullets to inflict injury on living beings. 

STOP denying the facts. Without firearms, people can't use firearms to kill other people.

I can't recall a single incident in the US or the UK were a madman has gone on a killing rampage killing dozens of people using just his hands and knives, clubs, housebricks etc.


----------



## Haffman

Shaver said:


> We do not have strict gun control in the UK. Certain weapons are prohibited from our possession, but *that seems to be a wish rather than a reality*. For example, Manchester has earned the dubious sobriquet of GUNchester - and not because there is a lack of 'gats' in circulation.


This is misleading. Anyone with a reasonable experience of living in the USA and UK can attest to the massive difference in the availability and presence of firearms in the lives of everyday people between the two countries.


----------



## Haffman

Flairball said:


> Also, could some of our members in the UK, and other countries with strict gun control give us a little insite into the general state of crime and violence in their country. I remember reading a while back that after the gun ban in the UK that while gun homicides decreased, all other types of crime, violent and other wise increased dramatically.


I can offer a couple of additional observations. Firstly, our police do not routinely carry firearms and have resisted any calls from politicians and the media to do so. Even following the recent killing of two unarmed police women in Manchester, an event so remarkable in this country of 63 million that it attracted weeks of media coverage and comments from the Prime Minister, the police have continued to feel that their officers do not need to carry firearms to defend themselves, unless on specific duties I.e guarding airports etc.

Secondly, I work in medicine and have worked and lived in inner city environments associated in this country with gun crime, such as London, Nottingham and Manchester. The treatment of gunshot wounds, while not unheard of, is still relatively unusual. This is very different from hospitals in some US cities to which I have been acquainted. Indeed, my military colleagues are sent to two countries to learn about treating gunshot wounds in civilian hospitals...the USA and...South Africa. It would be much cheaper for our government to send them to Manchester if there was sufficient experience to be had there, but there is not


----------



## Shaver

^ It was not my intention to mislead, the statement I have made is true. No comparison was made, or implied, between the availablility of firearms in the US and the UK.

Are you deliberately misrepresenting my contributions to this issue? :devil:

As to your following post - Manchester is awash with guns. This does not mean, however, that their owners are constantly firing them at people, hence the lack of incidences of gunshot wounds in hospital. Owning a gun and shooting someone are two very different things.


----------



## Chouan

Shaver said:


> As to your following post - Manchester is awash with guns. This does not mean, however, that their owners are constantly firing them at people, hence the lack of incidences of gunshot wounds in hospital. Owning a gun and shooting someone are two very different things.


Is it? Or is it your or other people's perception?


----------



## Chouan

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Tocqueville, well said sir. I agree with everything you said.
> 
> To all you legal gun owners, sports shooters, hunters, whatever - STOP blaming mental illness, stop blaming society, stop distancing yourselves from the NRA, stop blaming the manufacture and import of firearms, stop saying that other forms of killing are available for such killers. Whoever mentioned the cars and bomb, really? Get a grip!!! Stop equating organised terrorism and organsied gangland warfare with the acts of individual killers.
> 
> Why do you think all these people at all these massacres in the US have used firearms??? Because they are readily available, and they do the job quickly and effectively without having to get too down and dirty thus avoiding an even greater psychological involvement, for example, when using knives,swords, clubs.
> 
> If the firearms weren't so readily available half of those killers would think twice about going on a killing spree where they knew they would have to get up close and perosnal and involved with every single victim before murdering them.
> A firearm is manufactured for one purpose and one purpose only to fire bullets to inflict injury on living beings.
> 
> STOP denying the facts. Without firearms, people can't use firearms to kill other people.
> 
> I can't recall a single incident in the US or the UK were a madman has gone on a killing rampage killing dozens of people using just his hands and knives, clubs, housebricks etc.


Exactly. It is a fact that handguns are designed to shoot people, nothing else. Assault rifles are also designed to shoot people. Neither are much good for hunting deer or anything else. If, therefore, a person wishes to possess a handgun or an assault rifle/sub machine gun, it is because they wish to own a weapon designed solely to kill people. One could argue that that desire itself is enough to determine that they aren't a fit person to possess such a weapon? 
On the other hand, if the US is such a dangerous country that it is necessary for citizens to keep handguns and assault rifles to protect themselves, then it is a damning indictment on US society and culture that nothing seems to be being done to bring the dangerous criminals under control. If a granny in a wheelchair in the US needs a handgun for personal protection, then what an awful dangerous country it must be.
A final point. It is interesting that the NRA was able to mobilise enough political support to stop the banning of armour piercing ammunition. I really can't see how a "good" citizen who apparently needs a handgun and assault rifle also needs ammunition that will penetrate light armour and bullet proof vests.


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> As to your following post - Manchester is awash with guns. This does not mean, however, that their owners are constantly firing them at people, hence the lack of incidences of gunshot wounds in hospital. Owning a gun and shooting someone are two very different things.


How do you _know_ Manchester is awash with guns? Is this just bigmouth anecdotal evidence or are there reliable statistics?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Lets have a look at all the holes that exist in the "I need a firearm for self-defence" stance.

1. If a person, standing in front of you, with a firearm is determined to shoot you then no amount of training is going to allow you to get to your firearm first before he pulls the trigger (Evidence: PC Patrick Dunne in Clapham, South London in 1993 attedning a domestic incident, even if he had been armed he wouldn't have had time to draw his pistol because he was shot in the chest at close range the moment he opened the front door to find out what the disturbance was outside in the street)

2. Why do you need a firearm to defend yourself against home invaders? Why not a baseball bat? Are the majoirty of home invaders carrying firearms? If so, why? BECAUSE US legislation on firearms is too weak and firearms are too readily available thus criminals can easily get hold of them. QED, if they couldn't then you wouldn't need a firearm for defence. But I doubt that most home invaders are carrying firearms, especially those expecting to find an empty house to burgle.

3. Armour piercing ammo? Are criminals now regularly wearing body armour? Or do the people in the US that are determined to exprerss their right to bear arms also want to retain the right to go up against the forces of law and order and the federal government? That is Montana militiaman paranoia!

4. Another statistic often conveniently ignored is that so many legally held weapons are used in crime...hello...last week? He used his mum's guns. And that many legally held weapons are used by criminals against the weapon's legal owner.......because the criminal didn't actually have his own firearm!!!!! How ironic is that! Keepping a firearm at home to defend against home invaders is almost akin to keeping a weapon at home for the home invader to use once you've revealed that you've got it. 

You'll note that all of my discussion is about the US, I'm not making comparisons with anywhere else in the world so lets stay focused on the US and not go off track.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Also, in suooprt of what Tocqueville said, when the gun ban came into force in the early 90s in the UK, the British govt told the gun clubs, gun lobby, and firearms sports bodies that basically they didn't care about their warped views anymore & told them to find another hobby or another sport as they had proved time and again that NO they were not responsible owners or bodies and NO they could no longer be trusted. 

WHY? Because at both Hungerford and Dunblane (the two massacres that lead to the ban) the firearms used were ALL LEGALLY OWNED. And both killers were members of gun clubs. Michael Ryan (Hungerford killer) legally owned an arsenal of weapons from shotguns to hunting rifles to semi-auto assault rifles to pistols, many of which he had with him and used.

Thomas Hamilton (Dunblane killer) legally owned the four pistols he had with him - Two 9mm Brownings and two S &W 357 Magnums.


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> How do you _know_ Manchester is awash with guns? Is this just bigmouth anecdotal evidence or are there reliable statistics?


Is it bigmouth anecdotal evidence? I'm not sure as I really don't know what 'bigmouth anecdotal evidence' is. Perhaps you would care to illuminate me?

Statistics for such matters are intrinsically unreliable, obviously. I would be very surprised indeed if you do not realise this and it makes me wonder if your request for reliable statistics of clandestine weapons is merely argumentative.

Anyway, your first question can just as easily be reversed and still retain what little value it originally held i.e. how do *you* know it's not?


----------



## Sober

Two pieces of information:
- Britain is to the best of my knowledge the only European country which has introduced a virtual ban on handgunds and big-bore semiautomatic rifles. 
- Millions of Europeans are hunters or marksmen (for hunters the official figure is 7 million) and use their firearms responsibly.

As a European gun owner, I'm in favour of a sensible level of gun control. We could discuss the meaning of the term "sensible" but some of the previous comments seem to aim at outright bans, not controls. Furthermore, I find offensive the derogatory remarks about some people's "hobbies". With the current controls the chances that the legal owner of a firearm uses it for a hideous act are minimal. Zero risk doesn't exist, of course, but treating millions of law-abiding citizens as potential criminals because one of them can go crazy is utterly disproportionate. If the same criterion ("to save lifes") was applied ten times less strictly to other not absolutely essential human activities that may entail a risk we could hardly step out of our homes.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Langham said:


> How do you _know_ Manchester is awash with guns? Is this just bigmouth anecdotal evidence or are there reliable statistics?


When I was in the London Met (as opposed to the GMP) in the 80s and 90s Manchester and Bristol had higher per capita gun crime than London. And it was known among police officers that both cities were easy places to obtain illegal firearms, and officers there were ahead of the Met in wearing body armour when on patrol. I left the Met in 96 and I never wore body armour once, not at riots,disputes,on patrol but by '96 in the GMP body armour was in widespread use amongst officers. From what I've read Manchester is still plagued by severe levels of firearms offences. I don't know about Bristol nowadays.


----------



## Shaver

Sober said:


> Two pieces of information:
> - Britain is to the best of my knowledge the only European country which has introduced a virtual ban on handgunds and big-bore semiautomatic rifles.
> - Millions of Europeans are hunters or marksmen (for hunters the official figure is 7 million) and use their firearms responsibly.
> 
> As a European gun owner, I'm in favour of a sensible level of gun control. We could discuss the meaning of the term "sensible" but some of the previous comments seem to aim at outright bans, not controls. Furthermore, I find offensive the derogatory remarks about some people's "hobbies". With the current controls the chances that the legal owner of a firearm uses it for a hideous act are minimal. Zero risk doesn't exist, of course, but treating millions of law-abiding citizens as potential criminals because one of them can go crazy is utterly disproportionate. If the same criterion ("to save lifes") was applied ten times less strictly to other not absolutely essential human activities that may entail a risk we could hardly step out of our homes.


A very balanced perspective.

The anti-gun lobbyists seem highly excitable and emotionally overwrought. Thank God they don't have guns. :devil:

..
.

.
.
.


----------



## Howard

I grew up in a family that never dealt with weapons but more we used our mouths as verbal assault, got into fights but tried hard not to use physicality.


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> Is it bigmouth anecdotal evidence? I'm not sure as I really don't know what 'bigmouth anecdotal evidence' is. Perhaps you would care to illuminate me?
> 
> Statistics for such matters are intrinsically unreliable, obviously. I would be very surprised indeed if you do not realise this and it makes me wonder if your request for reliable statistics of clandestine weapons is merely argumentative.
> 
> Anyway, your first question can just as easily be reversed and still retain what little value it originally held i.e. how do *you* know it's not?


I don't know whether Manchester is or isn't awash with guns, nor did I say that I knew, all I have is your assertion that it is, but also that there don't seem to be too many shootings, so I wondered how you knew one way or the other?

If I read in an official report, or a newspaper, that somewhere is awash with guns, or drugs, or stolen transistor radios, I expect to be given some factual evidence to that effect. If someone tells me the same thing down the pub, or at soccer/the theatre/wikipedia, but they don't tell me on what basis they know, then I think they're just bigging themselves up.

The evidence will exist in some form - I have before me the latest House of Commons firearms statistics, which show that Manchester does have a relatively high level of gun crime (for the UK), but also that the levels are a lot higher for instance in the West Midlands and Greater London.

I'm not trying to be argumentative Shaver, it just slightly irritates me when this or that assertion is trotted out without any background or explanation, and the stereotype just becomes a little more embedded.


----------



## Langham

Earl of Ormonde said:


> From what I've read Manchester is still plagued by severe levels of firearms offences. I don't know about Bristol nowadays.


I don't have figures as far back as the 80s and 90s, but the report I mentioned above shows gun crimes in Manchester declining from 1,240 in 2002 to 504 in 2010 - perhaps still quite a high figure, but not exactly the Wild West.


----------



## Haffman

Sober said:


> With the current controls the chances that the legal owner of a firearm uses it for a hideous act are minimal.


Does Norway count as Europe in your analysis?

Breivik's home made bomb killed 8 while his shooting spree killed 69. An order of magnitude difference. That was just last year. He was the legal owner of a number of firearms. As far as I know these were used in the attack?


----------



## Haffman

Sober said:


> Two pieces of information:
> - Britain is to the best of my knowledge the only European country which has introduced a virtual ban on handgunds and big-bore semiautomatic weapons


I believe it has already been said on this thread that civilians are not permitted to own handguns, semi-automatic and automatic firearms in Ireland.


----------



## Shaver

Langham said:


> I don't know whether Manchester is or isn't awash with guns, nor did I say that I knew, all I have is your assertion that it is, but also that there don't seem to be too many shootings, so I wondered how you knew one way or the other?
> 
> If I read in an official report, or a newspaper, that somewhere is awash with guns, or drugs, or stolen transistor radios, I expect to be given some factual evidence to that effect. If someone tells me the same thing down the pub, or at soccer/the theatre/wikipedia, but they don't tell me on what basis they know, then I think they're just bigging themselves up.
> 
> The evidence will exist in some form - I have before me the latest House of Commons firearms statistics, which show that Manchester does have a relatively high level of gun crime (for the UK), but also that the levels are a lot higher for instance in the West Midlands and Greater London.
> 
> I'm not trying to be argumentative Shaver, it just slightly irritates me when this or that assertion is trotted out without any background or explanation, and the stereotype just becomes a little more embedded.


I am perplexed as to how my post might be perceived as 'bigging myself up'. You assert your lack of intent to be argumentative but repeatedly employ inflammatory phraseology.

The central theme of the pro-gun movement's conviction is that firearms do not equal shootings. Similarly a lack of shootings does not equal a lack of guns.

The Earl's personal policing experience, posted just recently, may help you to appreciate the situation. You may also wish to examine this:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...l-400-guns-handed-Jessie-firearm-amnesty.html

The volume of weapons which are voluntarily handed in to police stations in Manchester during 'amnesty' must certainly speak to the volume which remain in circulation.


----------



## Haffman

^^
A key detail is that the above article was written in 2006

Google 'Gun crime in South Manchester'. There is plenty to read there about how levels of gun crime have been dramatically reduced there since the mid-2000s

Interestingly, the prohibition of the availability of firearms is cited as one of the reasons...


----------



## Shaver

^ gun crime is not the same as gun ownership. 

If people cannot be sensible then I shall quit responding. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Haffman

Shaver said:


> ^ gun crime is not the same as gun ownership.
> 
> If people cannot be sensible then I shall quit responding. :icon_smile_wink:


If you cannot even now divine the relationship between the two, perhaps that is an appropriate course :wink2:


----------



## hardline_42

Ugh. This again?



Earl of Ormonde said:


> Lets have a look at all the holes that exist in the "I need a firearm for self-defence" stance.
> 
> 1. If a person, standing in front of you, with a firearm is determined to shoot you then no amount of training is going to allow you to get to your firearm first before he pulls the trigger (Evidence: PC Patrick Dunne in Clapham, South London in 1993 attedning a domestic incident, even if he had been armed he wouldn't have had time to draw his pistol because he was shot in the chest at close range the moment he opened the front door to find out what the disturbance was outside in the street)


You seriously extrapolated all that from the example of a constable from the UK, who didn't even carry a firearm and you claim that this is a valid example for the US? Anyone with even the slightest bit of firearms training, heck anyone with even a little bit of situational awareness would a) be aware enough to not allow a suspicious person, firearm or not, to be standing directly in front of them, would b) not open an exterior door without knowing what's behind it first (even children know that) and would c) most likely never have to test their fast-draw because of the simple execution of 'a' and 'b.' Is it possible for someone to absolutely 100% get the drop on a gun-owner? Yes, though I'm sure it's rather unlikely. If the result is the same in both cases, I don't see how having a gun reduces your chances for survival and I certainly can't see the connection between "having a gun *might *not help in *some *situations, therefore no one needs one for self-defense."



Earl of Ormonde said:


> 2. Why do you need a firearm to defend yourself against home invaders? Why not a baseball bat? Are the majoirty of home invaders carrying firearms? If so, why? BECAUSE US legislation on firearms is too weak and firearms are too readily available thus criminals can easily get hold of them. QED, if they couldn't then you wouldn't need a firearm for defence. But I doubt that most home invaders are carrying firearms, especially those expecting to find an empty house to burgle.


A firearm is the best tool for the job. Period. I don't see a reason to expose myself unnecessarily to someone who is bent on doing me or mine physical harm (I would never and do not advocate engaging anyone for the sake of material possessions). 
I almost agree with you on your next point about weak legislation. It's not the legislation that is weak. There are more gun laws on the books than ever before and my State (New Jersey) is second only to California when it comes to the sheer volume of restrictions. However, the enforcement of those laws is pathetic.



Earl of Ormonde said:


> 3. Armour piercing ammo? Are criminals now regularly wearing body armour? Or do the people in the US that are determined to exprerss their right to bear arms also want to retain the right to go up against the forces of law and order and the federal government? That is Montana militiaman paranoia!


To what kind of "armor piercing ammo" are you referring? If you mean the ATF's definition, then any bullet composed entirely of any combination of the metals on their verboten list is legal to own, but possession of it during the commission of a crime is an automatic five years in jail. If you mean "any round that can pierce body armor" that would be any hunting rifle bigger than a .22.



Earl of Ormonde said:


> 4. Another statistic often conveniently ignored is that so many legally held weapons are used in crime...hello...last week? He used his mum's guns. And that many legally held weapons are used by criminals against the weapon's legal owner.......because the criminal didn't actually have his own firearm!!!!! How ironic is that! Keepping a firearm at home to defend against home invaders is almost akin to keeping a weapon at home for the home invader to use once you've revealed that you've got it.


All guns are legal until they're illegal. Adam Lanza was in violation of Federal gun laws by being in possession of a handgun, regardless of who's they were or where he got them. The idea that "a gun is more likely to be used against you in an attack" is one of the oldest (1986), most often repeated fallacies. It's gotten to the point where disproving it is downright boring. If you're really interested I can PM you the full refutation of the Kellermann study.



Earl of Ormonde said:


> You'll note that all of my discussion is about the US, I'm not making comparisons with anywhere else in the world so lets stay focused on the US and not go off track.


With all due respect, I enjoy gun control debates with people from other countries and cultures (much more than I do with fellow Americans), but it goes much better when neither of us claims to be an expert on the other.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Sober said:


> Two pieces of information:
> - Britain is to the best of my knowledge the only European country which has introduced a virtual ban on handgunds and big-bore semiautomatic rifles.


Just to clarify for you.

Already prohibited from civilian/public ownership prior to the total firearms ban were the following:

- ALL fully automatic weapons of all types from small machine-pistols to sub-machine guns up to heavy machine guns 
- Semi-automatic shotguns over a specfiic ammo capacity and cyclic rate.
- Any other military firearms not covered by the above. Firearm under the old act was a very wide ranging definition and covered everything from mortars to CS gas spray cannisters.

Prior to the total ban shotguns were NOT considered as firearms and were not covered by the Firearms Act, they were covered separately as shotguns and required a shotgun certificate NOT a firearms licence.

The only weapons you can legally own in the UK now are: 
- old fashioned muzzle loading (black powder) pistols and long barrelled revolvers and pistols (long barrelled means at least 30cm roughly 12") (*ALL *other pistols are banned. Pistol shooting as a sport effectively ended in 97. UK pistol sports shooter have to train overseas. The ban even includes starting pistols than can be adapted for live rounds)

- SLR's but with a calibre no greater than .22
- single-shot - bolt action, lever acton or revolver rifles
- shotguns of any type up to 2 rounds capacity on a shotgun cert
- separate mag shotguns with larger capacity on a firearms licence


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> I am perplexed as to how my post might be perceived as 'bigging myself up'. You assert your lack of intent to be argumentative but repeatedly employ inflammatory phraseology.
> 
> The central theme of the pro-gun movement's conviction is that firearms do not equal shootings. Similarly a lack of shootings does not equal a lack of guns.
> 
> The Earl's personal policing experience, posted just recently, may help you to appreciate the situation. You may also wish to examine this:
> 
> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...l-400-guns-handed-Jessie-firearm-amnesty.html
> 
> The volume of weapons which are voluntarily handed in to police stations in Manchester during 'amnesty' must certainly speak to the volume which remain in circulation.


That's better Shaver - even the Daily Mail can put forward statistics.

I'm afraid I have to discount the Earl's policing experience as of purely historical interest, invaluable as such personal testament doubtless is.


----------



## Shaver

Haffman said:


> If you cannot even now divine the relationship between the two, perhaps that is an appropriate course :wink2:


I am able to divine the relationship and it is not 'A is equal to B'.

Many illegally held firearms are primarily status symbols, which the owner would be loathe to discharge in anger. In fact the ammunition is often harder to come by than the weapons, these days.

Do you have a point or are you just goading? :frown:


----------



## CuffDaddy

mrkleen said:


> The primary weapon used in the attack was a "Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon," said Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance. The rifle is a Bushmaster version of a widely made AR-15, the civilian version of the M-16 rifle used by the U.S. military. The original M-16 patent ran out years ago, and now the AR-15 is manufactured by several gunmakers. Unlike the military version, the AR-15 is a semiautomatic, firing one bullet per squeeze of the trigger. But like the M-16, ammunition is loaded through a magazine. In the school shooting, police say Lanza's rifle used numerous 30-round magazines.
> 
> *An AR-15 is usually capable of firing a rate of 45 rounds per minute in semiautomatic mode*.
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/us/connecticut-lanza-guns/index.html
> 
> EDIT
> 
> From the Bushmaster Owners Manual:
> 
> Maximum Effective Rate of Fire: 45 Rounds Per Minute
> 
> https://www.ar15.com/content/manuals/manual_bushmaster.pdf
> 
> Sorry CD...*you are wrong*


What part of your content contradicts any part of what I wrote? (I would have stipulated to everything in post 209.)


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Langham said:


> I'm afraid I have to discount the Earl's policing experience as of purely historical interest, invaluable as such personal testament doubtless is.


Then, perhaps like me you should speak to some current officers (as I regularly do with my former colleagues) about the current situation and to some of my sister-agency colleagues at the CCS. That you can't discount as historical.

https://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/content/civil-contingencies
Personnel from my agency in Sweden, myself included, regularly attend CCS and HO courses and jointly work with the CCS and at international meetings.


----------



## Hitch

tocqueville said:


> My kids lives are worth more than your fantasy that owning an Ar-15 will keep you free.


The usual meaningless drivel.


----------



## CuffDaddy

tocqueville said:


> My children's lives are worth more than people's stupid hobby and combat fantasies.
> 
> That is the argument, isn't it? Children's lives are an acceptable price to pay for a hobby? For some stupid ideology? A fetish?


tocq',

No, that isn't the argument. Because you are operating on the assumption/belief that there is a causal relationship between certain types of guns and child murders. If surrendering all firearms I own would bring back one child from Sandy Hook elementary, I would do it in a second. If it would ensure the safety of your child or mine, I would do it in a second.

There is a genuine and good-faith disagreement about the way the world works. At one point in my life, I believed that it would work as you suggest, with various restrictions on guns leading to lower violence and greater safety. I no longer believe that with regard to many of the discussed restrictions.


----------



## Hitch

Bjorn said:


> He also owned slaves that he had whipped, that worked for him in in humane conditions with no pay, no rights. Which would be a crime today.
> 
> Just pointing out that times change and George Washington will not change with them. But we must.


So does that mean the Swedes wouldnt kiss Hitler's backside now?


----------



## mrkleen

Jovan said:


> This thread has been so frustrating to read at times. Almost everyone on the anti-gun side isn't addressing the _problem_, they're trying to treat symptoms. Yes, I have no doubt that guns make killing easier. But WHAT causes these people to do these senseless acts of violence? Why is there no _serious_ discussion about mental health needs in this country beyond the scaremongering of media outlets to say


Respectfully to a person who I call a friend out here, this is as misleading as anything in this thread.

1) No one that I have seen in 10+ pages has been "anti guns" - that is the same kind of BS rhetoric that people in the pro life movement use to call those who believe in a woman's right to choose as "pro abortion". No one is anti guns period. Many of us are simply saying, limitations on certain TYPES of guns and accessories like extended clips, silencers - as well as certain loopholes need to be closed.

2)In the immediate aftermath of a tragedy, of course it is easiest for people to look at the most inflammatory part of the story first. But to suggest no one is talking about mental health is patently FALSE.

The governor of Colorado - John Hickenlooper came out yesterday with a new plan to revamp the mental health system in his state and *specifically spoke of the incident in Newtown*.

You are right, guns are not the only problem here. But without semi automatic weapons and hundreds of bullets, this would have had a much different outcome. After years of kicking the can down the road and being intimidated by the mighty NRA and the gun lobby - this is the tipping point. As the incidents grow more frequent and the bodies of innocent men, women and children pile up - guns clearly are PART of the problem. To suggest otherwise shows a serious disconnection with the reality of the situation.


----------



## mrkleen

CuffDaddy said:


> What part of your content contradicts any part of what I wrote? (I would have stipulated to everything in post 209.)


If your friend needs 45 shots to bring down a wild animal....he should give up his hobby and go back to sitting in front of the TV as he clearly is a poor hunter.


----------



## Haffman

Shaver said:


> I am able to divine the relationship and it is not 'A is equal to B'.
> 
> Many illegally held firearms are primarily status symbols, which the owner would be loathe to discharge in anger. In fact the ammunition is often harder to come by than the weapons, these days.
> 
> Do you have a point or are you just goading? :frown:


Shaver it is that _A is proportional to B_

The USA has 88.8 firearms per 100 people, is ranked no 1 in firearms ownership, and has 2.98 firearms homicides per 100,000 per year (4.6 total homicides per 100,000 per year) (2009 figures)

The UK has 6.7 firearms per 100 people and has 0.03 firearm homicides per 100,000 per year (1.2 total homicides per 100,000 per year)

I think there is the hint of a relationship there


----------



## Shaver

Haffman said:


> Shaver it is that _A is proportional to B_
> 
> The USA has 88.8 firearms per 100 people, is ranked no 1 in firearms ownership, and has 2.98 firearms homicides per 100,000 per year (4.6 total homicides per 100,000 per year) (2009 figures)
> 
> The UK has 6.7 firearms per 100 people and has 0.03 firearm homicides per 100,000 per year (1.2 total homicides per 100,000 per year)
> 
> I think there is the hint of a relationship there


The statitstics for the UK have limited value as the number of firearms per capita is unknown.

If you like, there is a very simplistic relationship i.e. no guns = no gun crime. But - so what?


----------



## CuffDaddy

mrkleen said:


> Many of us are simply saying, limitations on certain TYPES of guns and accessories like extended clips, silencers - as well as certain loopholes need to be closed.


Silencers*? How did those get into the discussion? Silencers are already heavily regulated under Title II of the New Deal-era National Firearms Act. Getting one requires BATF approval, local law enforcement approval or a firearm trust, payment of a $200 tax stamp, extensive paperwork, etc. Usually this means a 6-month wait or so to get one _aftch_ the purchaser has laid out the cash.

Try to find some examples of legally-owned suppressors being used in crimes in America over the last 50 years. If you're interested in actual data regarding silencers and crimes in the US, you can read this:

*BTW, contrary to what is seen in movies, these devices do not render guns silent, nor even whisper-like. They are properly called "suppressors," because they reduce the noise somewhat. Usually, just enough to get it down to the point where one can shoot without hearing protection being required.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Hitch said:


> So does that mean the Swedes wouldnt kiss Hitler's backside now?


Is that really necessary?


----------



## CuffDaddy

hardline_42 said:


> Victor, if you take a look at the statistics over the last decades, gun-ownership in the US has increased exponentially, while gun-violence has either dropped or stayed the same. There is no correlation between the number of guns and the amount of gun-violence.


This. Moreover, we had an "assault weapons ban" for several years. Gun crime did not end during that ban. The expiration of that ban did not see an increase in violence. We've pulled that lever before. It is not connected to the needle that we'd all like to move.


----------



## Haffman

Shaver said:


> The statitstics for the UK have limited value as the number of firearms per capita is unknown.
> 
> If you like, there is a very simplistic relationship i.e. no guns = no gun crime. But - so what?


At least I am trying to support my arguments with evidence, however hard to find. The debate really is more nuanced than 'gun ownership is equal to gun crime" or "no guns = no crime" as you have characterised my position - these are just straw men, easier to knock down and perhaps to understand, but a pointless misrepresentation !


----------



## Langham

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Then, perhaps like me you should speak to some current officers (as I regularly do with my former colleagues) about the current situation and to some of my sister-agency colleagues at the CCS. That you can't discount as historical.
> 
> https://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/content/civil-contingencies
> Personnel from my agency in Sweden, myself included, regularly attend CCS and HO courses and jointly work with the CCS and at international meetings.


You spoke of the 80s and 90s and quoted figures which seem no longer to correspond to current trends -



Earl of Ormonde said:


> When I was in the London Met (as opposed to the GMP) in the 80s and 90s Manchester and Bristol had higher per capita gun crime than London. And it was known among police officers that both cities were easy places to obtain illegal firearms, and officers there were ahead of the Met in wearing body armour when on patrol. I left the Met in 96 and I never wore body armour once, not at riots,disputes,on patrol but by '96 in the GMP body armour was in widespread use amongst officers. From what I've read Manchester is still plagued by severe levels of firearms offences. I don't know about Bristol nowadays.


Events move on and circumstances change - I should perhaps have said I was discounting your historical recollection, rather than your ongoing CCS experience, which I was unaware of (and thank you for the link).


----------



## hardline_42

mrkleen said:


> Respectfully to a person who I call a friend out here, this is as misleading as anything in this thread.
> 
> 1) No one that I have seen in 10+ pages has been "anti guns" - that is the same kind of BS rhetoric that people in the pro life movement use to call those who believe in a woman's right to choose as "pro abortion". No one is anti guns period. Many of us are simply saying, limitations on certain TYPES of guns and accessories like extended clips, silencers - as well as certain loopholes need to be closed.
> 
> 2)In the immediate aftermath of a tragedy, of course it is easiest for people to look at the most inflammatory part of the story first. But to suggest no one is talking about mental health is patently FALSE.
> 
> The governor of Colorado - John Hickenlooper came out yesterday with a new plan to revamp the mental health system in his state and *specifically spoke of the incident in Newtown*.
> 
> You are right, guns are not the only problem here. But without semi automatic weapons and hundreds of bullets, this would have had a much different outcome. After years of kicking the can down the road and being intimidated by the mighty NRA and the gun lobby - this is the tipping point. As the incidents grow more frequent and the bodies of innocent men, women and children pile up - guns clearly are PART of the problem. To suggest otherwise shows a serious disconnection with the reality of the situation.


Mrkleen, this is exactly the type of comment I like to see from the opposition. Calm, well-thought out and devoid of any name-calling and inflammatory remarks. I'm glad that you express a willingness to explore other avenues besides just guns. Simply eliminating weapons, whether they be guns or something else, doesn't eliminate the evil (sane or not) behind the tragedies, and where there's a will, there's a way. Many well-intentioned people believed that the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 (which dealt specifically with the types and accessories you mention) would bring about sweeping change. That change never came and the ban was considered universally ineffective. While new restrictions are inevitably on their way, I do hope that the discussion widens out to include issues that have been mostly ignored by the media and politicians. It would be a shame to keep trying the same methods over and over again, at the expense of the freedoms of many, with no results to show for it.


----------



## Haffman

CuffDaddy said:


> This. Moreover, we had an "assault weapons ban" for several years. Gun crime did not end during that ban. The expiration of that ban did not see an increase in violence. We've pulled that lever before. It is not connected to the needle that we'd all like to move.


So the fact that gun crime is many times that of the UK in the USA (about 100x higher for gun homicides?) because we Brits are just inherently a more peace loving people?!:icon_scratch:


----------



## CuffDaddy

Earl of Ormonde said:


> 2. Why do you need a firearm to defend yourself against home invaders? Why not a baseball bat? Are the majoirty of home invaders carrying firearms? If so, why? BECAUSE US legislation on firearms is too weak and firearms are too readily available thus criminals can easily get hold of them. QED, if they couldn't then you wouldn't need a firearm for defence. But I doubt that most home invaders are carrying firearms, especially those expecting to find an empty house to burgle.


Earl, you're a smart and thoughtful man; you're smarter than this portion of your post. You're an able-bodied man with military combat training. You might do relatively well against a knife-armed intruder with a baseball bat. Most people would not.

Allow me to tell the story of how I came to own my first handgun. My wife and I were living in the city in a condominium with no off-street parking. That meant we both spent a good deal of time walking up and down the street, to and from our cars and/or local businesses (and my place of employment at the time, which was walking distance). One afternoon, while I was at work, my wife had an encounter with a derranged person. He approached her, called her by a name that was not hers, and began having a heated conversation. She first tried to politely explain that he had her mistaken for someone else. Then she began to retreat towards our building. He followed her, getting angrier and angrier. She got into the front door of our building, but it didn't automatically lock behind her. He followed her into the common stairwell, but she managed to get into our unit and lock the door before he got to her. He ranted for a while and eventually left. My wife called the cops, but this lunatic was gone by they time they arrived.

My wife told me about the incident, and it dawned on me that, while we have bats, golf clubs, and kitchen knives in our condo (all for non-defense related reasons), my wife would have had virtually no chance of forcing someone out of our condo using those. In short, if someone came into our unit, my wife had no way to make them leave. I bought a gun the next day. And two days after _that_, the same lunatic attacked another woman in our neighborhood with a brick.

Guns make people equal. They are among the most egalitarian of devices ever invented. Karate, baseball bats, knives, etc., all depend greatly on the strength and dexterity of the user. Guns require only a modest amount of each, and then acquirable skill (plus eyesight). A 100-lb woman is no match for a 200-lb man when unarmed. Give them both baseball bats, and the equation does not change. Only guns make them equal.


----------



## mrkleen

CuffDaddy said:


> This. Moreover, we had an "assault weapons ban" for several years. Gun crime did not end during that ban. The expiration of that ban did not see an increase in violence. We've pulled that lever before. It is not connected to the needle that we'd all like to move.


The assault weapons ban you speak about was a FARCE.

The 1994 law included several loopholes that unscrupulous gun makers and dealers exploited to continue making and selling assault weapons that Congress intended to ban. As a result, many assault weapons remained available.

Some gun companies made inconsequential design changes (like moving a screw or replacing a flash suppressor with a "muzzle brake") and gave the gun a new name. The new name got the gun off of the prohibited list, and the minor change arguably put it out of reach of the law's "copies or duplicates" language. For example, the banned TEC-9 became the legal AB-10.

Also, some gun companies copied assault weapons that were originally made by other manufacturers. For example, Bushmaster's XM15 was a copy of the banned Colt AR-15, with one minor design change. Functionally equivalent in all relevant respects to its banned cousin, the XM15, like innumerable other AR-15 variants, remained legal. The DC-area sniper allegedly used a new Bushmaster XM15 to shoot 13 victims, killing 10.

Finally, because the 1994 law allowed the continued ownership and sale of "pre-ban" assault weapons, those weapons remained available.

With all those "exceptions" and "holes" - OF COURSE the ban didnt work.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Haffman said:


> So the fact that gun crime is many times that of the UK in the USA (about 100x higher for gun homicides?) because we Brits are just inherently a more peace loving people?!:icon_scratch:


Two points:

When you're trying to learn how a multi-variable system works, you try to find instances where most variables remain constant while a smaller number of variables are altered. There are lots of differences between the UK and the US that confound easy comparison. If we'd never tried gun control here in America, we might have to look at the UK example and try to extrapolate as best we could. But we've got a data set that is a much better fit. We had an "assault weapon" ban for 10 years in America. I can't tell that it did anything. That tells us a lot more than looking at other cultures on other continents.

Second, nothing being seriously proposed in the US would approach the comprehensiveness of the UK approach (as I understand it). Nothing being proposed would change the fact that America is full of guns. Criminals would continue to have easy access to guns. There's nothing we could do within our constitutional limits that would change that. So the results of total firearm bans are, yet again, so different as to provide no meaningful insight.


----------



## Hitch

The 'ban' on murdering people didnt work in that case either.


----------



## Flairball

Someone earlier in this thread posted this link, 


Has anyone else read it? I found it quite interesting. 

And thanks, whoever posted it earlier.


----------



## mrkleen

hardline_42 said:


> Mrkleen, this is exactly the type of comment I like to see from the opposition. Calm, well-thought out and devoid of any name-calling and inflammatory remarks. I'm glad that you express a willingness to explore other avenues besides just guns. Simply eliminating weapons, whether they be guns or something else, doesn't eliminate the evil (sane or not) behind the tragedies, and where there's a will, there's a way. Many well-intentioned people believed that the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 (which dealt specifically with the types and accessories you mention) would bring about sweeping change. That change never came and the ban was considered universally ineffective. While new restrictions are inevitably on their way, I do hope that the discussion widens out to include issues that have been mostly ignored by the media and politicians. It would be a shame to keep trying the same methods over and over again, at the expense of the freedoms of many, with no results to show for it.


Thanks Hardline.

To me, this is a lot like the discussion of how to get the economy back on track. It is true, we cannot simply tax the rich and make up enough revenue to get the debt under control. But to suggest that tax increase are off the table is equally ridiculous.

Gun control advocates have to not be reactionary and put all the blame on guns and gun owners. We need a holistic approach which includes drastic improvements in mental health, better communication between agencies, faster and more through background checks etc.

At the same time, responsible gun owners need to get their heads out of the sand and realize that something needs to give here.


----------



## CuffDaddy

mrkleen said:


> The assault weapons ban you speak about was a FARCE.
> 
> The 1994 law included several loopholes that unscrupulous gun makers and dealers exploited to continue making and selling assault weapons that Congress intended to ban. As a result, many assault weapons remained available.
> 
> Some gun companies made inconsequential design changes (like moving a screw or replacing a flash suppressor with a "muzzle brake") and gave the gun a new name. The new name got the gun off of the prohibited list, and the minor change arguably put it out of reach of the law's "copies or duplicates" language. For example, the banned TEC-9 became the legal AB-10.
> 
> Also, some gun companies copied assault weapons that were originally made by other manufacturers. For example, Bushmaster's XM15 was a copy of the banned Colt AR-15, with one minor design change. Functionally equivalent in all relevant respects to its banned cousin, the XM15, like innumerable other AR-15 variants, remained legal. The DC-area sniper allegedly used a new Bushmaster XM15 to shoot 13 victims, killing 10.
> 
> Finally, because the 1994 law allowed the continued ownership and sale of "pre-ban" assault weapons, those weapons remained available.
> 
> With all those "exceptions" and "holes" - OF COURSE the ban didnt work.


Mr.Kleen,

The AWB did restrict magazines to 10 rounds. (And that was, honestly, the only part of the ban that was even rationally-related to the desired goals. Who cares whether a gun has a flash-hider? That's never been an issue in a single crime.) There was no loophole on that.

It is true that existing guns and magazines remained grandfathered in. Do you seriously think there is any chance that won't change? Do you honestly think that we'll get a law requiring people to turn in their existing property, and, if so, that it would be complied with? America will remain awash in the "banned" items regardless of what legislative action we now take. That horse is out of the barn and over the hill.


----------



## CuffDaddy

mrkleen said:


> If your friend needs 45 shots to bring down a wild animal....he should give up his hobby and go back to sitting in front of the TV as he clearly is a poor hunter.


"45 shots per minute" is someone's estimate of the _rate _of fire. That's like saying that, if you plan to drive less than 60 miles, you don't need a car that will go 60 mph.


----------



## Haffman

^^
I suspect that is closer to your true position CuffDaddy, it is not that you cannot see the harmful effects that civilian gun ownership has on gun crime, gun homicide and indeed society, but it's just that you think things have gone too far to ever change.

Frankly, when I read your rationale for owning a gun as a great 'leveller ' I was horrified. You sound like people I have spoken to living in Johannesburg. You sound like you feel under siege from these 'lunatics'. The 'lunatic' in question might have been suffering from a treatable mental illness, thank god he did not come back to your residence - you might well have killed him because if he was psychotic waving a gun in his face may not have been a deterrent.

I am going to have to retire again from the debate but I leave you all with one hopefully positive thought - _things actually can change_. I never thought I would see any progress in Northern Ireland in my lifetime, but I was wrong. Lets not give up before we have started


----------



## CuffDaddy

Just happened to run across this story in my local newspaper of a family defending itself with a firearm last night against a firearm-armed intruder/invader. It's not a fantasy, it does happen:


----------



## Hitch

CuffDaddy said:


> "45 shots per minute" is someone's estimate of the _rate _of fire. That's like saying that, if you plan to drive less than 60 miles, you don't need a car that will go 60 mph.


Clearly, as demonstrated by the usual dearth of logical responses, the 'need' that is central to this issue is the 'need' for liberals to impose their desires ,through the force of law, on everyone else.


----------



## hardline_42

mrkleen said:


> The assault weapons ban you speak about was a FARCE.
> 
> The 1994 law included several loopholes that unscrupulous gun makers and dealers exploited to continue making and selling assault weapons that Congress intended to ban. As a result, many assault weapons remained available.
> 
> Some gun companies made inconsequential design changes (like moving a screw or replacing a flash suppressor with a "muzzle brake") and gave the gun a new name. The new name got the gun off of the prohibited list, and the minor change arguably put it out of reach of the law's "copies or duplicates" language. For example, the banned TEC-9 became the legal AB-10.
> 
> Also, some gun companies copied assault weapons that were originally made by other manufacturers. For example, Bushmaster's XM15 was a copy of the banned Colt AR-15, with one minor design change. Functionally equivalent in all relevant respects to its banned cousin, the XM15, like innumerable other AR-15 variants, remained legal. The DC-area sniper allegedly used a new Bushmaster XM15 to shoot 13 victims, killing 10.
> 
> Finally, because the 1994 law allowed the continued ownership and sale of "pre-ban" assault weapons, those weapons remained available.
> 
> With all those "exceptions" and "holes" - OF COURSE the ban didnt work.


The AWB banned a few firearms by name and the rest by cosmetic features. When it was being drafted, the authors of the legislation realized that simply banning all semi-auto firearms would make the majority of firearms in America illegal. It would be a de facto ban today.

I honestly don't understand the public's obsession with "assault" stuff. I don't know why a flash suppressor or a pistol grip make a gun more deadly. I don't understand why a standard capacity magazine is more deadly than multiple low capacity magazines that take a fraction of a second to change. I don't get why we are legally required to have mufflers on our cars but shouldn't be allowed to put one on a firearm.

But, I imagine that the more the public tries to demonize something, the more appealing it would be to the social misfits that perpetrate these crimes. "Tactical" crap is the "in" thing. It scares adults and makes girls swoon. It would be most uncool to have your headshot pictured next to your granpappy's Marlin lever-action plastered all over the news.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Haffman said:


> ^^
> I suspect that is closer to your true position CuffDaddy, it is not that you cannot see the harmful effects that civilian gun ownership has on gun crime, gun homicide and indeed society, but it's just that you think things have gone too far to ever change.
> 
> Frankly, when I read your rationale for owning a gun as a great 'leveller ' I was horrified. You sound like people I have spoken to living in Johannesburg. You sound like you feel under siege from these 'lunatics'. The 'lunatic' in question might have been suffering from a treatable mental illness, thank god he did not come back to your residence - you might well have killed him because if he was psychotic waving a gun in his face may not have been a deterrent.


Haffman, you are half-right!  I may have several (perhaps even contradictory) "true position" on this matter. I was once a gun control supporter. I have been very preoccupied with re-re-re-re-examining my views on this matter in the wake of Sandy Hook. But I still have a hard time coming up with a feasible solution that prevents a determined mad man who is bent on destruction and doesn't care about "getting away with it" from wreaking terrible damage. Guns are the commonly-chosen tools of this lunatics today, but a chainsaw would be horrifically effective in a closed-up room with only women and children in it. A car plowing into a crowd on a sidewalk could kill 20+. Crazy people in other parts of the world have learned to make bombs, and some Americans did, too - Eric Rudolph and Ted Kaczynski, for example. A determined crazy person can do a lot of damage.

As for an encounter with the crazy person: Given a choice between a scenario in which my wife is murdered by a (treatable) lunatic and a scenario in which she kills such an assailant in self-defense, I will choose the latter 100 times out of 100. Presumably you would do the same. There are occassions when good people genuinely are faced with a "him or me" scenario.


----------



## tocqueville

I promised Hardline a response to his remark about how the AR-15 has less power than a .30-.30 hunting rifle. Defenders of the AR-15 often make this point in defense of the weapon. It is factually correct. _All assault rifles_, as far as I know, have relatively less power than big hunting rifles or their cousins, the battle rifles that assault rifles replaced in modern armies in the 1940s-60s. I'll divide my response in two parts and explain each below. First: so what? Second: the relative low power is, counter-intuitively, part of what makes AR-15s so wicked, and why people have no more call to own one than to keep a Komodo Dragon as a pet.

*So What?
*AR-15s are not _under_-powered, they simply have _less_ power than many types of larger-calibre rifles. I'm not sure if this is supposed to reassure me. Lanza did not seem to have been hindered in any way by his gun's supposed lack of power. If you shoot a child (or you, or me) with an AR-15, the child is no less dead. I suppose a shot to the head from a big 7.62 might explode the child's head, while a 5.56 round might just take off part of the head. So what? The argument that the 5.56 is somehow "better" is macabre, since it seems to rely on such distinctions. If anything, shooting someone with a more powerful gun might be more merciful. Maybe it will bring a quicker death. Or, maybe the kid will get lucky: a higher powered round is more likely to pass through his body, whereas 5.56 rounds are notorious for zipping around inside the body, wreaking havoc. Remember, AR-15s (and M-16s,M-4s, etc., etc.) are not under powered like an under-charged bb gun. They simply have relatively less power. After all, the world's armies did not switch from high-powered battle rifles to lower-powered assault rifles out of humanitarian interest.

*Lower Power = More Wicked
*Let's talk about assault rifles. I know, I know, AR-15s arguably do not fit the definition because of the absence of a full-auto or burst mode, but let's not reduce the definition of an assault rifle to that function, for there's more to assault rifles than that, particularly the modern incarnations such as the whole M-16 family. Besides, it is my understanding that the full auto is a liability for all but professionals (who have mastered trigger control through practice, practice, practice), and then only in a combat setting in which one needs to lay down suppressive fire against people who are firing at you. Or if you maybe want to fire into a crowd. If you don't believe me, believe the US Army: As far as I know, most of the M-16s issued over the decades have had the burst rather than the full auto option out of concern for needless waste of ammo, and historically the full-auto variants were reserved for the Special Forces types, the sorts who had the kind of training and range time to be able to squeeze the trigger just right in the heat of combat. The Army, in other words, reasoned that full auto was more likely to be a liability than not. I'm willing to bet that Lanza--unless he was well trained (was he?)-- might have killed fewer kids if he had full auto because he would have torn through his ammo too quickly and with too little control. His "hit" rate would have dropped significantly as he basically sprayed the walls, floor, and ceiling. If you've ever fired an automatic, you know what I mean. Either way, the kids were NOT firing at him, and he had no need to lay down suppressive fire. Auto would not have given him an "edge" in his fight against children the way it can give an infantryman an edge in battle.

The whole point about assault rifles is that they have relatively less power. Gun designers and armies realized that battle guns had gotten too powerful in the sense that the power had gone beyond the point of diminishing returns and had become more a liability than anything else. 1. You don't need that much power to kill someone. 2. You don't need the range offered by the battle rifles or hunting rifles in modern combat (snipers are an exception, which is why they are often issued rifles more akin to hunting rifles or older battle rifles). 3. More power meant bigger and heavier ammo, which required the use of a bigger, heavier gun. They are unwieldy, awkward, clunky things. One can't fire fast. One can't carry a lot of rounds. And most of the rifles I'm familiar with of that type did not have large magazines because that would have been seriously unwieldy given the weight and size of each bullet.

So gun manufacturers came up with a compromise intended to optimize the effectiveness of a combat soldier: lower the power and size of the bullet just so much in exchange for having a gun that was easier to use (carry, aim, load, etc), fired faster, and enabled the infantryman to carry a lot more rounds. In fact, now he could use high-capacity magazines, which anyone with a modicum of training can swap out on the fly with very little interruption in his firing. The auto function is a serious plus in combat, but that's not all the assault rifle brings to a shooter. Think of it in terms of ergonomics. Ease of use. The level of skill required to be super lethal. By the time one gets from the first generation of assault rifles to today's AR-15, all these things have become more and more true. The assault rifle has become refined, such that it is lighter, easier to use, etc. etc.. It is, moreover, optimized for warfare. That's why Hitler (yes, him) dubbed it an assault rifle--it's an aggressive, offensive, thing. Attack. He had nothing to do with the gun's development, but he was a connoisseur of violence and had a way with words. He got it just right. An AR-15 is all that, minus the auto option. That makes it a far better tool for intense combat than a hunting rifle, and far better for running amok in an elementary school. An AR-15 is what they call a "force multiplier" even if it's just semi-auto.

What business is it of a civilian to own such a thing?


----------



## CuffDaddy

hardline_42 said:


> I don't understand why a standard capacity magazine is more deadly than multiple low capacity magazines that take a fraction of a second to change.


To wit:


----------



## tocqueville

CuffDaddy said:


> To wit:


Most of the time you lose track of how many rounds you've fired, and it's a surprise when you hear that clack and the bolt flies open when an AR-15 goes empty even though you're pulling the trigger. If people are firing at you, it's a dangerous thing. It also interrupts your concentration and forces you to fumble for a new mag, which hopefully is in place on your belt, pocket, or wherever. Using small mags mean you have to do this a lot. Constantly. It's definitely in a shooter's interest to have bigger mags. The better trained the shooter, the less problematic swapping mags is, but still, I can't imagine any soldier choosing many small mags over a few large ones. Their preference would be many large ones. I should add that "tactical reloads," i.e. swapping mags fast, on the fly, is something that one must practice, practice, practice, such that you can do it fast and with no fumbling. The more you have to reload, the greater the chance of screwing up. If you havn't the skill, you will screw up. Big mags make it easier for amateurs.

Mags also have to go somewhere. Pockets. Belt. Somewhere. I'm pretty sure it's easier to walk around with a lot of rounds if you have big mags rather than a bunch of little ones. You don't want to be patting the pockets of your cargo pants asking, "now where did I put that thing?"


----------



## Shaver

Haffman said:


> At least I am trying to support my arguments with evidence, however hard to find. The debate really is more nuanced than 'gun ownership is equal to gun crime" or "no guns = no crime" as you have characterised my position - these are just straw men, easier to knock down and perhaps to understand, but a pointless misrepresentation !


This from the chap who has repeatedly attempted to mischaracterise my own views on this matter. :biggrin:


----------



## mrkleen

Hitch said:


> Clearly, as demonstrated by the usual dearth of logical responses, the 'need' that is central to this issue is the 'need' for liberals to impose their desires ,through the force of law, on everyone else.


You have the balls to call out other posters on their timing of this discussion related to what happened in CT - and then you come up with this garbage? This whole, from my cold dead hands attitude is about the most distasteful thing you can reiterate less than a week after 20 little children were gunned down.

Your unfettered access to any and all weapons of your choice is going away. Most of your guns will be fine, no one cares. But some of the most extreme - weapons that were made for the battlefield are not going to be available any longer.

You can either participate in the debate with reasoned opinions, or you can be dragged to it kicking and crying about it. But change is coming. And from many of the replies out here, it couldnt happen to a nicer group of wingnuts


----------



## Hitch

mrkleen said:


> Respectfully to a person who I call a friend out here, this is as misleading as anything in this thread.
> 
> 1) No one that I have seen in 10+ pages has been "anti guns" - that is the same kind of BS rhetoric that people in the pro life movement use to call those who believe in a woman's right to choose as "pro abortion". No one is anti guns period. Many of us are simply saying, limitations on certain TYPES of guns and accessories like extended clips, silencers - as well as certain loopholes need to be closed.
> 
> 2)In the immediate aftermath of a tragedy, of course it is easiest for people to look at the most inflammatory part of the story first. But to suggest no one is talking about mental health is patently FALSE.
> 
> The governor of Colorado - John Hickenlooper came out yesterday with a new plan to revamp the mental health system in his state and *specifically spoke of the incident in Newtown*.
> 
> You are right, guns are not the only problem here. But without semi automatic weapons and hundreds of bullets, this would have had a much different outcome. After years of kicking the can down the road and being intimidated by the mighty NRA and the gun lobby - this is the tipping point. As the incidents grow more frequent and the bodies of innocent men, women and children pile up - guns clearly are PART of the problem. To suggest otherwise shows a serious disconnection with the reality of the situation.


Hmmmm lets connect to reality;

Its a terrible tragedy when a gun toting crazy murders more than 20 innocent people, especially when the majority were little kids.

Since Friday right about 15,000 little kids have been ground up and disposed of,for profit.

Yep" guns are not the (only) problem."


----------



## hardline_42

tocqueville said:


> I promised Hardline a response to his remark about how the AR-15 has less power than a .30-.30 hunting rifle...


Tocque, excellent post, rife with accurate information. I can't refute any of your facts as you've presented them and I even made reference to the military's reasoning behind switching to the .223 down from the .30-06 of WWII in my previous posts.

But how, then, is the AR-15 at its deadliest as you've described (semi-auto only), any different from any other semi-auto rifle in .223 or larger? Lanza wasn't dealing with return fire. I doubt he had to flush anyone out from behind cover (concealment, perhaps). He was shooting unarmed women and children in a classroom, for Christ's sake. This has been the scenario for most of these types of shootings (close to medium range, little to no resistance, calculated rate of fire). He could've used a Mini 14, or a lever action rifle or even a Ruger 10/22 and achieved similar devastation.

As someone familiar with firearms, what is your opinion on why these shooters chose military-style weapons for situations where a) they know they won't receive any resistance and where b) they don't plan on making it out alive and have committed suicide at the first sign of police when a cheaper, more easily available, but less evil-looking firearm will do just fine?


----------



## Hitch

mrkleen said:


> You have the balls to call out other posters on their timing of this discussion related to what happened in CT - and then you come up with this garbage? This whole, from my cold dead hands attitude is about the most distasteful thing you can reiterate less than a week after 20 little children were gunned down.
> 
> Your unfettered access to any and all weapons of your choice is going away. Most of your guns will be fine, no one cares. But some of the most extreme - weapons that were made for the battlefield are not going to be available any longer.
> 
> You can either participate in the debate with reasoned opinions, or you can be dragged to it kicking and crying about it. But change is coming. And from many of the replies out here, it couldnt happen to a nicer group of wingnuts


_Clearly, as demonstrated by the usual dearth of logical responses, the 'need' that is central to this issue is the 'need' for liberals to impose their desires ,through the force of law, on everyone else.

You can always count on a liberal to make your point _


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> Hmmmm lets connect to reality;
> 
> Its a terrible tragedy when a gun toting crazy murders more than 20 innocent people, especially when the majority were little kids.
> 
> *Since Friday right about 15,000 little kids have been ground up and disposed of,for profit.*
> 
> Yep" guns are not the (only) problem."


Would you mind clarifying? I'm afraid I don't understand that.


----------



## tocqueville

Bjorn said:


> He also owned slaves that he had whipped, that worked for him in in humane conditions with no pay, no rights. Which would be a crime today.
> 
> Just pointing out that times change and George Washington will not change with them. But we must.


My thoughts exactly.

Washington's sentiments also didn't stop him from leading an army to put down a tax revolt. And we all know what the Constitution had to say about the worth of black people and slavery.

Let's please remember what the function of a militia was in the 18th century (a time when there was no police force, and no standing army). Let's also remember that there is a RADICAL difference between 18th century firearms and modern firearms. You CANNOT commit a massacre using a musket-loading flintlock gun. Imagine what would have happened had Lanza stormed into that school carrying a Brown Bess, a powder horn, and a bag of shot....


----------



## hardline_42

Shaver said:


> Would you mind clarifying? I'm afraid I don't understand that.


I imagine it's a reference to abortion.


----------



## CuffDaddy

mrkleen said:


> Your unfettered access to any and all weapons of your choice is going away.


Genuine question: Would fettered access be OK with you? What if someone who wanted to own a semi-automatic, detachable-magazine rifle had to go through the same process required for obtaining a fully-automatic firearm (or silencer) today? Would a more fullsome licensing program, which would include some face-to-face interaction with some law enforcement type (perhaps to give authorities a chance to notice that someone is unhinged), satisfy you?


----------



## tocqueville

hardline_42 said:


> Tocque, excellent post, rife with accurate information. I can't refute any of your facts as you've presented them and I even made reference to the military's reasoning behind switching to the .223 down from the .30-06 of WWII in my previous posts.
> 
> But how, then, is the AR-15 at its deadliest as you've described (semi-auto only), any different from any other semi-auto rifle in .223 or larger? Lanza wasn't dealing with return fire. I doubt he had to flush anyone out from behind cover (concealment, perhaps). He was shooting unarmed women and children in a classroom, for Christ's sake. This has been the scenario for most of these types of shootings (close to medium range, little to no resistance, calculated rate of fire). He could've used a Mini 14, or a lever action rifle or even a Ruger 10/22 and achieved similar devastation.
> 
> As someone familiar with firearms, what is your opinion on why these shooters chose military-style weapons for situations where a) they know they won't receive any resistance and where b) they don't plan on making it out alive and have committed suicide at the first sign of police when a cheaper, more easily available, but less evil-looking firearm will do just fine?


I'll be brief, but only because i have a ton of work to do...some of this is plainly cultural. That's why Glocks are so popular, since they've become iconic. I mean, security services have good reasons for choosing Glocks, but I doubt that the folks who select them to go murder people think through their choice in so rational a way.

There are a lot of guns that are as lethal as an AR-15. That doesn't get the AR-15 off the hook. I'm also not convinced he could have wreaked as much havoc with a lever-action. And an AR-15 makes it particularly easy for an amateur to kill a lot of people. There's no art involved in it. No marksmanship or skill. It's like using a nail gun vice having to be deft with a hammer. Point and shoot.

We should note that Lanza apparently grabbed the AR-15 because it was there. His mother (was it his mother?) bought it because she seemed to think she would need a combat weapon, not a hunting rifle, for the apocalypse or something. By the way, an AR-15 is a poor choice for fighting zombies, but that's another topic.


----------



## mrkleen

Hitch said:


> _Clearly, as demonstrated by the usual dearth of logical responses, the 'need' that is central to this issue is the 'need' for liberals to impose their desires ,through the force of law, on everyone else.
> 
> You can always count on a liberal to make your point _


And you can always count on conservatives - who just had the ass handed to them in the election - to continue to piss and moan all the way to the negotiating table.

The fact that you are unwilling to meet those who are asking for reasonable gun safety restrictions speaks VOLUMES about you.


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> Would you mind clarifying? I'm afraid I don't understand that.


  Originally Posted by *mrkleen*https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=1353671#post1353671_Respectfully to a person who I call a friend out here, this is as misleading as anything in this thread.

1) No one that I have seen in 10+ pages has been "anti guns" - that is the same kind of BS rhetoric that people in the pro life movement use to call those who believe in a woman's right to choose as "pro abortion". No one is anti guns period. Many of us are simply saying, limitations on certain TYPES of guns and accessories like extended clips, silencers - as well as certain loopholes need to be closed.__


It is a direct comparison. A terrible murder of 20 tiny children is indeed terrible. At the same time many of those screaming for more restrictions on law abiding citizens,(gun control) turn a blind eye to and are often supporters of the 'legal' slaughter of innocents in abortion mills. The figure I used reflects the 3,000 + murders concealed in abortion clinics daily in the US. And of course these same folks want to claim some Fantasy Island of moral superiority.

My earlier point ,that the 'need' in this issue of the constant 'need' of liberals to enforce their own agenda ,by law, is well demonstrated as the slaughter of innocents is not of any real concern . As they say 'follow the money' .

Is there a lower form of life than one who actively and purposefully slaughters children for money ?

_


----------



## mrkleen

CuffDaddy said:


> Genuine question: Would fettered access be OK with you? What if someone who wanted to own a semi-automatic, detachable-magazine rifle had to go through the same process required for obtaining a fully-automatic firearm (or silencer) today? Would a more fullsome licensing program, which would include some face-to-face interaction with some law enforcement type (perhaps to give authorities a chance to notice that someone is unhinged), satisfy you?


In a word, yes.

I believe in your right to own a weapon - in your right to own multiple weapons. But when you start to get into semi-automatic and automatic weapons - with extended clips, I think restrictions need to be MUCH MORE stringent. Most people who walk into Walmart to buy an Bushmaster 223 - do not have any reasonable need for it, and should be denied.

If you have a reasonable need for a assault weapon - you should need to pass extensive background checks, including as you suggested - meeting with law enforcement for an in person assessment.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

mrkleen said:


> If you have a reasonable need for a assault weapon


Please profile for me any civilian in the US with a civilian job that has ANY need for an assault weapon?

Desire? Yea, but NEED? No way that I can see.


----------



## mrkleen

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Please profile for me any civilian in the US with a civilian job that has ANY need for an assault weapon?
> 
> Desire? Yea, but NEED? No way that I can see.


I agree.....but just because I couldnt think of a legitimate reason, I didnt want to assume that there werent any.


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> Originally Posted by *mrkleen*https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=1353671#post1353671_Respectfully to a person who I call a friend out here, this is as misleading as anything in this thread.
> 
> 1) No one that I have seen in 10+ pages has been "anti guns" - that is the same kind of BS rhetoric that people in the pro life movement use to call those who believe in a woman's right to choose as "pro abortion". No one is anti guns period. Many of us are simply saying, limitations on certain TYPES of guns and accessories like extended clips, silencers - as well as certain loopholes need to be closed.__
> 
> 
> It is a direct comparison. A terrible murder of 20 tiny children is indeed terrible. At the same time many of those screaming for more restrictions on law abiding citizens,(gun control) turn a blind eye to and are often supporters of the 'legal' slaughter of innocents in abortion mills. The figure I used reflects the 3,000 + murders concealed in abortion clinics daily in the US. And of course these same folks want to claim some Fantasy Island of moral superiority.
> 
> My earlier point ,that the 'need' in this issue of the constant 'need' of liberals to enforce their own agenda ,by law, is well demonstrated as the slaughter of innocents is not of any real concern . As they say 'follow the money' .
> 
> _


Unfortunately many people allow convenience to dictate their morality and then endeavour to establish a framework of facts to support that muddled position.


----------



## hardline_42

tocqueville said:


> I'll be brief, but only because i have a ton of work to do...some of this is plainly cultural. That's why Glocks are so popular, since they've become iconic. I mean, security services have good reasons for choosing Glocks, but I doubt that the folks who select them to go murder people think through their choice in so rational a way.
> 
> There are a lot of guns that are as lethal as an AR-15. That doesn't get the AR-15 off the hook. I'm also not convinced he could have wreaked as much havoc with a lever-action. And an AR-15 makes it particularly easy for an amateur to kill a lot of people. There's no art involved in it. No marksmanship or skill. It's like using a nail gun vice having to be deft with a hammer. Point and shoot.


Yes, I think it is cultural. The iconic picture of Seung-Hui Cho dual-wielding his Glock/Walther pistols is reminiscent of just about any action movie poster out there. My point is simply that, if the choice of firearm(s) used in these massacres is so heavily influenced by culture, does the firearm bear the blame, or is it something else? I know it's probably insensitive, but I can't help looking at these shooters and seeing pathetic, mall-ninja, fanboys who probably stay up all night playing Call of Duty or something. Couple that disconnect from reality with a preexisting mental condition and a desire to be the "hero" in your own fantasy and I think you've got a recipe for suck.


----------



## hardline_42

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Please profile for me any civilian in the US with a civilian job that has ANY need for an assault weapon?
> 
> Desire? Yea, but NEED? No way that I can see.


Can you please define "assault weapon?" I'm not trying to argue semantics. I'd really like to try and answer your request, if possible.


----------



## tocqueville

hardline_42 said:


> Yes, I think it is cultural. The iconic picture of Seung-Hui Cho dual-wielding his Glock/Walther pistols is reminiscent of just about any action movie poster out there. My point is simply that, if the choice of firearm(s) used in these massacres is so heavily influenced by culture, does the firearm bear the blame, or is it something else? I know it's probably insensitive, but I can't help looking at these shooters and seeing pathetic, mall-ninja, fanboys who probably stay up all night playing Call of Duty or something. Couple that disconnect from reality with a preexisting mental condition and a desire to be the "hero" in your own fantasy and I think you've got a recipe for suck.


I agree with all of this save the part about letting guns off the hook. It took a real Glock to shoot up VTech.


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> Unfortunately many people allow convenience to dictate their morality and then endeavour to establish a framework of facts to support that muddled position.


 It is a sad reality.

Consider;

Had those children been murdered 5 or 6 years earlier in a government sanctioned facility ,Obama and the other liberals would have congradulated the "Dr'' on a job well done and vowed to makes certain the 'right' to slaughter children would be protected.


----------



## hardline_42

tocqueville said:


> I agree with all of this save the part about letting guns off the hook. It took a real Glock to shoot up VTech.


That, right there, is what you call "progress!" 
Now, I don't have to tell you that gun laws have been getting tighter and tighter since the 1930s. We both live in places that are "bastions of gun control," and our respective local laws are much stricter than they are for the average Middle American. I don't think guns are "off the hook" in NJ and DC. Not by a long shot. Most of the stuff people are wanting to ban is already illegal here. However, I don't particularly feel safer because of it, and the crime stats bear this out. So, how about furiously enforcing the laws that exist with mandatory jail time, no plea bargaining, no parole, and a focus on attacking the problem from the cultural end as well?


----------



## Mike Petrik

tocqueville said:


> She means well but does not count.


Half right.


----------



## Hitch

hardline_42 said:


> Yes, I think it is cultural. The iconic picture of Seung-Hui Cho dual-wielding his Glock/Walther pistols is reminiscent of just about any action movie poster out there. My point is simply that, if the choice of firearm(s) used in these massacres is so heavily influenced by culture, does the firearm bear the blame, or is it something else? I know it's probably insensitive, but I can't help looking at these shooters and seeing pathetic, mall-ninja, fanboys who probably stay up all night playing Call of Duty or something. Couple that disconnect from reality with a preexisting mental condition and a desire to be the "hero" in your own fantasy and I think you've got a recipe for suck.


It does seem to be a young white male thing.


----------



## Jovan

Hitch said:


> It is a sad reality.
> 
> Consider;
> 
> Had those children been murdered 5 or 6 years earlier in a government sanctioned facility ,Obama and the other liberals would have congradulated the "Dr'' on a job well done and vowed to makes certain the 'right' to slaughter children would be protected.


I'm sorry... _what_ does this have to do with gun control? Did you seriously try to steer this thread in the direction of abortion? Hitch, you are adding nothing substantive to this thread. And I say that when I and others have been prone to emotional posts!


----------



## Hitch

BTW In the earlier incident out here the shooter was confronted by a man with an automatic pistol, the man with the pistol declined to shoot as other shoppers were in his line of fire. At that point the shooter broke and ran, shortly later to take his own life.


----------



## Hitch

Jovan said:


> I'm sorry... _what_ does this have to do with gun control? Did you seriously try to steer this thread in the direction of abortion? Hitch, you are adding nothing substantive to this thread. And I say that when I and others have been prone to emotional posts!


 You are free to pretend the casual disregard for human life has no connection to this type of crime, maybe reality aint your thing.(Since you dont like my posts - This forum includes an ignore feature )

You are not free to blame me for bringing up abortion.

See post #266

But if it helps I can understand why it troubles you.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond

WouldaShoulda said:


> The well intended believe one can simply slow crazy down long enough for the cops to show up.


Unfortunately, weapons are the easy fall-guy in this debate. I agree that the well-intentioned believe that we can ban weapons and everything will be fine and dandy.

However, the real issue is this, "How does a person get to a place where it is OK to kill other people?" The answer to that question touches on basic questions on how we function as a society. It touches on mental health issues. It touches on the willfull ignoring of bullying in school by administrators. It touches on the lack of respect for human life in our society. It touches on the lack of sincere belief in God and his commandments. It touches on the valid question of whether or not most parents are good parents. It touches on the selling of violence through video games and movies to our children. No one is guilty. Everyone is guilty. These are tough issues to tackle...and so the majority concentrate on the easy target, weapons.


----------



## mrkleen

Hitch said:


> You are free to pretend the casual disregard for human life has no connection to this type of crime, maybe reality aint your thing.( This forum includes an ignore feature )
> 
> You are not free to blame me for bringing up abortion.
> 
> See post #266
> 
> But if it helps I can understand why it troubles you.


Hitch - you are nothing but a TROLL. Sorry I wasted my time trying to have a reasonable debate with you.


----------



## hardline_42

Hitch said:


> BTW In the earlier incident out here the shooter was confronted by a man with an automatic pistol, the man with the pistol declined to shoot as other shoppers were in his line of fire. At that point the shooter broke and ran, shortly later to take his own life.


I haven't seen any confirmation of this besides his interview video, but it might explain why only two people were killed before the killer turned the gun on himself. His firearm was a Glock 22 SEMI-auto. No need to post confusing information.


----------



## Hitch

mrkleen said:


> Hitch - you are nothing but a TROLL. Sorry I wasted my time trying to have a reasonable debate with you.


Typical


----------



## Hitch

hardline_42 said:


> I haven't seen any confirmation of this besides his interview video, but it might explain why only two people were killed before the killer turned the gun on himself. His firearm was a Glock 22 SEMI-auto.


 Point taken. I forget that some folks dont understand that.


> No need to post confusing information.


----------



## Hitch

Snow Hill Pond said:


> Unfortunately, weapons are the easy fall-guy in this debate. I agree that the well-intentioned believe that we can ban weapons and everything will be fine and dandy.
> 
> However, the real issue is this, "How does a person get to a place where it is OK to kill other people?" The answer to that question touches on basic questions on how we function as a society. It touches on mental health issues. It touches on the willfull ignoring of bullying in school by administrators. It touches on the lack of respect for human life in our society. It touches on the lack of sincere belief in God and his commandments. It touches on the valid question of whether or not most parents are good parents. It touches on the selling of violence through video games and movies to our children. No one is guilty. Everyone is guilty. These are tough issues to tackle...and so the majority concentrate on the easy target, weapons.


Worth repeating.


----------



## hardline_42

Snow Hill Pond said:


> Unfortunately, weapons are the easy fall-guy in this debate. I agree that the well-intentioned believe that we can ban weapons and everything will be fine and dandy.
> 
> However, the real issue is this, "How does a person get to a place where it is OK to kill other people?" The answer to that question touches on basic questions on how we function as a society. It touches on mental health issues. It touches on the willfull ignoring of bullying in school by administrators. It touches on the lack of respect for human life in our society. It touches on the lack of sincere belief in God and his commandments. It touches on the valid question of whether or not most parents are good parents. It touches on the selling of violence through video games and movies to our children. No one is guilty. Everyone is guilty. These are tough issues to tackle...and so the majority concentrate on the easy target, weapons.


Spot on, SHP. These are indeed tough issues to tackle. They require introspection, and frankly, I don't think anyone wants to confront what we've become as a society. To give up those things you touch on would mean giving up the freedom to set our moral compass however we chose. That, it would seem, is too high a price to pay.


----------



## Jovan

Snow Hill Pond said:


> Unfortunately, weapons are the easy fall-guy in this debate. I agree that the well-intentioned believe that we can ban weapons and everything will be fine and dandy.
> 
> However, the real issue is this, "How does a person get to a place where it is OK to kill other people?" The answer to that question touches on basic questions on how we function as a society. It touches on mental health issues. It touches on the willfull ignoring of bullying in school by administrators. It touches on the lack of respect for human life in our society. It touches on the lack of sincere belief in God and his commandments. It touches on the valid question of whether or not most parents are good parents. It touches on the selling of violence through video games and movies to our children. No one is guilty. Everyone is guilty. These are tough issues to tackle...and so the majority concentrate on the easy target, weapons.


Exactly what I was trying to say pages ago.


----------



## eagle2250

tocqueville said:


> I'll be brief, but only because i have a ton of work to do...some of this is plainly cultural. That's why Glocks are so popular, since they've become iconic. I mean, security services have good reasons for choosing Glocks, but I doubt that the folks who select them to go murder people think through their choice in so rational a way.
> 
> There are a lot of guns that are as lethal as an AR-15. That doesn't get the AR-15 off the hook. I'm also not convinced he could have wreaked as much havoc with a lever-action. And an AR-15 makes it particularly easy for an amateur to kill a lot of people. There's no art involved in it. No marksmanship or skill. It's like using a nail gun vice having to be deft with a hammer. Point and shoot.
> 
> We should note that Lanza apparently grabbed the AR-15 because it was there. His mother (was it his mother?) bought it because she seemed to think she would need a combat weapon, not a hunting rifle, for the apocalypse or something. By the way, an AR-15 is a poor choice for fighting zombies, but that's another topic.


My friend, many of the nail gun designs sold in our hardware stores and widely available throughout the construction industry, exhibit similar rates of fire (as quickly as the operator pulls the trigger, the guns discharge a nail) and the strips of nails fed into them reflect greater capacity than any clips available for an AR-15. Unfortunately, in the recent shooting tragedy you originally referenced, the shooter could have proven just as deadly, even if he had been armed with the right nail gun. Should we also ban nail guns?

Also, there are some of us hunters that think an AR-15 rifle design, chambered in a .308 caliber, would make a pretty fine brush gun...it's light weight, it's maneuverable and a bull-nosed .308 round will not be deflected as easily by twig/smaller branches.

While they may provide a false sense that we are doing something substantive, knee-jerk reactions rarely provide the best long term solutions!


----------



## db601

"Someone earlier in this thread posted this link, 


Has anyone else read it? I found it quite interesting. 

And thanks, whoever posted it earlier."

One of the authors to this report is named "Mauser". Should we expect him to be unbiased in the positions he takes?

DB601


----------



## db601

I've never owned a gun in my life, but it is a constitutionally protected right. I'm fervent in my views on free speech. If anyone opened up the constitution to tinker on individual rights, I'd be there with the NRA for common cause.

The more direct attack on crimes of this nature would be institutionalization for homicidal thoughts and fantasies before they are actually carried out. But then, how many might be taken off the streets for thoughts they would never put into action? The Newtown shootings were awful, tragic. But how can it be prevented without reductions in personal liberty that are fundamental to the fabric of a free society?

DB601


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

By assault weapon the media and I mean the same thing : automatic or semi-automatic military or military style submachine guns and assualt rifles.


----------



## Haffman

Snow Hill Pond said:


> However, the real issue is this, "How does a person get to a place where it is OK to kill other people?"


With respect, while the origins of homicidal impulses are of course important, I do not think this is the real issue here at all. The real issue is the _ready availability of purpose-designed efficient weapons _for civilians, some of whom will _inevitably_ have homicidal urges. As someone previously stated, military-designed and military-inspired weapons simply make the job of killing scores of people (and resulting in fatality rather than injury) so much easier. Knife-wielding spree killers, at least those that I am aware of, will not be able to achieve such a tally of kills before their murderous fugue burns itself out and/or they are apprehended by the authorities. The successful murder of 26 people was made possible in minutes with the use of automatic weapons. As I have previously stated, there were 69 such murders in a short amount of time in Norway. It's just not credible that such murderers would have achieved such a kill tally in such a short time period without access to military-style weapons. _They should not be available to civilians_.



eagle2250 said:


> While they may provide a false sense that we are doing something substantive, knee-jerk reactions rarely provide the best long term solutions!


I think this thread bears adequate witness to the long-standing views on this topic held by some members. Calling their opinions 'knee jerk' now is hardly a reasonable position.


----------



## Jovan

db601 said:


> "Someone earlier in this thread posted this link,
> 
> Has anyone else read it? I found it quite interesting.
> 
> And thanks, whoever posted it earlier."
> 
> One of the authors to this report is named "Mauser". Should we expect him to be unbiased in the positions he takes?
> 
> DB601


This is a joke, right? The Mauser company as we know it has been defunct for 17 years and he has no connection to it. It's mere coincidence.


----------



## hardline_42

Earl of Ormonde said:


> By assault weapon the media and I mean the same thing : automatic or semi-automatic military or military style submachine guns and assualt rifles.


I had hoped to not have to argue nomenclature, but that list is a hot mess. Can you distinguish between them and maybe be a bit more specific? I already know the media doesn't know anything about guns but you're claiming I don't "need" something and, therefore shouldn't be allowed to have it, but you don't have a very clear idea of what that "something" is.


----------



## eagle2250

^^(in response to post #331)
Haffman, I might be inclined to agree wholeheartedly with your comments...if we also were going to ban any violence in our movies, TV shows and video games; if we were gong to incarcerate or porvide effective status monitoring and control (as necessary) for those demonstrating substantial mental instability, with a propensity towards violence; etc. Where do you suggest we stop, Sir?


----------



## mrkleen

The same people in this thread who are trying to deflect attention from "guns", towards the mental health part of the equation.....are the first to line up and lecture us about all the cuts we need to make the "social programs". Hypocrisy at its finest.


----------



## hardline_42

It seems like some people are allergic to facts.



Haffman said:


> With respect, while the origins of homicidal impulses are of course important, I do not think this is the real issue here at all. The real issue is the _ready availability of purpose-designed efficient weapons _for civilians, some of whom will _inevitably_ have homicidal urges.


The availability of firearms, regardless of their make, has ZERO correlation to the amount of homicides. This has been borne out again and again, study after study.



Haffman said:


> As someone previously stated, military-designed and military-inspired weapons simply make the job of killing scores of people (and resulting in fatality rather than injury) so much easier.


No. Given the circumstances, the same results (or worse) can be had with plenty of other non-controversial, easily-obtainable firearms. There is nothing special about the potency of the round or the rate of fire of the firearms you describe. Military-style firearms are only cosmetically/accessorially different from similar sporting and hunting rifles.



Haffman said:


> Knife-wielding spree killers, at least those that I am aware of, will not be able to achieve such a tally of kills before their murderous fugue burns itself out and/or they are apprehended by the authorities.


I see two options in your scenario: wait for the knife-wielder to tire out or wait for the authorities. I see no option for defending yourself. Was that purposely left out, or simply a product of your personal stance on the matter? Is self-defense an option for you? Be aware that I will ask you to follow your response to its logical conclusion.



Haffman said:


> The successful murder of 26 people was made possible in minutes with the use of automatic weapons.


Nope. Wrong. No automatic weapons used.



Haffman said:


> It's just not credible that such murderers would have achieved such a kill tally in such a short time period without access to military-style weapons. _They should not be available to civilians_.


You don't have much experience around firearms, this is clear.


----------



## Haffman

hardline_42 said:


> It seems like some people are allergic to facts.
> 
> The availability of firearms, regardless of their make, has ZERO correlation to the amount of homicides. This has been borne out again and again, study after study.
> 
> No. Given the circumstances, the same results (or worse) can be had with plenty of other non-controversial, easily-obtainable firearms. There is nothing special about the potency of the round or the rate of fire of the firearms you describe. Military-style firearms are only cosmetically/accessorially different from similar sporting and hunting rifles.
> 
> I see two options in your scenario: wait for the knife-wielder to tire out or wait for the authorities. I see no option for defending yourself. Was that purposely left out, or simply a product of your personal stance on the matter? Is self-defense an option for you? Be aware that I will ask you to follow your response to its logical conclusion.
> 
> Nope. Wrong. No automatic weapons used.
> 
> You don't have much experience around firearms, this is clear.


Hardline, I think calling me "allergic to facts" is a little provocative and unfair. I could have been much harder on you about your complete ignorance about the historical origins of the AR-15, which you took me to task with in previous sections. Let's keep it polite? You say I don't have much experience around firearms, I have stated previously that I actually have a fair amount of experience with shotguns, pistols and assault rifles. If you don't believe that military-style weapons are more effective for killing, which was my point after all,_then why for goodness sake are they used by the military?
_
As for your self-defence argument, most of the victims involved in the recent school shooting and the Norwegian shooting were children, adolescents and women. I fundamentally disagree with the presumption that a safer society is made by civilian access to weapons for self-defence in fact I think the opposite is true. I have previously stated the murder rates (including gun related homicide) rates in the UK versus the USA. Unless you think there is something inherently murderous about Americans, I wonder what you think the discrepancy might be?


----------



## Haffman

eagle2250 said:


> ^^(in response to post #331)
> Haffman, I might be inclined to agree wholeheartedly with your comments...if we also were going to ban any violence in our movies, TV shows and video games; if we were gong to incarcerate or porvide effective status monitoring and control (as necessary) for those demonstrating substantial mental instability, with a propensity towards violence; etc. Where do you suggest we stop, Sir?


Eagle, I assume that you believe in restrictions to civilian access placed on certain items - child pornography, snuff movies, land mines, highly radioactive materials, certain chemicals?

I think we can accept that certain limits are placed on our freedoms as part of living as civilians in a civilised modern society?

I am not an extremist. There is a solution to this problem between allowing untrammelled access to all kinds of firearms and completely banning civilians from any access to firearms.


----------



## Flairball

db601 said:


> "Someone earlier in this thread posted this link,
> 
> Has anyone else read it? I found it quite interesting.
> 
> And thanks, whoever posted it earlier."
> 
> One of the authors to this report is named "Mauser". Should we expect him to be unbiased in the positions he takes?
> 
> DB601


You didn't read it, did you?

It really is eye opening, and comes to some conclusions that people on both sides of the argument won't like.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

hardline_42 said:


> I had hoped to not have to argue nomenclature, but that list is a hot mess. Can you distinguish between them and maybe be a bit more specific? I already know the media doesn't know anything about guns but you're claiming I don't "need" something and, therefore shouldn't be allowed to have it, but you don't have a very clear idea of what that "something" is.


Well, it's remarkably clear to me.


----------



## hardline_42

Haffman said:


> Hardline, I think calling me "allergic to facts" is a little provocative and unfair. I could have been much harder on you about your complete ignorance about the historical origins of the AR-15, which you took me to task with in previous sections. Let's keep it polite? You say I don't have much experience around firearms, I have stated previously that I actually have a fair amount of experience with shotguns, pistols and assault rifles. If you don't believe that military-style weapons are more effective for killing, which was my point after all,_then why for goodness sake are they used by the military?_


I apologize for being curt (I was only half-serious about the last part, though clearly, it didn't read). "Military" firearms and "military-style" firearms are not one and the same. It seems we don't agree on this when it comes to the AR-15. Military-style firearms are NOT used by the military. They are, however, preferred by civilians for self-defense, hunting (yes, hunting), competition and target shooting for many reasons (flexible platform, interchangeable calibers, availability of ammo, light recoil, easy to customize, etc.). They are functionally IDENTICAL to similar sporting and hunting rifles.



Haffman said:


> As for your self-defence argument, most of the victims involved in the recent school shooting and the Norwegian shooting were children, adolescents and women. I fundamentally disagree with the presumption that a safer society is made by civilian access to weapons for self-defence in fact I think the opposite is true.


I urge you to please look at some of the studies done with regards to a correlation between (civilian) availability of guns and crime (there are several). The relationship is actually inverse.



Haffman said:


> I have previously stated the murder rates (including gun related homicide) rates in the UK versus the USA. Unless you think there is something inherently murderous about Americans, I wonder what you think the discrepancy might be?


Please read, starting on page .


----------



## CuffDaddy

mrkleen said:


> The same people in this thread who are trying to deflect attention from "guns", towards the mental health part of the equation.....are the first to line up and lecture us about all the cuts we need to make the "social programs". Hypocrisy at its finest.


Also false. FWIW, I vote for Democrats almost all of the time, occassionally for independents, and have never voted for a Republican even once. I am not against government, nor against government regulation in the public interest. I want only that regulation, though, that is likely to get the desired result. You may disagree, but I have grave doubts that gun control will do that.


----------



## CuffDaddy

mrkleen said:


> If you have a reasonable need for a assault weapon - you should need to pass extensive background checks, including as you suggested - meeting with law enforcement for an in person assessment.


So hoops to jump through aren't enough, the prospective owner would have to demonstrate a "need"? We don't even require that for legal machine guns today, which are NEVER used in crimes.


----------



## Hitch

mrkleen said:


> The same people in this thread who are trying to deflect attention from "guns", towards the mental health part of the equation.....are the first to line up and lecture us about all the cuts we need to make the "social programs". Hypocrisy at its finest.


Your brush is too wide for the screen . But on the other hand , I cant recall any 'school shootings' before schools started handing out condoms.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Haffman said:


> I fundamentally disagree with the presumption that a safer society is made by civilian access to weapons for self-defence in fact I think the opposite is true.


That's the core of the argument. 95% of those who are skeptical of gun control are not so because we don't care about safety, crime, etc. We think the world operates one way. Those in favor of gun control think it operates a different way. Nobody wants a worse result - we just disagree about what inputs will make better results.


----------



## mrkleen

CuffDaddy said:


> So hoops to jump through aren't enough, the prospective owner would have to demonstrate a "need"? We don't even require that for legal machine guns today, which are NEVER used in crimes.


Cuff - i dont really care if you agree or not. This is the way it is going. Like it or dont, makes no difference to me.


----------



## Jovan

Hitch said:


> Your brush is too wide for the screen . But on the other hand , I cant recall any 'school shootings' before schools started handing out condoms.


Wait what? I seriously, seriously, SERIOUSLY hope this is a joke. Are you now trying to correlate teenage sex with school shootings?


----------



## Hitch

CuffDaddy said:


> So hoops to jump through aren't enough, the prospective owner would have to demonstrate a "need"? We don't even require that for legal machine guns today, which are NEVER used in crimes.


I think we NEED a national drawing. We'll all draw a number, the odds get to decide what the evens 'need' and therefore will be allowed to obtain. Sound good?


----------



## Hitch

Jovan said:


> Wait what? I seriously, seriously, SERIOUSLY hope this is a joke. Are you now trying to correlate teenage sex with school shootings?


_. But on the other hand , I cant recall any 'school shootings' before schools started handing out condoms

Can you?_


----------



## Jovan

Wow, you are a troll. That or just a really bad Republican stereotype farted out from the bowels of Fox News.


----------



## mrkleen

Hitch said:


> But on the other hand , I cant recall any 'school shootings' before schools started handing out condoms.


Seems your "recollection" like most of your reasoning in this thread has failed you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States


----------



## tocqueville

Hitch said:


> Your brush is too wide for the screen . But on the other hand , I cant recall any 'school shootings' before schools started handing out condoms.


You forgot to mention school prayer.


----------



## Jovan

He's gone through every conservative Christian stereotype so far. More than WA did when he participated here. It's only a matter of time.


----------



## tocqueville

Speaking of farts from Fox News:


----------



## Hitch

mrkleen said:


> Seems your "recollection" like most of your reasoning in this thread has failed you.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States


This is a chronological list of *school shootings in the United States*.


> Prior to 1*989, there were only a handful of incidents* in which two or more non-perpetrators were killed by firearms at a school, including the 1966 University of Texas massacre, the 1974 Olean High School shooting, the 1976 California State University, Fullerton massacre, and the 1979 Cleveland Elementary School shooting (the 1927 Bath School disaster was a bombing, not a shooting, with a firearm used only to detonate explosives). From 1989 to 2012, there have been at least 40 such incidents.


Emphasis added. Of those mentioned I dont think the first two fit very well but I'll grant the Cleveland Elementary School shooting fits petty well.


----------



## Hitch

Jovan said:


> He's gone through every conservative Christian stereotype so far. More than WA did when he participated here. It's only a matter of time.


_.

_*Jovan* 
*Honors Member*

Join DateMarch 6th, 2006LocationAlbuquerque, New Mexico, USAPosts10,291​

_
Originally Posted by *Snow Hill Pond* https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=1353762#post1353762
Unfortunately, weapons are the easy fall-guy in this debate. I agree that the well-intentioned believe that we can ban weapons and everything will be fine and dandy.

However, the real issue is this, "How does a person get to a place where it is OK to kill other people?" The answer to that question touches on basic questions on how we function as a society. It touches on mental health issues. It touches on the willfull ignoring of bullying in school by administrators. It touches on the lack of respect for human life in our society. It touches on the lack of sincere belief in God and his commandments. It touches on the valid ""question of whether or not most parents are good parents. It touches on the selling of violence through video games and movies to our children. No one is guilty. Everyone is guilty. These are tough issues to tackle...and so the majority concentrate on the easy target, weapons.

_

Exactly what I was trying to say pages ago."

Hmmmm, So which face were you using?​


----------



## Bjorn

Hitch said:


> So does that mean the Swedes wouldnt kiss Hitler's backside now?


Sticks and stones, old boy


----------



## Hitch

Jovan said:


> Wait what? I seriously, seriously, SERIOUSLY hope this is a joke. Are you now trying to correlate teenage sex with school shootings?


 Are you so naive to think teenage sex began in the '90s? LMAO


----------



## Mike Petrik

Jovan said:


> Wait what? I seriously, seriously, SERIOUSLY hope this is a joke. Are you now trying to correlate teenage sex with school shootings?


The correlation does not have to be causal in order to exist. I suspect Daniel Patrick Moynihan would be in agreement with Hitch's essential point, which is we have been and continue to be on the path of relaxing social and moral standards as we define deviency down.


----------



## Hitch

tocqueville said:


> Speaking of farts from Fox News:


Well duh,As a conservative patriot he likes shooting children, right ? Thats what some screwball said here the other day.

Oh yeah the dreaded unspeakable F-- News, Im sure for practice he runs over puppies with a massive 4 wheel drive.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

I could say a lot more on this, about how real incidents usually don't play out as they do in training & most people don't carry their home defence weapon on their person all the time while at home & most people are terrible shots even at close range & especially in real life adrenalin fueled situations & we could discuss this till the cows come home but I think it's pointless because culturally anti-gun Europe is galaxies away from pro-gun USA. 

American society is broken! If the responses to this issue in the media and on forums are anything to go by.
Defending the undefendable is indefensible in my opinion.


----------



## Jovan

Hitch said:


> Are you so naive to think teenage sex began in the '90s? LMAO


That's not what I'm saying and you know it.

Are you so naive as to believe that a piece of latex is causing people to flip out and shoot up schools? I can play this game, too.



Mike Petrik said:


> The correlation does not have to be causal in order to exist. I suspect Daniel Patrick Moynihan would be in agreement with Hitch's essential point, which is we have been and continue to be on the path of relaxing social and moral standards as we define deviency down.


Since when is watching out for our children's health and making sure they don't end up on Teen Mom "deviancy"?


----------



## Mike Petrik

Jovan said:


> That's not what I'm saying and you know it.
> 
> Are you so naive as to believe that a piece of latex is causing people to flip out and shoot up schools? I can play this game, too.
> 
> Since when is watching out for our children's health and making sure they don't end up on Teen Mom "deviancy"?


A society that is indifferent to sex among children is a society that has defined deviency down.


----------



## Jovan

Teenagers have ALWAYS had sex and always will. The difference is that now there's a more open discussion about it and we make sure that, if they decide to take that step forward, that it is not a decision made lightly.


----------



## Bjorn

Mike Petrik said:


> A society that is indifferent to sex among children is a society that has defined deviency down.


Well, Sweden is rife with sex, however very much lacking in homicidal violence.

Are we talking children as in sub 18yo here?

When did you loose your virginity? I mean, really. Guns cannot be regulated because the liberals who are in favor of that are pro choice and that's really bad, up there with giving kids condoms. Sex is bad, and guns are good.

You do know that the definition of deviancy is not adhering to social norms? If the social norm is that sex is ok, than adhering to that norm is not deviant.


----------



## Bjorn

Jovan said:


> Teenagers have ALWAYS had sex and always will. The difference is that now there's a more open discussion about it and we make sure that, if they decide to take that step forward, that it is not a decision made lightly.


Yes, god forbid they'd decide to have sex lightly. Much better they go out and buy a firearm. 

What an exceedingly troubled relationship you Americans seem to have to sex.


----------



## mrkleen

Mike Petrik said:


> A society that is indifferent to sex among children is a society that has defined deviency down.


Now mind you, the teen pregnancy rate is the *LOWEST it has been in the history of this country*, but that isnt good enough. Maybe Mike should start in his own backyard, since the highest teen pregency rates are in the bible belt

https://postimage.org/
free image hosting


----------



## WouldaShoulda

tocqueville said:


> My children's lives are worth more than people's stupid hobby and combat fantasies.
> 
> That is the argument, isn't it? Children's lives are an acceptable price to pay for a hobby? For some stupid ideology? A fetish? Wasn't there some cult like that in the Bible, a god that was worshiped through child sacrifice? Frickin' Moloch. You're all out of your minds.


Please ban pools from the selfish who only want to stay fit and cool in the Summer.

Are the drowned childrens lives worth it??


----------



## Bjorn

WouldaShoulda said:


> Please ban pools from the selfish who only want to stay fit and cool in the Summer.
> 
> Are the drowned childrens lives worth it??


Please explain the connection with staying fit and cool and shooting firearms?

Next thing you'll say that a gun ban is like a ban on ice cream.


----------



## dba

Haffman said:


> The 'lunatic' in question might have been suffering from a treatable mental illness, thank god he did not come back to your residence - you might well have killed him because if he was psychotic waving a gun in his face may not have been a deterrent.


I've been shot at and missed and stabbed at and hit. Both subjects had treatable mental illnesses. Both were in their 30's, both still living with their parents. Both decided they just didn't like how they felt while on their meds so they stopped taking them; without doctor's orders or parental guidance. On both occasions, I was only trying to assist parents whose children had gotten out of control because of their children's failure to stay on their meds. The shooter was taken into custody after a six hour standoff. The stabbing happened so fast, I remember grabbing the woman's arm that was holding the syringe left unattended by a lazy paramedic. As she tried to stab me again, she ended up on her face with a now spiral fractured arm.

I don't blame CuffDaddy one bit for his gun purchase. I have the means and abilities to take care of myself in a tactical situation. I'd also prepared myself mentally to take a life if needed and go about my day.

It is not a crime to be mentally ill. It's not even a crime to be off your meds if you are. I've taken suicidal persons to the hospital for evaluations only to have mental crisis workers form a "verbal contract" with the subject promising not to kill themselves. There simply isn't any money or space to assist these people. That's the crime.


----------



## Haffman

Here is a quick-and-dirty table I put together from Wikipedia. I noticed that the data in the Harvard Journal of Law / Pacific Research Institute article was largely drawn from the mid-1990s so have tried to find something a bit more up-to-date. For ease of checking, I have used Wikipedia but am happy to use other sources if these are believed to be incorrect. I used prisoners per 100,000 as an (imperfect) marker for serious crime, as I could not find any international comparisons of serious crime. There wasn't much methodology to my choice of countries, other than trying to get a spread of guns per 100 residents, and using so-called 'western democracies'.


*Guns per 100 residents (2007)**Intentional homicides per 100,000 (2012)**Firearm related homicides per 100,000**Prisoners per 100,000 population *USA88.84.23.7730Switzerland45.70.70.5276Sweden 31.61.00.1970Canada30.81.60.76114Germany 30.30.80.0683Belgium 17.21.70.29100Ireland8.61.20.3698UK6.21.20.04154Poland1.31.10.02220Japan0.60.30.0255


----------



## Mike Petrik

mrkleen said:


> Now mind you, the teen pregnancy rate is the *LOWEST it has been in the history of this country*, but that isnt good enough. Maybe Mike should start in his own backyard, since the highest teen pregency rates are in the bible belt
> 
> https://postimage.org/
> free image hosting


In order for your point to be valid, the demographic data must be disentangled and sorted. I've seen that done, and its conclusions belie your point.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Jovan said:


> Teenagers have ALWAYS had sex and always will. The difference is that now there's a more open discussion about it and we make sure that, if they decide to take that step forward, that it is not a decision made lightly.


Yes, married teens. The illegitimacy rate in the US is now over 40%, a rate that would have been incomprehensible just two short generations ago. Access to condoms is hardly the problem.


----------



## Bjorn

Mike Petrik said:


> Yes, married teens. The illegitimacy rate in the US is now over 40%, a rate that would have been incomprehensible just two short generations ago. Access to condoms are hardly the problem.


Married teens? Sounds Taliban to me...


----------



## Haffman

dba said:


> I've been shot at and missed and stabbed at and hit. Both subjects had treatable mental illnesses. Both were in their 30's, both still living with their parents. Both decided they just didn't like how they felt while on their meds so they stopped taking them; without doctor's orders or parental guidance. On both occasions, I was only trying to assist parents whose children had gotten out of control because of their children's failure to stay on their meds. The shooter was taken into custody after a six hour standoff. The stabbing happened so fast, I remember grabbing the woman's arm that was holding the syringe left unattended by a lazy paramedic. As she tried to stab me again, she ended up on her face with a now spiral fractured arm.
> 
> I don't blame CuffDaddy one bit for his gun purchase. I have the means and abilities to take care of myself in a *tactical situation. I'd also prepared myself mentally to take a life if needed and go about my day*.
> 
> It is not a crime to be mentally ill. It's not even a crime to be off your meds if you are. I've taken suicidal persons to the hospital for evaluations only to have mental crisis workers form a "verbal contract" with the subject promising not to kill themselves. There simply isn't any money or space to assist these people. That's the crime.


I am not clear if you are in law enforcement or a civilian ? I certainly hope from the military-style phraseology above you are at least in law enforcement. Law enforcement officers, at least in the UK and I assume in the USA, receive training about when, where and how it is appropriate to use firearms in a so-called 'tactical situation'. Civilians do not have such training or expertise. And yet they can be judge, jury and executioner with a firearm -- all in the heat of the moment. An awesome responsibility...

Your final paragraph unfortunately has a strong ring of truth about it in this country as well as the USA. Part of the reason 'mental health' is so poorly funded is stigma.


----------



## mrkleen

Mike Petrik said:


> In order for your point to be valid, the demographic data must be disentangled and sorted. I've seen that done, and its conclusions belie your point.


LOL....yeah. keep preaching that abstinence only down there guys....seems to be working out for you.


----------



## Hitch

Jovan said:


> Teenagers have ALWAYS had sex and always will. The difference is that now there's a more open discussion about it and we make sure that, if they decide to take that step forward, that it is not a decision made lightly.


Now thats funny


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Bjorn said:


> What an exceedingly troubled relationship you Americans seem to have to sex.


Well we know that from the very odd syste on American TV that thinks it is perfectly okay to show people getting hacked and blown to bits but they pixelate out breasts, bums and genitals and bleep out swear words as if all viewers were children. The message being that violence and killing are okay. But seeing naked humans and hearing swear words is so dangerous that we can't permit it.


----------



## Hitch

Jovan said:


> That's not what I'm saying and you know it.


 That door swings both ways


> Are you so naive as to believe that a piece of latex is causing people to flip out and shoot up schools? I can play this game, too.
> 
> Since when is watching out for our children's health and making sure they don't end up on Teen Mom "deviancy"?


 Oh now no one was ever concerned about children's heath before schools became condom distributors?


----------



## Hitch

Hitch said:


> _.
> 
> _*Jovan*
> *Honors Member*
> 
> Join DateMarch 6th, 2006LocationAlbuquerque, New Mexico, USAPosts10,291​
> 
> _
> Originally Posted by *Snow Hill Pond* https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=1353762#post1353762
> Unfortunately, weapons are the easy fall-guy in this debate. I agree that the well-intentioned believe that we can ban weapons and everything will be fine and dandy.
> 
> However, the real issue is this, "How does a person get to a place where it is OK to kill other people?" The answer to that question touches on basic questions on how we function as a society. It touches on mental health issues. It touches on the willfull ignoring of bullying in school by administrators. It touches on the lack of respect for human life in our society. It touches on the lack of sincere belief in God and his commandments. It touches on the valid ""question of whether or not most parents are good parents. It touches on the selling of violence through video games and movies to our children. No one is guilty. Everyone is guilty. These are tough issues to tackle...and so the majority concentrate on the easy target, weapons.
> 
> _
> 
> Exactly what I was trying to say pages ago."
> 
> Hmmmm, So which face were you using? ​


Havent decided yet or cant remember ?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

tocqueville said:


> By the way, an AR-15 is a poor choice for fighting zombies, but that's another topic.


A 12ga shotgun with slugs made from melted silver crucifix is my RX!!


----------



## Snow Hill Pond

hardline_42 said:


> To give up those things you touch on would mean giving up the freedom to set our moral compass however we chose.


Very well put. When I grew up, we weren't allowed to pick and choose which of the 10 Commandments to follow.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Bjorn said:


> You do know that the definition of deviancy is not adhering to social norms? If the social norm is that sex is ok, than adhering to that norm is not deviant.


Yes, this was Moynihan's point -- the boundaries defining deviency were being rapidly relaxed yielding a myriad of rather horrible social problems, especially for children.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Bjorn said:


> Married teens? Sounds Taliban to me...


Actually, it sounds like my Parents and Grandparents. (No, they were not Taliban)


----------



## Jovan

Bjorn said:


> Yes, god forbid they'd decide to have sex lightly. Much better they go out and buy a firearm.
> 
> What an exceedingly troubled relationship you Americans seem to have to sex.


Hey, that's _Canadian_-American to you, sir! In all seriousness, I'd much rather anyone who is going to purchase a gun not take that decision lightly either and consider what exactly they're going to use it for, taking training classes, as well as make sure it is secured when not in use. There's a lot of responsibility involved in that. Part of why I think we should be tested for gun competency before getting a firearms licence, but that's just me.

That said, yes, I'd much rather teens be having sex than going out and shooting each other in the schools.



Mike Petrik said:


> Yes, married teens. The illegitimacy rate in the US is now over 40%, a rate that would have been incomprehensible just two short generations ago. Access to condoms is hardly the problem.


You're worried about "illegitimate" children? Seriously? Look man, I realize you probably have religious beliefs that back that view up, but there's a lot more to worry about. It's been proven that abstinence-only, don't-have-sex-until-you're-married education doesn't work. Just look at what happened to Sarah Palin. Her argument (and her daughter) blew up right in her face! Guess there's no sense in listening to me, though. I'm just an _illegitimate person_ since my mother didn't want to marry. And just as well. The guy up and left us a year later because he wasn't ready for children! Good riddance. Better to be raised by a single mother than having one parent who doesn't care about you.



Earl of Ormonde said:


> Well we know that from the very odd syste on American TV that thinks it is perfectly okay to show people getting hacked and blown to bits but they pixelate out breasts, bums and genitals and bleep out swear words as if all viewers were children. The message being that violence and killing are okay. But seeing naked humans and hearing swear words is so dangerous that we can't permit it.


I've never understood that, either. Killing someone is illegal. Sex and free speech are legal. Seem obvious to me...


----------



## Hitch

Mike Petrik said:


> Yes, this was Moynihan's point -- the boundaries defining deviency were being rapidly relaxed yielding a myriad of rather horrible social problems, especially for children.


 Its not far from Bjorn's point to a place where the question must be asked; By what standard? Outside our judeo/christian heritage what is the process to declare right from wrong? what makes harming others evil?

There are a pair of glaring examples from the last century of what can result from the reasonings of autonomous-man wrt good and evil.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Jovan said:


> This thread has been so frustrating to read at times. Almost everyone on the anti-gun side isn't addressing the _problem_, they're trying to treat symptoms. Yes, I have no doubt that guns make killing easier. But WHAT causes these people to do these senseless acts of violence? Why is there no _serious_ discussion about mental health needs in this country beyond the scaremongering of media outlets to say, "HE MUST HAVE HAD SCHIZOPHRENIA/AUTISM/BIPOLAR DISORDER!!!" I mean seriously, these journalists are hacks. I've known people with all those conditions, and they are not necessarily prone to acts of random violence, ESPECIALLY not people with autism or Asperger's. Seriously, who wrote that piece of s*** and where was their research?! Autism? FFS!
> 
> While I understand tocqueville's anger, he has grossly, GROSSLY mischaracterized what we've said. And I'm pretty disappointed.


1) Journalism as I knew it and studied it is dead.

2) Even I miss you as a moderator now!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Jovan said:


> You're worried about "illegitimate" children? Seriously? Look man, I realize you probably have religious beliefs that back that view up, but there's a lot more to worry about.


Not religion. Economics.

Illegitimacy (please don't get hung up on word games) is what drives childhood poverty, anguish and hunger in the US.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond

Haffman said:


> With respect, while the origins of homicidal impulses are of course important, I do not think this is the real issue here at all.


Thank you Haffman. However, I disagree with you.

I believe my post attempts to address the root cause. Whereas, the debate over weapons addresses a "tool of the trade". This analogy may be in poor taste, but "If you ban a tool, the craftsman will just find another tool."


----------



## Snow Hill Pond

Jovan said:


> Exactly what I was trying to say pages ago.


Sorry, I didn't see it. A lot of posts here flying by pretty quickly.


----------



## Mike Petrik

WouldaShoulda said:


> Not religion. Economics.
> 
> Illegitimacy (please don't get hung up on word games) is what drives childhood poverty, anguish and hunger in the US.


Exactly. To not know that reveals shocking naivety.


----------



## Hitch

WouldaShoulda said:


> 1) Journalism as I knew it and studied it is dead.
> 
> 2) Even I miss you as a moderator now!!


Off topic question . Was television the cause of death ?


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Hitch said:


> Off topic question . Was television the cause of death ?


No, journalism can even exist on the internet!!

But low journalistic standards, (sensing a theme here??) and lack of consequences for the practice of poor journalism was the COD!!


----------



## Hitch

Jovan said:


> Hey, that's _Canadian_-American to you, sir! In all seriousness, I'd much rather anyone who is going to purchase a gun not take that decision lightly either and consider what exactly they're going to use it for, taking training classes, as well as make sure it is secured when not in use. There's a lot of responsibility involved in that. Part of why I think we should be tested for gun competency before getting a firearms licence, but that's just me.
> 
> That said, yes, I'd much rather teens be having sex than going out and shooting each other in the schools.
> 
> You're worried about "illegitimate" children? Seriously? Look man, I realize you probably have religious beliefs that back that view up, but there's a lot more to worry about. It's been proven that abstinence-only, don't-have-sex-until-you're-married education doesn't work. Just look at what happened to Sarah Palin. Her argument (and her daughter) blew up right in her face! Guess there's no sense in listening to me, though. I'm just an _illegitimate person_ since my mother didn't want to marry. And just as well. The guy up and left us a year later because he wasn't ready for children! Good riddance. Better to be raised by a single mother than having one parent who doesn't care about you.
> 
> I've never understood that, either. Killing someone is illegal. Sex and free speech are legal. Seem obvious to me...


Well I reckon filming someone pretending to kill as a portion of a work of art and paying some one to have sex so it can be filmed are equivalent, somewhere.


----------



## Bjorn

Hitch said:


> Its not far from Bjorn's point to a place where the question must be asked; By what standard? Outside our judeo/christian heritage what is the process to declare right from wrong? what makes harming others evil?
> 
> There are a pair of glaring examples from the last century of what can result from the reasonings of autonomous-man wrt good and evil.


Not really. Your choosing rather freely from the judeo/Christian/Muslim/[insert desert religion here] smörgåsbord. There are plenty of examples both ways.

I'm fairly sure for example the Romans had ideas about right and wrong, per-Christianity. I know for a fact Buddhist,Hindus and shintoists do. And atheists. Morality and ethics is not theology.


----------



## Hitch

Bjorn said:


> Not really. Your choosing rather freely from the judeo/Christian/Muslim/[insert desert religion here] smörgåsbord. There are plenty of examples both ways.
> 
> I'm fairly sure for example the Romans had ideas about right and wrong, per-Christianity. I know for a fact Buddhist,Hindus and shintoists do. And atheists. Morality and ethics is not theology.


 Im certain they did ,just as Im certain they were entirely based on pagan mythology. Perhaps that is a standard you find appealing it has advantages wrt malleability.


----------



## tocqueville

Here's another right wing fart of note, from an execrable source. The argument is that the massacre demonstrates that our culture is not sufficiently manly:

https://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335996/newtown-answers-nro-symposium#

There have been some good arguments as to the inefficacy of gun laws, but no good arguments so far as to why we need so many guns in the first place, and thus why resist the imperative to limit their circulation as much as possible. I find the following:

1. We need them for self-defense.

This is a legitimate requirement, and a reason why I believe we should be able to purchase guns (heavily regulated, documented, etc., but still possible). If I were the Korean gentleman who owns the liquor store on the corner of my street and is there all day and night, I'd have a Glock behind the counter. Still, I'm astonished by people's risk assessment and their sense that they need these things to feel safe. Paranoia seems to be a facet of American culture. I don't get it. What the hell are you all afraid of? I also don't get the disproportionality between a lot of the hardware floating around and real-world requirements for self-defense. You don't need an AR-15 for self-defense. Lanza's mother thinks she did, and I say she's crazy. No one who thinks they _need_ such a thing is in his or her right mind.

2. We need them for liberty.

This is a political philosophy worthy of adolescents and the uneducated. It's a dogma, not an argument, and, for many, a fetish.

3. It's in the Constitution, so suck it up.

Maybe, but the Constitution appears to be calling for well-regulated militias, so I don't buy the legal interpretation. I also think that the radical difference between 18th century and modern firearms must be taken into account. Either way, I recognize that the 2nd Amendment represents an obstacle.

4. Hunting.

I have zero problem with hunting and even see a benefit from an environmental point of view (culling booming herds, etc.). I see no reason why a strict gun control regime can't be designed to accommodate hunters.

5. Guns don't kill people, people do, so let's focus on the pathology, the psychology, and the cultural roots.

There's some substance to this, but it's insane to ignore the gun part of the equation, particularly given the clear cost. People do kill without guns, but guns make it easier. Some guns make killing A LOT easier. I ask, again, what on earth makes guns worth having around? Why not do everything possible to mitigate risk? How does it all add up to be more valuable than the lives of my kids? It doesn't.


----------



## tocqueville

WouldaShoulda said:


> Please ban pools from the selfish who only want to stay fit and cool in the Summer.
> 
> Are the drowned childrens lives worth it??


Well, there are good reasons why they put fences around pools. But pools exist for recreation. Guns exist to kill. It just so happens that for some, it is also a form of recreation.


----------



## tocqueville

The talk of teen sex reminds me of a time when I was working as a Park Ranger in Philadelphia, giving historical tours. I told a group of tourists a (probably false) story that I had heard that when friends suggested to Dolly Todd that she consider dating a certain James Madison, she hesitated because she suspected, given his age and his single status, that he might not be so interested in women.

At the end of the tour, I asked if the tourists had any questions. One said, "Now you said that Dolly didn't want to go out with James Madison because she thought he was gay....I didn't know that kind of thing went on back then." I had a hard time not laughing.


----------



## Hitch

*Why not do everything possible to mitigate risk?

*Do you drive on public roads? Do you use sugar? Have you eaten potatoes this week? Have you eliminated the health risks associated with eating red me*at?*


----------



## tocqueville

I need to eat. I need to drive. My food and my car are regulated for my safety and that of others.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Still barbarous?


----------



## tocqueville

WouldaShoulda said:


> A 12ga shotgun with slugs made from melted silver crucifix is my RX!!


Now we're talking!


----------



## tocqueville

VictorRomeo said:


>


What he said.


----------



## Hitch

tocqueville said:


> I need to eat. I need to drive. My food and my car are regulated for my safety and that of others.


*Why not do everything possible to mitigate risk?

*At least you don t pretend to practice your preaching.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Well we know that from the very odd syste on American TV that thinks it is perfectly okay to show people getting hacked and blown to bits but they pixelate out breasts, bums and genitals and bleep out swear words as if all viewers were children. The message being that violence and killing are okay. But seeing naked humans and hearing swear words is so dangerous that we can't permit it.


I generally share this reaction. Seems crazy to me.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Snow Hill Pond said:


> This analogy may be in poor taste, but "If you ban a tool, the craftsman will just find another tool."


Poor taste or not, I believe it is illuminative. If someone has decided that they want to kill dozens of innocent people and do not care about any repurcussions, I find it hard to believe that they will then decide that, because an AR is not readily to hand, that they cannot be bothered. They will make bombs of fuel oil and fertilizer and kills hundreds instead. They will inject poison into fruit in the grocery store. They will go into a crowded, closed space, lock the door behind them, and fire up a chainsaw. They will drive their car at 100pm into a full bus stop or nightclub line or elementary carpool pickup lane... or just hijack a school bus and drive it off a bridge.

I believe that certain types of crime - mostly the for-profit kind - can be reduced by increasing the cost of the inputs, just like other economic goods. But these kind of mass killings are no susceptible to that approach. I wish I could believe differently.


----------



## CuffDaddy

mrkleen said:


> Cuff - i dont really care if you agree or not. This is the way it is going. Like it or dont, makes no difference to me.


If you don't care about the opinions of others, why are you here? You may yet prove to be right - and I fear that you are - but the accuracy of your prediction is not the discussion.

Besides, you honestly think it's not crazy to make it easier to get a FULLY automatic rifle than a semi-automatic? Come on, man.


----------



## tocqueville

CuffDaddy said:


> Poor taste or not, I believe it is illuminative. If someone has decided that they want to kill dozens of innocent people and do not care about any repurcussions, I find it hard to believe that they will then decide that, because an AR is not readily to hand, that they cannot be bothered. They will make bombs of fuel oil and fertilizer and kills hundreds instead. They will inject poison into fruit in the grocery store. They will go into a crowded, closed space, lock the door behind them, and fire up a chainsaw. They will drive their car at 100pm into a full bus stop or nightclub line or elementary carpool pickup lane... or just hijack a school bus and drive it off a bridge.
> 
> I believe that certain types of crime - mostly the for-profit kind - can be reduced by increasing the cost of the inputs, just like other economic goods. But these kind of mass killings are no susceptible to that approach. I wish I could believe differently.


Chainsaws, buses, and fertilizer all have real utility and value. There's a place for each. Mind you, we do many things to make all of the above safe for operators and bystanders alike. Fertlizer can be poisonous to farm workers, to that's an issue dealt with by a variety of means. There's a struggle now, for example, to find ways to regulate fertilizer use to mitigate against the harm to the environment done by farm-land run off. What makes plants grow on Pennsylvania farms kills plants in the Chesapeake Bay and puts Cheapeake watermen out of work. Everyone acknowledges the problem, and there's a struggle to find a balanced solution.

Guns? What place do they have? What real utility? What value? The answer is "some." Though not a lot, and a lot less then buses, chainsaws, and fertilizer. I think most of you enthusiasts endow them with a bizarre and irrational degree of value, out of proportion of their real worth, which is why you see the "price" to be less than what I regard it to be. The requirement for them in our society is largely--though not entirely--imaginary. Either way, the struggle is to find a balanced solution, one that takes "benefit" and "price" in their accurate measure into account. I'm certain that in those terms, guns deserve to be more highly regulated than, say, fertilizer.


----------



## mrkleen

CuffDaddy said:


> Besides, you honestly think it's not crazy to make it easier to get a FULLY automatic rifle than a semi-automatic? Come on, man.


WTF are you talking about? Who is suggesting that?


----------



## CuffDaddy

tocqueville said:


> Chainsaws, buses, and fertilizer all have real utility and value. There's a place for each.
> 
> Guns? What place do they have? What real utility? What value? The answer is "some." Though not a lot, and a lot less then buses, chainsaws, and fertilizer. I think most of you enthusiasts endow them with a bizarre and irrational degree of value, out of proportion of their real worth, which is why you see the "price" to be less than what I regard it to be.


A thoughtful post, tocq', that raises many interesting concepts; it is certainly worthy of a better response than I will be able to offer at the moment, but I'll do my best.

First, your conjecture that those on the other side of this issue from you may have difficulty evaluating the matter with cool logic, perhaps underestimating the "price," is a valid price. Cognitive bias is an _incredibly_ strong human impulse/tendency, and we must all be on guard against it when considering serious matters.

Your own post, though, serves as well-taken admonition AND cautionary example. You are very quick to dismiss utility that you are not a party to as being "bizarre." Dismissing the utility that others derive from some good or activity is frequently the province of the prohibitionist blue-noses. Religious conservatives have used arguments along those lines to argue in favor of restrictions on non-procreative sex. Those who would squelch speech they find disagreeable argue that there is no "merit" to words or shows or pictures that they happen to dislike.

I think a core principle of a pluralistic society is that we must take the utility that others derive from things as being presumptively valid. You don't think it's "rational" of me to enjoy the intense focus and zen-like "flow" that is reliably induced by rapid, aimed fire at paper or steel targets. There's probably some stuff you do that I think is stupid or valueless. And it would be, TO ME, but your life and enjoyment count, too.

You dismiss the utility that some derive from guns as being silly, but the amounts of money spent on shooting suggests that a huge number of people are deriving a huge amount of utility from them. Unless you think your tastes are not only superior, but deserving of enshrinement in law and coercion upon others, you have to give due weight to that enormous utility. In a well-functioning marketplace, the costs and utilities of a product will find an equilibrium to produce an efficient level of production that provides the greatest benefit to society as a whole.

However, that's not the end of the inquiry. Your post does not use the term "externalities," but I believe that captures what you are driving at. Guns, like a great many items, have costs and benefits beyond those derived/experienced by those parties to the economic transaction leading to the production and ownership of guns. If a gun is used to commit a crime, the victim (assuming they are a stranger to the purchase) bears a cost but gets neither the profit (that goes to the manufacturer) nor the enjoyment utility (that goes to the buyer). So that may lead to an overproduction of guns.

And I do think that's where we are. Gun manufacturers - incidentally, one of the most robust segments of the American economy, with actual factories and designers and such _here_, not in China or Mexico - are taking massive profits. Gun owners are enjoying very capable firearms at relatively low prices. One can find decent AR's for ~$650 without much effort (because their receivers are aluminum and their furniture plastic, they are pretty cheap to make). And while the externalities are surely not as great as you assume, they are real.

Where we really screwed up, IMO, was when we insulated gun manufacturers from product liability suits. People got hung up on the idea that guns used to shoot people functioned as intended, and therefore can't be "defective." But one strong theory underlying a lot of product liability law is that it internalizes externalities. If we allowed victims (or their heirs/estate) to sue gun manufacturers, prices of guns well-suited to crime would rise. The number of guns would go down. But those who really derive a lot of value from gun ownership would still be able to obtain guns (at a higher price) to the extent it remained really rational.

Under that model, everyone's interests are represented, and the market gets to set the amount of production. If it turns out that guns keep getting made at the same rate, then they're worth it because of the utility derived. If the level goes way down, then, to the extent they're an input in crime, crime goes down. There's no "wrong" answer - whatever happens is necessarily the most sane and non-bizarre result.


----------



## tocqueville

CuffDaddy said:


> However, that's not the end of the inquiry. Your post does not use the term "externalities," but I believe that captures what you are driving at. Guns, like a great many items, have costs and benefits beyond those derived/experienced by those parties to the economic transaction leading to the production and ownership of guns. If a gun is used to commit a crime, the victim (assuming they are a stranger to the purchase) bears a cost but gets neither the profit (that goes to the manufacturer) nor the enjoyment utility (that goes to the buyer). So that may lead to an overproduction of guns.
> 
> Where we really screwed up, IMO, was when we insulated gun manufacturers from product liability suits. People got hung up on the idea that guns used to shoot people functioned as intended, and therefore can't be "defective." But one strong theory underlying a lot of product liability law is that it internalizes externalities. If we allowed victims (or their heirs/estate) to sue gun manufacturers, prices of guns well-suited to crime would rise. The number of guns would go down. But those who really derive a lot of value from gun ownership would still be able to obtain guns (at a higher price) to the extent it remained really rational.
> 
> Under that model, everyone's interests are represented, and the market gets to set the amount of production. If it turns out that guns keep getting made at the same rate, then they're worth it because of the utility derived. If the level goes way down, then, to the extent they're an input in crime, crime goes down. There's no "wrong" answer - whatever happens is necessarily the most sane and non-bizarre result.


This is a very interesting argument. It provides a sort of market-driven way to account for cost/benefit to society as a whole. Something to think about.


----------



## CuffDaddy

You're kind to say so. I deeply empathize with the intensity of feeling you have on the subject, and I admire any ability to even consider an alternative view, whether you ultimately come to share it or not.


----------



## CuffDaddy

mrkleen said:


> WTF are you talking about? Who is suggesting that?


My goodness, man, _you_ are. You've suggested a regime where semi-automatic rifles (BTW, MOST of the rifles bought in each of the last several years have been self-loaders - it's not a niche or extreme, it's the type in most common usage) are available only to those who demonstrate a NEED.

As I've explained, that's not even the standard for possessing a fully-automatic machine gun. If I want a machine gun, I've got to find one, then I've got to fill out boatloads of paperwork and wait for the BATF to clear me, and then pay an extra tax, and get local law enforcement to say I'm not a nut (or set up a separate legal trust that technically owns the guns). But I don't have to show a NEED. Yet you would require a NEED for a semi-auto version of the same gun!

BTW, as I've said before, this regime has essentially worked to eliminate legal full-auto guns from crime for almost a century. There are a BUNCH of hoops to jump through. It's just not worth it if the point is to commit a crime and then kill yourself. Those people find another tool. Sometimes, it's a semi-auto. And if we take that away, they'll find other tools. But if you want to take away the tool, you can do it with hoops and hassle and costs. No outright ban is even necessary.


----------



## CuffDaddy

A little more data here: https://augmentedtrader.wordpress.com/2012/12/16/guns-and-homicide-worldwide-statistics/


----------



## Mike Petrik

CuffDaddy said:


> A little more data here: https://augmentedtrader.wordpress.com/2012/12/16/guns-and-homicide-worldwide-statistics/


Cuff, your insistence on the importance of facts will not endear you to many, I'm afraid. Based on my observation, the impulse to assert a moral high ground grounded in "feelings" is apparently quite intoxicating; and no addict will easily accept deprivation of its drug of choice.


----------



## blairrob

CuffDaddy said:


> A little more data here: https://augmentedtrader.wordpress.com/2012/12/16/guns-and-homicide-worldwide-statistics/


Cuff, IMO, the statistical comparisons shown in your link are irrelevant and intentionally misleading as the authors term the subjects "developed" countries, when clearly many of them are not. They label east European countries that are structurally failing and others considered emerging economies as 'developed', and these countries skew the results with their notably higher murder rates. Ukraine, Romania, South Africa, and others listed have significant issues with their governance, policing, political systems, and judiciary such that organized crime and corruption are endemic, unlike the first world developed countries such as Japan, Western Europe, Canada and the USA. A proper comparison would exclude the former and isolate the USA as the outlier it is in a data table. My 2 cents.


----------



## eagle2250

Have we considered the arguably very sensitive and potentially deadly information available to us via the Internet. It just seems irresponsible to allow us potential access to instructions on how one might craft a 'homegrown' fragmentation grenade using only materials that (presently) can be legally purchased at our local hardware and sporting goods stores and gleaned from the trash bins of a local machine shop. A satchel full of that sort of device(s) could prove much more lethal than an AR-15. Would the answer be to establish controls on what might be made available to us on the Internet (actually that's not a bad idea. We take this freedom of speech and expression thing way too far! ) or perhaps we should shut down the local hardware and sporting goods stores?


----------



## blairrob

CuffDaddy said:


> A little more data here: https://augmentedtrader.wordpress.com/2012/12/16/guns-and-homicide-worldwide-statistics/





Mike Petrik said:


> Cuff, your insistence on the importance of facts will not endear you to many, I'm afraid.


So true, and of course, who can manipulate facts better than a lawyer? That's right, _TWO l_awyers! ic12337:

I'm sorry guys, I just couldn't resist. :redface: I hope you you will forgive me.


----------



## blairrob

WouldaShoulda said:


> Not religion. Economics.
> 
> Illegitimacy (please don't get hung up on word games) is what drives childhood poverty, anguish and hunger in the US.


I do abhor that term, and like you despise irrelevant discussions on semantics, but I must say that the word here must be prefaced with a limiting term as many many children born out of wedlock have no effect on childhood poverty, anguish or hunger, and thus makes the statement inaccurate. 'Illegitimacy' in particular and somewhat definable circumstances have a significant impact on child poverty and hunger but without a quantifier is like saying the driver benind obesity is foot. Well yes, but um, no.


----------



## mrkleen

CuffDaddy said:


> My goodness, man, _you_ are. You've suggested a regime where semi-automatic rifles (BTW, MOST of the rifles bought in each of the last several years have been self-loaders - it's not a niche or extreme, it's the type in most common usage) are available only to those who demonstrate a NEED.
> 
> As I've explained, that's not even the standard for possessing a fully-automatic machine gun. If I want a machine gun, I've got to find one, then I've got to fill out boatloads of paperwork and wait for the BATF to clear me, and then pay an extra tax, and get local law enforcement to say I'm not a nut (or set up a separate legal trust that technically owns the guns). But I don't have to show a NEED. Yet you would require a NEED for a semi-auto version of the same gun!


The rulest have CHANGED that is the whole point of this tread. Those rules will change for Semi Automatic Weapons....and clearly for Automatic Weapons. *Are you suggesting that by making restrictions on semi automatic weapons more stringent...they will in turn, not do the same with automatic weapons?*

I know politicians are pretty dense - but that isnt going to happen.

All the rules on all the guns which are deemed to be assault weapons are going to get an overhaul.


----------



## drlivingston

:deadhorse-a:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Any views on the piece of news I heard last night?

That sales all over the US of the types of weapons to be banned have gone through the roof. (military style assualt rifles, and SMGs ) 

My initial thought was that it was people buying firearms simply to support the right to purchase arms, then it dawned on me they are simply buying the firearms before Obama's new law kicks in that will make their purchase illegal.

But then a third thought occurred. Will the law also make ownership illegal? 
And if so, are these people that are buying them now doing so knowing that they will illegally retain them once the law kicks in?


----------



## Shaver

We have proposed plenty of 'facts' and often circular arguments from morality and utility. However, I wonder if I am alone in finding guns, erm, how can I put this? Thrilling, that'll do.

Guns _are_ rather thrilling, aren't they?

.
.
.
.
.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Not once you've seen the damamge they can do at close quarters. For me firearms were only ever tools of the trade, I only ever found them thrilling when I was a young teenager before I fired my first .303 as a Royal Green Jackets cadet aged 15. But I suppose people who have worked with firearms on a daily basis have a different relationship to them i.e. the tools of their trade.


I am, for example, always thrilled and fascinated by the hydraulic wheelnut wrenches used in garages but I'm pretty sure the mechanics using them day in day out for years changing thousands of wheels are not as enamoured.


----------



## Chouan

Most people grow out of being thrilled by guns, I would have thought. The first time I buckled my sword on it was sort of a thrill, but not such a thrill that I wanted to go around wearing it. I had to a certain amount of shooting during my training, SLRs, Stirling and Lanchester, as well as Webley revolver. If I'd been 17 or 18 it might have been thrilling, but at 27 it was a training task, like many others. Just because some people are thrilled by firearms doesn't really justify the law allowing their thrilling experience to be enshrined. Some people are thrilled by driving their cars at extreme speeds, should we allow that as well, otherwise their personal freedoms are being infringed!


----------



## VictorRomeo

Shaver said:


> We have proposed plenty of 'facts' and often circular arguments from morality and utility. However, I wonder if I am alone in finding guns, erm, how can I put this? Thrilling, that'll do.
> 
> Guns _are_ rather thrilling, aren't they?
> 
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .


A couple of years ago I was in Chad. In this local village, where the organsiation I work with ran some programmes I witnessed something that will haunt me forever. A group of kids were messing about - playing - with a piece of scrap metal or something. Having some fun, laughing and playing; a rare thing in this place. I was with our local staff who were leading a community meeting to discuss how we might improve their community clinic. When a pickup carrying some milita came along and saw our meeting. They stopped, had a conversation amongst themselves and one guy got out. He went over to the kids playing and with fullest force he could muster, crushed the skull of a one of those kids with the butt(?) of his "Assault Rifle". Then turned it around and two rounds cracked into the air as he put two bullets into the head of the child. Jumped back into the pickup with them all laughing. Then came the shout from the killer - "save that white man" as they drove off. There was - literally - nothing anyone could do. The militia were untouchable. All hell broke loose. I was ripped out of there immediatly by our staff for fear of local reprisal. My presense was warmly received but that could have changed in a moment given what had happened. So, sure. A gun is as inanimate an object as the waterbottle on my desk right now. It needs a hand or two to operate, point and click. The effect is devastating. Guns terrify me. Their purpose is to kill. I'm so glad they play no part of my life in Ireland and I'm so glad I can go from one year to the next(here) without ever having to see one.


----------



## Shaver

Chouan said:


> Most people grow out of being thrilled by guns, I would have thought. The first time I buckled my sword on it was sort of a thrill, but not such a thrill that I wanted to go around wearing it. I had to a certain amount of shooting during my training, SLRs, Stirling and Lanchester, as well as Webley revolver. If I'd been 17 or 18 it might have been thrilling, but at 27 it was a training task, like many others. Just because some people are thrilled by firearms doesn't really justify the law allowing their thrilling experience to be enshrined. Some people are thrilled by driving their cars at extreme speeds, should we allow that as well, otherwise their personal freedoms are being infringed!


Ah, the old 'things I don't like are juvenile' routine.

Anyway, we do allow people to drive cars at extreme speed.


----------



## Shaver

VictorRomeo said:


> A couple of years ago I was in Chad. In this local village, where the organsiation I work with ran some programmes I witnessed something that will haunt me forever. A group of kids were messing about - playing - with a piece of scrap metal or something. Having some fun, laughing and playing; a rare thing in this place. I was with our local staff who were leading a community meeting to discuss how we might improve their community clinic. When a pickup carrying some milita came along and saw our meeting. They stopped, had a conversation amongst themselves and one guy got out. He went over to the kids playing and with fullest force he could muster, crushed the skull of a one of those kids with the butt(?) of his "Assault Rifle". Then turned it around and two rounds cracked into the air as he put two bullets into the head of the child. Jumped back into the pickup with them all laughing. Then came the shout from the killer - "save that white man" as they drove off. There was - literally - nothing anyone could do. The militia were untouchable. All hell broke loose. I was ripped out of there immediatly by our staff for fear of local reprisal. My presense was warmly received but that could have changed in a moment given what had happened. So, sure. A gun is as inanimate an object as the waterbottle on my desk right now. It needs a hand or two to operate, point and click. The effect is devastating. Guns terrify me .Their purpose is to kill. I'm so glad they play no part of my life in Ireland and I'm so glad I can go from one year to the next(here) without ever having to see one.


VR that is a very sad tale and I can appreciate that type of experience may precipitate negative associations. There are some rather obvious protestations but out of respect for you and what must be a highly traumatic memory I will refrain. As I understand it you and I share a very similar worldview (my fetishising of weapons aside) and you will know how much I despise abuse of power, bullying and injustice.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Using automobiles as a comparison perplexes me(they are not weapons, well except those that are of course. Like tanks) somewhat but leads to an interesting proposition... One must have a licence to operate a vehicle(as with guns), and different licences for different types of vehices. Makes sense. However, motorists are legally obliged to purchase insurance for each vehicle in their posession and their policy premium is based on percieved risk as well as their history and record on the road. Dirving without insurance is a serious offense here and doing so will more than likely lead to a stay in prison. Could the same sort of process in principal be applied to firearms(note not theft)? I'm not saying it would eliminate serious incidents but it may enforce increased levels of responsibility with owners and may think twice about having as many.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Shaver, thanks for the kinds words. In fairness I was simply responding to the specific question you asked and answered with context - emotive for sure - to inform why guns don't thrill me but terrify me. Nothing else beyond that really.


----------



## Bjorn

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Not once you've seen the damamge they can do at close quarters. For me firearms were only ever tools of the trade, I only ever found them thrilling when I was a young teenager before I fired my first .303 as a Royal Green Jackets cadet aged 15. But I suppose people who have worked with firearms on a daily basis have a different relationship to them i.e. the tools of their trade.
> 
> I am, for example, always thrilled and fascinated by the hydraulic wheelnut wrenches used in garages but I'm pretty sure the mechanics using them day in day out for years changing thousands of wheels are not as enamoured.


I found them fascinating until I did my service and realized I had to occupy the same space as all the other armed youngsters, limited maturity all round.

I can find them interesting in the same way that a good jigsaw or hammer is interesting, but I'd much rather not have them in my life. Unlike jigsaws, which I need....


----------



## Mike Petrik

VictorRomeo said:


> Using automobiles as a comparison perplexes me(they are not weapons, well except those that are of course. Like tanks) somewhat but leads to an interesting proposition... One must have a licence to operate a vehicle(as with guns), and different licences for different types of vehices. Makes sense. However, motorists are legally obliged to purchase insurance for each vehicle in their posession and their policy premium is based on percieved risk as well as their history and record on the road. Dirving without insurance is a serious offense here and doing so will more than likely lead to a stay in prison. Could the same sort of process in principal be applied to firearms(note not theft)? I'm not saying it would eliminate serious incidents but it may enforce increased levels of responsibility with owners and may think twice about having as many.


I don't know why the analogy perplexes you. Both guns and vehicles have legitimate and lawful uses, and they both can be used illegitimately and unlawfully. Leaving aside the Second Amendment (and its embedded policy animations), the same public policy calculus should apply to both guns and vehicles. At some point the social harm resulting from illegitimate use so overwhelms the social benefit from legitimate use that prohibition can be justified, assuming regulation is not effective. Accordingly, it may be justifiable to outlaw guns and not vehicles. That said, one must ask whether outlawing guns would really be effective. For instance, an unbalanced person intent on committing mass murder can easily drive a car into a playground.

It seems to me that the answer to the interesting insurance question resides at least in part in understanding the purpose of automobile insurance. People are responsible for their negligent acts. But this rather obvious principle is toothless if access to legal recourse is impractical either because of financial barriers (cost of accessing the judicial system) or the financial (i.e, judgment proof) status of the negligent party. Hence, society mandates insurance in order to ensure that parties injured by the negligence of others have practical recourse. It is my unresearched impression that insurance seldom covers injuries resulting from intentional (as opposed to negligent) acts. This is sensible insomuch as people normally should not be insured against harm resulting from acts they choose to do. This yields at least two related questions, I think. First and foremost, do we have a sufficiently widespread problem of people going uncompensated for injuries from gun accidents to justify an insurance mandate? Second, might it make policy sense to mandate coverage for intentional acts as well. I do not have enough information or knowledge to have confident answers to these questions, but I do not think it is appropriate (or consonant with the Second Amendment) to use such a system as a device to discourage gun ownership.


----------



## Haffman

Based on recent comments about banning guns leading to the 'lunatics' just finding other _equally effective _means to vent their homicidal urges, there should have been a spate of fertiliser bombings, mass knife killings, nail gun carnages, car run-overs and the like in Japan and parts of Europe where guns are controlled, to keep pace with the spree gun killings in America. To my knowledge that has not happened. It makes me doubt the premise.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Mike, this has been argued ad nauseum so all I can do is to try and explain my thinking; an automobile's purpose is transportation and a gun's purpose is that of a weapon. As already stated, one can use almost anything as a weapon in the right/wrong hands. My feeling is somewhat black and white here as for me automobiles and guns are not analogous as their purpose is so distinctly different.


----------



## CuffDaddy

VictorRomeo said:


> Dirving without insurance is a serious offense here and doing so will more than likely lead to a stay in prison. Could the same sort of process in principal be applied to firearms(note not theft)? I'm not saying it would eliminate serious incidents but it may enforce increased levels of responsibility with owners and may think twice about having as many.


This is another approach that I'm inclined to think workable.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Haffman said:


> Based on recent comments about banning guns leading to the 'lunatics' just finding other _equally effective _means to vent their homicidal urges, there should have been a spate of fertiliser bombings, mass knife killings, nail gun carnages, car run-overs and the like in Japan and parts of Europe where guns are controlled, to keep pace with the spree gun killings in America. To my knowledge that has not happened. It makes me doubt the premise.


Haffman, you've just proved my point that your selected comparator societies are not comparable. We have in America had many of those sorts of events. Your earlier question about whether America is inherently more violent struck me as too silly to answer - yes, obviously, we seem to be.

And when we have experimented with gun control, it has not moved the needle. Some states, like California, have strong laws against detachable-magazine semi-automatic rifles. Yet neither their crime rate nor their murder rate is comparable to Britain or Japan. Data points from other cherry-picked countries aren't nearly as instructive as our own experience, simply because the culture and geography are held constant, rather than introduced as another variable.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

tocqueville said:


> I need to eat. I need to drive. My food and my car are regulated for my safety and that of others.


You live in DC.

So are guns.

CT has, had and will have the authority to do the same.

And they should.

But one size does not fit all.


----------



## eagle2250

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Any views on the piece of news I heard last night?
> 
> That sales all over the US of the types of weapons to be banned have gone through the roof. (military style assualt rifles, and SMGs )
> 
> My initial thought was that it was people buying firearms simply to support the right to purchase arms, then it dawned on me they are simply buying the firearms before Obama's new law kicks in that will make their purchase illegal.
> 
> But then a third thought occurred. Will the law also make ownership illegal?
> And if so, are these people that are buying them now doing so knowing that they will illegally retain them once the law kicks in?


I have a great deal of respect for the professional experiences and perspectives of the E of O, Choaun, and others posting in this thread, but there is a legitimate alternative perspective to the impressions reflected above. I am but one of a fair number of servicemen to be found within our membership, who enjoyed becoming skilled in the handling and use of a number of weapons during the course of their service and continue to enjoy playing with those toys (they were tools back then, but are reduced to merely recreational artifacts in our present lives) today. While the USAF made me turn in all tools and equipment issued to me, over the course of my career I purchased as many civilianized versions of those items, as the law and my budget would allow. Hence, I've ended up with a couple of Smith & Wesson revolvers, a Beretta 92F, a Sig-Sauer P226, a Colt AR-15, chambered in .223 cal, with a second on the way, chambered in .308 cal. Additionally my collection includes a number of bolt, lever and pump action long-guns, to include a couple of WWII pieces, that I just had to have! Please note that all are stored in secured weapons's safes! If I could afford it and/or the law would allow it, I would probably have a couple of air frames and a deactivated LGM-30F (or two) on static display on our back lot.

I prefer not to think of myself as a nutcase and I have held some fairly responsible positions in both the USAF and in law enforcement over the course of my adult life, which would hopefully argue against such a conclusion. However I have hunted with an AR-15 and I do enjoy taking my guns , all of them, to our local ranges and shooting them...it's a hobby, an enjoyable and legitimate recreational interest. While it may be unwarranted and perhaps arrogant of me to do so, I think, through my past contributions, I have earned the right to enjoy my hobby(s), as have so many others! The Newtown shootings are a tragedy and quite reasonably should give us all pause for grieve and constructive reflection on what is to be done. Banning AR-15's and similarly designed weapons will not solve the problem. The real nutcases out there will simply find other, potentially more effective means of inflicting their carnage and suffering upon us. If we truly want to fix it, we have to address the problem in it's entirety!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

CuffDaddy said:


> This is another approach that I'm inclined to think workable.


Liability for civil (nor crimanal) negligence extends through homeowners/renters insurance which many already have.

But adults, still treated like children until age 26 while living at home and going to school don't have it.

It still doesn't stop the killing however, it just provides deep pockets for victims.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Mike Petrik said:


> This is sensible insomuch as people normally should not be insured against harm resulting from acts they choose to do. This yields at least two related questions, I think. First and foremost, do we have a sufficiently widespread problem of people going uncompensated for injuries from gun accidents to justify an insurance mandate? Second, might it make policy sense to mandate coverage for intentional acts as well. I do not have enough information or knowledge to have confident answers to these questions, but I do not think it is appropriate (or consonant with the Second Amendment) to use such a system as a device to discourage gun ownership.


But we could create such a product Mike, simply by requiring such insurance as a condition to owning a particular type of firearm. The moral hazard would be easily taken care of by making the deductible "Policyholder's net worth." This would simply be another variation of my other proposal to allow suits against firearm manufacturers. Both seek to internalize the externalities and thereby produce an efficient market. No government coercion or fundamental denial of liberty required, but level of firearms allowed to find the optimal point.


----------



## CuffDaddy

VictorRomeo said:


> A couple of years ago I was in Chad. In this local village, where the organsiation I work with ran some programmes I witnessed something that will haunt me forever. A group of kids were messing about - playing - with a piece of scrap metal or something. Having some fun, laughing and playing; a rare thing in this place. I was with our local staff who were leading a community meeting to discuss how we might improve their community clinic. When a pickup carrying some milita came along and saw our meeting. They stopped, had a conversation amongst themselves and one guy got out. He went over to the kids playing and with fullest force he could muster, crushed the skull of a one of those kids with the butt(?) of his "Assault Rifle". Then turned it around and two rounds cracked into the air as he put two bullets into the head of the child. Jumped back into the pickup with them all laughing. Then came the shout from the killer - "save that white man" as they drove off. There was - literally - nothing anyone could do. The militia were untouchable. All hell broke loose. I was ripped out of there immediatly by our staff for fear of local reprisal. My presense was warmly received but that could have changed in a moment given what had happened. So, sure. A gun is as inanimate an object as the waterbottle on my desk right now. It needs a hand or two to operate, point and click. The effect is devastating. Guns terrify me. Their purpose is to kill. I'm so glad they play no part of my life in Ireland and I'm so glad I can go from one year to the next(here) without ever having to see one.


Terrifying. And heartbreaking. I hate that such things happen anywhere, and I hate that you had to see it happen.

Long before the invention of guns, groups of raiding Vikings would come ashore in Ireland and do much the same thing to the peaceable folks living there. They used sword and axes and spears. We still have swords and axes, yet such raids are few and far between. Why? Because we no longer have vikings.


----------



## Mike Petrik

eagle2250 said:


> I have a great deal of respect for the professional experiences and perspectives of the E of O, Choaun, and others posting in this thread, but there is a legitimate alternative perspective to the impressions reflected above. I am but one of a fair number of servicemen to be found within our membership, who enjoyed becoming skilled in the handling and use of a number of weapons during the course of their service and continue to enjoy playing with those toys (they were tools back then, but are reduced to merely recreational artifacts in our present lives) today. While the USAF made me turn in all tools and equipment issued to me, over the course of my career I purchased as many civilianized versions of those items, as the law and my budget would allow. Hence, I've ended up with a couple of Smith & Wesson revolvers, a Beretta 92F, a Sig-Sauer P226, a Colt AR-15, chambered in .223 cal, with a second on the way, chambered in .308 cal. Additionally my collection includes a number of bolt, lever and pump action long-guns, to include a couple of WWII pieces, that I just had to have! Please note that all are stored in secured weapons's safes! If I could afford it and/or the law would allow it, I would probably have a couple of air frames and a deactivated LGM-30F (or two) on static display on our back lot.
> 
> I prefer not to think of myself as a nutcase and I have held some fairly responsible positions in both the USAF and in law enforcement over the course of my adult life, which would hopefully argue against such a conclusion. However I have hunted with an AR-15 and I do enjoy taking my guns , all of them, to our local ranges and shooting them...it's a hobby, an enjoyable and legitimate recreational interest. The Newtown shootings are a tragedy and quite reasonably should give us all pause for grieve and constructive reflection on what is to be done. Banning AR-15's and similarly designed weapons will not solve the problem. The real nutcases out there will simply find other, potentially more effective means of inflicting their carnage and suffering upon us. If we truly want to fix it, we have to address the problem in it's entirety!


I'm honestly not sure whether yet stricter gun laws would yield a safer society. These things are hard to know. I am sure that much of the impetus behind our current conversations is the need to make folks *feel* better about themselves and *feel* like they are doing something.


----------



## Mike Petrik

CuffDaddy said:


> But we could create such a product Mike, simply by requiring such insurance as a condition to owning a particular type of firearm. The moral hazard would be easily taken care of by making the deductible "Policyholder's net worth." This would simply be another variation of my other proposal to allow suits against firearm manufacturers. Both seek to internalize the externalities and thereby produce an efficient market. No government coercion or fundamental denial of liberty required, but level of firearms allowed to find the optimal point.


Yes, and I think this is completely consistent with what I wrote.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

CuffDaddy said:


> Where we really screwed up, IMO, was when we insulated gun manufacturers from product liability suits. People got hung up on the idea that guns used to shoot people functioned as intended, and therefore can't be "defective." But one strong theory underlying a lot of product liability law is that it internalizes externalities. If we allowed victims (or their heirs/estate) to sue gun manufacturers, prices of guns well-suited to crime would rise. The number of guns would go down. But those who really derive a lot of value from gun ownership would still be able to obtain guns (at a higher price) to the extent it remained really rational.


I don't blame you for trying to hustle more work for yourself, but that's nuts!!


----------



## CuffDaddy

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Any views on the piece of news I heard last night?
> 
> That sales all over the US of the types of weapons to be banned have gone through the roof. (military style assualt rifles, and SMGs )
> 
> My initial thought was that it was people buying firearms simply to support the right to purchase arms, then it dawned on me they are simply buying the firearms before Obama's new law kicks in that will make their purchase illegal.
> 
> But then a third thought occurred. Will the law also make ownership illegal?
> And if so, are these people that are buying them now doing so knowing that they will illegally retain them once the law kicks in?


I'm surprised this was news to anyone. I guess I assume that people know that every election cycle since the 1990's brings out "panic buying" among American gun owners, as does every renewed discussion of gun control/restrictions. Gun control advocates have, on net, greatly INCREASED the number of guns in America.

Partly, this is because there are very serious questions about whether a "turn 'em in" policy would be constitutional, much less politically feasibly. Generally, anything currrently out in the market is grandfathered in. So people are incented to buy and hoard as much as possible while they can. If nothing else, they'll be able to sell later at huge profits.

The funny thing is that the Supreme Court's recent second amendment jurisprudence factors in the extent to which a particular kind of arm is in "common use" when analyzing whether a ban is constitutional. Every additional AR bought as a result of the panic incited by the gun control advocates makes a "common use" argument more and more airtight. I'm not an expert in this area of the law, but there is a very real chance that anything draconian enacted in the current environment will not survive judicial review. I understand many people don't have the same view of the 2nd amendment, but the courts get to decide that, for better or worse.

As for the likelihood of all American gun owners complying with a "turn em in" policy, please Google "molon labe." Then understand that this is the most common custom engraving on guns. Whether they will live up to their bluster is unknown, but a _hell_ of a lot of gun owners have already stated that the only way someone is getting their guns is empty and hot. (I, of course, am not saying that. All my firearms were recently lost in a tragic boating accident, so I have nothing to turn in.  )


----------



## Mike Petrik

WouldaShoulda said:


> I don't blame you for trying to hustle more work for yourself, but that's nuts!!


I don't know about nuts, but I do think it is bad policy. Externalities should be internalized to the parties most responsible. Shifting costs to manufacturers who do nothing wrong from users who do is bad policy and unjust.


----------



## CuffDaddy

WouldaShoulda said:


> I don't blame you for trying to hustle more work for yourself, but that's nuts!!


Why? Look at the economic rationale. Guns evidently have high utility (people don't spend big money on useless things), but they have externalities. There are basically three options for dealing with this: 1. Ignore the externalities, and tough noogies to the people who don't enjoy guns but get shot by them. 2. Ban them to eliminate the externalities, and destroy all the utility currently being created by them. 3. Internalize the externalities so that society gets the efficient level of them.

True strict-liability for manufacturers would be a mechanism for #3. Another would be the insurance market described in other posts. Either way, it's a solution that gives something to everyone. Gun manufacturers would just raises prices to account for the tiny percentage of their guns that are used in crimes. Gun owners would pay an extra $X for a gun if it was worth it; if that extra $x isn't worth it, then society was better off without that gun anyway.

It's prety basic economics.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Mike Petrik said:


> I don't know about nuts, but I do think it is bad policy. Externalities should be internalized to the parties most responsible. Shifting costs to manufacturers who do nothing wrong from users who do is bad policy and unjust.


Well, the shooters would retain their liability. The problem is that, 1, they're generally judgment-proof (relative to the size of the damage they cause) and, 2, generally difficult to deter.

You're thinking about it in terms of fault. Allocating blame isn't the goal. Getting the optimal level of consumption is the goal.

BTW, no punitive damages would be allowed. Because the manuf. isn't being punished. They're just having some additional transaction costs assessed to them.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Mike Petrik said:


> I don't know about nuts, but I do think it is bad policy. Externalities should be internalized to the parties most responsible. Shifting costs to manufacturers who do nothing wrong from users who do is bad policy and unjust.


I'd be more eloquent if I were a Barrister or an Englishman, but I suffer the limits that fate had in store for me.

Therefore, it's N-U-T-S NUTS!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

CuffDaddy said:


> BTW, no punitive damages would be allowed. Because the manuf. isn't being punished. *They're just having some additional transaction costs assessed to them.*


Oh, that's all!!

A duck is a duck is a duck!!

But in Obamaland, where a tax is a penalty whenever it's convenient to call it either, I'd say you have a "shot!!"


----------



## WouldaShoulda

CuffDaddy said:


> True strict-liability for manufacturers would be a mechanism for #3. Another would be the insurance market described in other posts. Either way, *it's a solution that gives something to everyone*. Gun manufacturers would just raises prices to account for the tiny percentage of their guns that are used in crimes. Gun owners would pay an extra $X for a gun if it was worth it; if that extra $x isn't worth it, then society was better off without that gun anyway.
> 
> It's prety basic economics.


In other words, the guns and killing continue but the lawyers get their cut.

It opens product liability to a whole new level and the only new player/profiteer, is the legal profession.


----------



## CuffDaddy

blairrob said:


> Cuff, IMO, the statistical comparisons shown in your link are irrelevant and intentionally misleading as the authors term the subjects "developed" countries, when clearly many of them are not. They label east European countries that are structurally failing and others considered emerging economies as 'developed', and these countries skew the results with their notably higher murder rates. Ukraine, Romania, South Africa, and others listed have significant issues with their governance, policing, political systems, and judiciary such that organized crime and corruption are endemic, unlike the first world developed countries such as Japan, Western Europe, Canada and the USA. A proper comparison would exclude the former and isolate the USA as the outlier it is in a data table. My 2 cents.


Blair, the developed nation analysis is a relatively small part of the article. BTW, there are other countries that would be "outliers," on one spectrum, but not the other, such as Switzerland.


----------



## CuffDaddy

WouldaShoulda said:


> In other words, the guns and killing continue but the lawyers get their cut.
> 
> It opens product liability to a whole new level and the only new player/profiteer, is the legal profession.


The legal proceedings would be so simple and brief as to be commoditized. It would be like worker's comp. Got shot by a gun? Submit your damages for payment. No quibbling about design, since that's not at issue. No bickering about what the manufacturer knew, or what other steps it might have taken, etc.

That's fine if you don't like it. But given a choice between that and bans, which would you prefer.


----------



## CuffDaddy

WouldaShoulda said:


> In other words, the guns and killing continue but the lawyers get their cut.


If guns are causally connected with crime, then, no, they won't continue at the same level. Prices of an input to crime will rise. The amount of crime produced will fall. This stuff ain't rocket science. Also, victims of gun crimes will at least have some recourse, as opposed to the usual "opportunity" to sue some broke jailbird or a sui-shooter's gravestone.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Mike Petrik said:


> Cuff, your insistence on the importance of facts will not endear you to many, I'm afraid. Based on my observation, the impulse to assert a moral high ground grounded in "feelings" is apparently quite intoxicating; and no addict will easily accept deprivation of its drug of choice.


I think it's only a little about the "moral high ground," and more about a profoud need to believe there is a ready fix at hand for a terrible problem. Believing that some sort of AWB will solve the problem means that the problem can be solved just by saying certain words. Basically, it allows for the possibility that we can collectively shout "NO!!!!" loud enough and make the problem stop.

But many who choose to be gun owners do so because they have come to terms with the fact that shouting "NO!" doesn't always work. So we're better equipped to reconcile ourselves to the difficulty of the problem. So there's less congnitive dissonance.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

CuffDaddy said:


> The legal proceedings would be so simple and brief as to be commoditized. It would be like worker's comp. Got shot by a gun? Submit your damages for payment. No quibbling about design, since that's not at issue. No bickering about what the manufacturer knew, or what other steps it might have taken, etc.
> 
> That's fine if you don't like it. But given a choice between that and bans, which would you prefer.


That is a false choice and YOU know it!!

However, the model could be tested at the State level to see how it works or more likely, doesn't.

It wouldn't/shouldn't be a National Scheme.


----------



## Mike Petrik

CuffDaddy said:


> Well, the shooters would retain their liability. The problem is that, 1, they're generally judgment-proof (relative to the size of the damage they cause) and, 2, generally difficult to deter.
> 
> You're thinking about it in terms of fault. Allocating blame isn't the goal. Getting the optimal level of consumption is the goal.
> 
> BTW, no punitive damages would be allowed. Because the manuf. isn't being punished. They're just having some additional transaction costs assessed to them.


I see your point, but I think that insurance would be a far superior mechanism than lawsuits. I do not think that products liability law is a very good fit to accomplish the objective you seek, since there is no defect at issue. We can impose a tax to recover social cost, but insurance would be far more efficent.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

CuffDaddy said:


> If guns are causally connected with crime, then, no, they won't continue at the same level. Prices of an input to crime will rise. The amount of crime produced will fall. This stuff ain't rocket science. Also, victims of gun crimes will at least have some recourse, as opposed to the usual "opportunity" to sue some broke jailbird or a sui-shooter's gravestone.


...and the lawyers would get their cut, exactly!!

Has suing under HO or Renters been unsuccessful where that coverage exists??

I'm not aware of civil liability extending from gun negligence as an exclusion under standard ISO forms.


----------



## Mike Petrik

CuffDaddy said:


> I think it's only a little about the "moral high ground," and more about a profoud need to believe there is a ready fix at hand for a terrible problem. Believing that some sort of AWB will solve the problem means that the problem can be solved just by saying certain words. Basically, it allows for the possibility that we can collectively shout "NO!!!!" loud enough and make the problem stop.
> 
> But many who choose to be gun owners do so because they have come to terms with the fact that shouting "NO!" doesn't always work. So we're better equipped to reconcile ourselves to the difficulty of the problem. So there's less congnitive dissonance.


I agree with this, though do think that it is pretty easy to observe the moral high ground phenomenon even on this thread. Some people have not learned that not all problems have solutions, and some solutions create worse problems. Caution, measure, and reasons should prevail over impulse and feelings.


----------



## Howard

Haffman said:


> I believe it has already been said on this thread that civilians are not permitted to own handguns, semi-automatic and automatic firearms in Ireland.


Why not?


----------



## CuffDaddy

WouldaShoulda said:


> That is a false choice and YOU know it!!


I don't know what you mean. It's false in the sense that it's hypothetical. I understand you would like no additional federal regulation. (And I'd prefer that to what's being bandied about.) I'm just trying to propose a middle ground, and was merely asking if you would prefer that middle ground or a complete loss. You won't get to choose, so it's not being held out as a "real" choice anyway.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Mike Petrik said:


> I see your point, but I think that insurance would be a far superior mechanism than lawsuits. I do not think that products liability law is a very good fit to accomplish the objective you seek, since there is no defect at issue. We can impose a tax to recover social cost, but insurance would be far more efficent.


I would be OK with either. Whatever is most efficient that internalizes the externalities is the best solution. We're just talking about the precise mechanism for achieving the goal. The question is whether adding insurers as a necessary party, or only as a party when a manufacturer doesn't/can't self-insure, is more efficient. I am persuadable either way.


----------



## Howard

Hitch said:


> Are you so naive to think teenage sex began in the '90s? LMAO


teenage sex began in the 80's.


----------



## Howard

Hitch said:


> Off topic question . Was television the cause of death ?


no not that I know of.


----------



## Haffman

CuffDaddy said:


> We have in America had many of those sorts of events. Your earlier question about whether America is inherently more violent struck me as too silly to answer - yes, obviously, we seem to be.
> Data points from other cherry-picked countries aren't nearly as instructive as our own experience, simply because the culture and geography


Actually Cuff your comments make me wonder just how much experience you have of other cultures and geography outside the USA. After all, we are all people. I have to say that I find my own society in Britain to be generally more boorish and aggressive (just come to our pubs at closing time) than when I am in America. Our culture is also beset by problems of social poverty, poor education and ignorance, social exclusion, mental health problems with inadequate levels of care, and we watch the same movies, play the same video games and bring our kids up in generally the same way.

And yet compare our homicide and incarceration rates (but not our overall crime rates which actually I think are comparable)!

Unless you have some kind of fatalistic view that there is something inherently wicked about the American culture that predisposes to violence (as the Germans started to believe of themselves) it must be explained by other factors. If it's not an unhealthy cultural relationship with guns then what is it?


----------



## hardline_42

This thread has taken an interesting turn, so I'm jumping back in. CuffDaddy, I understand what you're proposing. The difficulty in implementing such a method is whether or not the imposition of requirements that could be deemed "prohibitive" to some or all of the population is an infringement of a right. Jim Crow laws during the turn of the last century are often cited as a precedent for just such an infringement. Even though African Americans were allowed to vote, the imposition of passing a required literacy test as a prerequisite guaranteed that a large portion of that particular population remained unable to exercise their right. Of course, these types of restrictions were deemed unconstitutional. 

It's the same reason the whole Chris Rock schtick of "bullet control" (making ammo prohibitively expensive as a means of de facto gun control) has never held water. There are currently plenty of lawsuits pending against states that use similar tactics. In NJ, carrying a firearm, concealed or not, is legal. However, the law states the you must provide a "demonstrable need" to carry a firearm before a permit can be issued, and the Chief of Police and a Superior Court judge get to decide how valid your "need" is. Needless to say, only the very politically connected can obtain "permission." I don't even know what a NJ carry license looks like. It's a de facto ban against CCW.

My long and drawn out post is only to make the point that, if the requirement to obtain insurance, pay a tax or otherwise "internalize the externalities," as you've put it, is a burden to a segment of the population (in most cases, the poor), it is an infringement and, therefore, unconstitutional.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Haffman said:


> If it's not an unhealthy cultural relationship with guns then what is it?


Well, that's the question, isn't it? A partial list of things that I believe are significant factors (some of them apply to the 90+% of crime that is economic in nature, and some applies to the crazy shooter kind of crime, which is statistically insignificant):
1. Uneven emphasis on/respect for education in America. Large numbers of Americans are quite proud of their ignorance. We allocate public resources accordingly, so there are lots of poorly educated children of poorly educated parents. 
2. A strong "honor" culture traditional in parts of America, which leads to greater politeness, fewer minor altercations, but more drastic consequences when honor is insulted. This dovetails nicely with your comments about pubs. Brits can get into brawls and dust-ups at pubs in part because that's all it will be - a brawl. Adults don't brawl in America. Physical confrontations in America have a tendency to end in grevious injury or death, even in the absence of guns. 
3. No acceptance of status. Americans are told from birth that they can be president, or anything else they want to be. Most people are special in their own way, but not exceptional in terms of their ability to perform in the world. A huge number of Americans feel like failures for this reason. This is one of the factors behind the number of ~24-year-old men who go on shooting sprees; they have generally just reached the point in life where it is becoming clear that, though they may be smart or gifted, they will not be a Nobel laureate or the youngest member of the House or Representatives.
4. Totally disfunctional approach to mental illness. Mental illness is so stigmatized that parents and other family members dare not seek serious treatment for their loved ones, because of the stigma and loss of rights that will attached to the treated indvidual. Asking to have a troubled 24 Y.O. son committed eliminates a great many options for that son going forward, no matter how successful the treatment. So the parent has to weigh the certain and irrevocable harm inflicted on their child versus the risk of them going off the deep end and doing something terrible. 
5. A totally broken criminal justice system. We have given up on rehabilitation. We don't seriously try to fix violent criminals, we just punish them, and then turn them loose angrier than ever.
6. Huge disparities in wealth. Large spreads between the wealthiest and the poorest. Happiness is an expectation game, and wealth is comparative. Poor people in America feel especially poor because of the conspicuous consumption rubbed in their noses every day. That creates pressure to get yours, even by illicit means, and it also breeds resentment.
7. The melting pot. America's greatest source of strength, but also a source of violence. Without a completely-shared heritage or official culture, it is very easy for Americans to identify other Americans as "the other." Lack of empathy can result, which enables violent impulses to become violent acts.
8. Glorification of violence generally. At the begining of our largest common cultural events - sporting events - we nearly always honor warriors. There are often displays of military might - flyovers being the most common - prior to the game. In short, a little taste of genuine violent potential before our ritual violence. And the sports themselves tend to be a bit violent. American Football is a hell of a lot more violent than the football that most of the rest of the world plays. Baseball has lost its status as the national passtime in part because of the lack of violence - one knock-down pitches were more closely policed, a lot of people graduall lost interest. Boxing is passe, but has been replaced by mixed martial arts (MMA), which is more violent. That's just sports. As Earl noted earlier in this thread, we don't show b00bies on broadcast TV, but showing someone being stabbed, shot, or pushed in front of a train? A-OK.
9. National mythology. This country was created by force. Forcefully siezed from native americans. Forcefully liberated from our British overlords. Forcefully expanded against more natives, and from the Spanish and Mexicans. We rose to global prominence by force of arms. Our greatest deeds were martial. Our greatest innovations have often been outgrowths of military endeavors. 
10. Lack of national service. As described above, we have a warrior culture. But we do not make very many of our young men (and virtually all the violence is by young men*) actual warriors, nor instill a true warrior ethos of duty, camaraderie, service, honesty, etc. Many of the liberal democracies with high rates of gun ownership and low violence - such as Switzerland - have universal service.

I could go on listing things, but my fingers are tired, actual work beckons, etc. Suffice it to say, there are a HELL of a lot of difference beyond just the number of guns.

As for our incarceration rate, that has nothing to do with violence or guns. That's almost 100% driven by drug issues. If you were to remove simple possessory-crime drug prisoners from our prisons, our incarceration rate would be wholly unremarkable.

Finally, and I say this without intending any offense, nor attempting to signal any on my part: You're *remarkably *bad at guessing what my personal experiences have been. That's OK - that's not an important life skill. It's just kind of funny.

* Incidentally, I care more about the right of my wife, and the future right of my daughter, to have access to firearms for self-defense than I care about for my own sake. Women have, generally speaking, done virtually nothing to show themselves untrustworthy of gun ownership, and need the equalizing factor to defend themselves against violent men.


----------



## CuffDaddy

hardline_42 said:


> My long and drawn out post is only to make the point that, if the requirement to obtain insurance, pay a tax or otherwise "internalize the externalities," as you've put it, is a burden to a segment of the population (in most cases, the poor), it is an infringement and, therefore, unconstitutional.


Interesting points. And a source of real dissonance in American law. We seem to be quite comfortable with many fundamental rights being keyed to ability to pay, but not to others. "The freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns the press," etc., etc. If I were trying to argue for my proposal against a constitutional challenge of the sort you lay out, I would probably say, "nowhere does the 2nd Amendment include a right to _cheap_ arms, nor a right to a subsidy for ownership borne by society writ large." Given that the added cost would be tied DIRECTLY to actual costs, I think it would probably be OK. (That's not a legal opinion, just some internet blather.)

Re: the may/shall issue distinction, I'm quite aware of it. The "need" requirement proposed by mrkleen earlier in the thread would be the same thing. One man's need is another man's "bizarre fetish." As I wrote at some length, I think a pluralistic socety requires giving credit to each citizen's desires and subjective utility.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Mike Petrik said:


> I agree with this, though do think that it is pretty easy to observe the moral high ground phenomenon even on this thread. Some people have not learned that not all problems have solutions, and some solutions create worse problems. Caution, measure, and reasons should prevail over impulse and feelings.


True.

Fixing families would solve a whole lot of problems.

I'd ammend your remark to;

"Some people have not learned that not all problems have *Big Government *solutions, and nearly all BG solutions create worse problems."


----------



## Mike Petrik

WouldaShoulda said:


> Fixing families would solve a whole lot of problems.


Yes indeed. The atrophy of the American family has wreaked havoc on our society, resulting in enormous social costs. The federal government contributed to this atrophy, but by no means is the exclusive agent. While there are policy prescriptions that are advisable, it is doubtful that government can now remedy this phenomenon. It is even more doubtful that government programs can serve as an effective social welfare substitute for family commitment.


----------



## Haffman

CuffDaddy said:


> Finally, and I say this without intending any offense, nor attempting to signal any on my part: You're *remarkably *bad at guessing what my personal experiences have been. That's OK - that's not an important life skill. It's just kind of funny.
> .


Not surprising really when I only have your words to follow. After all, I don't know you. And while I haven't time to read your long post in detail right now, a quick scan of your points reveals little or nothing that could not also be said about the UK.

I will ignore your attempt to be patronising in the last sentence quoted above. Actually, where else have I tried to guess your personal experiences?

I previously said that I thought a comment you had made about the situation being too far gone for gun banning reflected more your true position and you said I was half right. Other than that I don't recall trying to read your mind. So if you think it's funny laugh all you want but you seem to be basing all this on one observation of mine, which frankly your words havent shifted me from... wrong though it may be...


----------



## hardline_42

CuffDaddy said:


> Interesting points. And a source of real dissonance in American law. We seem to be quite comfortable with many fundamental rights being keyed to ability to pay, but not to others. "The freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns the press," etc., etc. If I were trying to argue for my proposal against a constitutional challenge of the sort you lay out, I would probably say, "nowhere does the 2nd Amendment include a right to _cheap_ arms, nor a right to a subsidy for ownership borne by society writ large." Given that the added cost would be tied DIRECTLY to actual costs, I think it would probably be OK. (That's not a legal opinion, just some internet blather.)


The 2A has the distinction of being the only protected right directly tied to a material artifact, and it's easy to mentally separate the "right" from the "arms," even though the 2A can't exist without them. Could a religious group be forced to purchase insurance in case its members commit atrocities in the name of its teachings? We don't even tax religious groups, let alone ask them to take on some financial responsibility. It would be an interesting undertaking though, and would stand up to your argument. There is no guarantee that freedom of religion would be cheap, especially if society at large has to shoulder the cost of some wayward fanatics.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Haffman said:


> I will ignore your attempt to be patronising in the last sentence quoted above. Actually, where else have I tried to guess your personal experiences?


Other threads. I'm sure you don't mean to, but sometimes you give the impression that you are dismissing the views of others by presuming that they lack the revelatory experience you have, and that if they only knew as much as you, they would share your opinions. If someone were the easily offended type, it might rankle. I'm not, so I merely find it unpersuassive, and amusing when you incorrectly presume the lack of a certain experience. I enjoy our exchanges, though, and do hope that none of the above gives offense to you.

As to being unable to find parts of my list that cannot be applied to the UK, I wonder if maybe my post got truncated or something.


----------



## Haffman

CuffDaddy said:


> Other threads. I'm sure you don't mean to, but sometimes you give the impression that you are dismissing the views of others by presuming that they lack the revelatory experience you have, and that if they only knew as much as you, they would share your opinions. If someone were the easily offended type, it might rankle. I'm not, so I merely find it unpersuassive, and amusing when you incorrectly presume the lack of a certain experience. I enjoy our exchanges, though, and do hope that none of the above gives offense to you.
> 
> As to being unable to find parts of my list that cannot be applied to the UK, I wonder if maybe my post got truncated or something.


If you are going to say no more than "other threads" then there is not much to go on is there. Nevertheless, I accept that this is your fantasy of my mindset, if that's what you say. Frankly, I feel that I am one of the people on this thread who has tried to provide objective evidence to support my 'revelations'. Since you are again unwilling to provide any more objective evidence for your view of me than "other threads" I will just have to take your word for it.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Oh, goodness, this has become a sideshow. I regret ever saying anything. I'll delete any part of my posts on this non-subject you like.


----------



## Haffman

CuffDaddy said:


> Oh, goodness, this has become a sideshow. I regret ever saying anything. I'll delete any part of my posts on this non-subject you like.


I didn't ask you to delete any posts. No offence is taken. As I said, I will just have to take your word for it. That's fine with me.


----------



## CuffDaddy

WouldaShoulda said:


> his own back yard shooting range and still.


Pfft, I _wish_. I got to go up to my pappy's cabin in Apulacheeyah to 'fore I can shoot offen a back porch! And the dang revenoors done busted up mah still, so I gotta buy my hooch from the 'shiners like e'body else.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Any views on the piece of news I heard last night?
> 
> That sales all over the US of the types of weapons to be banned have gone through the roof. (military style assualt rifles, and SMGs )
> 
> My initial thought was that it was people buying firearms simply to support the right to purchase arms, then it dawned on me they are simply buying the firearms before Obama's new law kicks in that will make their purchase illegal.
> 
> But then a third thought occurred. Will the law also make ownership illegal?
> And if so, are these people that are buying them now doing so knowing that they will illegally retain them once the law kicks in?


To clarify Earl: No, sales of 'military style assault rifles and SMGs' aren't 'through the roof'. This reasons for this are multiple, and I'm going to stick to FACTS here, as I have no interest in the political debate in this forum.

1. The sale of 'military style assault rifles' (defined as a select-fire [automatic] rifle) is heavily regulated by BATF, generally requiring a series of permits, including a federal Class 3 firearms permit, background checks, et. al. 
2. The same goes for 'SMGs' (sub machine guns; generally a select fire [automatic] weapon that fires a pistol caliber bullet). 
3. These items are not regularly bought and sold by the average joe, as they are cost prohibitive, even when they are older, pre-ban firearms.
4. These type of weapons regularly sell for in excess of $10k.

Weapons like the AR-15 (I own one), are only 'styled' like a military weapon. There is no difference between it, and a wood stock, magazine fed rifle aside from the VISUAL APPEARANCE. A fake Chinese iPhone may look like an iPhone, but it certainly doesn't operate like one; this analogy is appropriate for AR-15 rifles. The fabricated term of 'assault rifle' being applied to such weapons is propaganda, and has been admitted as such.

Contrary to what seems to be popular opinion, a weapon that fires more than one round per trigger pull is harder to obtain than a winning lottery ticket. FWIW, none of the mass shootings taking place in recent years has happened with a select-fire weapon, and I'm fairly certain that stat goes back pretty far.


----------



## dba

Chouan said:


> If, therefore, a person wishes to possess a handgun or an assault rifle/sub machine gun, it is because they wish to own a weapon designed solely to kill people. One could argue that that desire itself is enough to determine that they aren't a fit person to possess such a weapon?


I own a good sized chainsaw. I wish I had a bigger one. That doesn't mean that if I did have the bigger one, I'd want to cut down every tree in the forest.

To equate one's desire to own a particular item with their fitness to own said item is absurd.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

CuffDaddy said:


> Pfft, I _wish_. I got to go up to my pappy's cabin in Apulacheeyah to 'fore I can shoot offen a back porch! And the dang revenoors done busted up mah still, so I gotta buy my hooch from the 'shiners like e'body else.


That's the spirit, Boss Hogg!! 

So, any illumination on the HO liability civil tort issue??

There are people in my line that just love Big Government and mandatory insurance programs and competition killing regulations aka Crony Capitalism. I'm not one of them.


----------



## Shaver

WouldaShoulda said:


> You took his word for it that CD is an American living in the South so must be some kind of hayseed with no fancy book learn'n or international experience beyond his own back yard shooting range and still.
> 
> So stuff it you Limey bastard!!


Given that in good faith I will presume you are merely kidding here, then haven't you missed a 'winking' emoticon from this post?


----------



## CuffDaddy

Chouan said:


> Exactly. It is a fact that handguns are designed to shoot people, nothing else.


Patently, unequivocally false. I own a rimfire .22lr pistol. It _could_ be used to shoot people, I suppose, but it would probably make them really angry. It is designed for target shooting, plinking, and other kinds of non-violent shooting. Its use for any other purpose, except perhaps dispatching small animals, would be sub-optimal for sure.

I own a couple of handguns that are rather more powerful. In fact, they are more powerful than necessary or optimal for combat. The recoil is too great, which means that shot-to-shot time is longer than for, say, a 9mm. But they are fine guns for defense against things like bears or cougars. While there are no large, wild predators left alive in the UK, they remain in rural parts of the US. Someone hiking in a remote area may very reasonably decide to carry a powerful handgun for defense against large, dangerous animals, without lugging the weight and bulk of a rifle. And a number of guns are made for just this purpose.

Similarly, handguns are used for hunting of deer, boar, and other game animals in the U.S.

As for the armor-piercing ammunition: do you think criminals have never heard of kevlar vests?


----------



## CuffDaddy

Shaver said:


> Given that in good faith I will presume you are merely kidding here, then haven't you missed a 'winking' emoticon from this post?


Patience, Shaver. When one of your countrymen starts talking about taking away our guns, the American impulse is to reach for the tri-cornered hat, begin hanging lights in church towers, and start looking for an icy river to cross!


----------



## wrwhiteknight

I grew up in the US but reside in Canada and have studied overseas; believe me when I say any view is preferable to the current American societal forecast (regarding the extant topic).

I do not like guns. I think that guns are an unnecessary source of pain and suffering (among many others such as prescription narcotics) in the US. People should not be allowed to own, manufacture or sell any guns other than single shot hunting rifles, and even those should be regulated from Kalamazoo to Kingdom-come.

However, there is positively no way the second amendment is ever going to get touched in a meaningful way; this is not an opinion, it simply will not and cannot happen. This debate is pointless from a view of anything other than a purely theoretical exercise.


----------



## Shaver

CuffDaddy said:


> Patience, Shaver. When one of your countrymen starts talking about taking away our guns, the American impulse is to reach for the tri-cornered hat, begin hanging lights in church towers, and start looking for an icy river to cross!


Funnily enough Mr Haffman owns one of the largest caches of automatic weapons currently in private hands within the UK.


----------



## wrwhiteknight

^^Maybe an icy pond to cross then?


----------



## Haffman

It would be a delicious irony


----------



## Langham

wrwhiteknight said:


> ...there is positively no way the second amendment is ever going to get touched in a meaningful way; this is not an opinion, it simply will not and cannot happen. This debate is pointless from a view of anything other than a purely theoretical exercise.


That may be the case in a nutshell.

Governments _can_ be motivated to regulate a public mischief, but the lesson from efforts such as prohibition is that in controlling one mischief, unless the regulators are very far-seeing, this may merely create the conditions for other mischiefs. So even the suggestion of discussions about regulation seems to have caused panic-buying of assault rifles.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Shaver said:


> Funnily enough Mr Haffman owns one of the largest caches of automatic weapons currently in private hands within the UK.


Now those are most dangerous rumours to spread....! With a trigger-itchy CID, London burned not so long ago for less!!!


----------



## blairrob

CuffDaddy said:


> Well, that's the question, isn't it? A partial list of things that I believe are significant factors ....


A very interesting and (IMO) reasonable post. Thank you for taking the time to do that.



CuffDaddy said:


> I own a rimfire .22lr pistol. It _could_ be used to shoot people, I suppose, but it would probably make them really angry.


You need to spend less time on AAAC and more time on the range.


----------



## VictorRomeo

wrwhiteknight said:


> However, there is positively no way the second amendment is ever going to get touched in a meaningful way; this is not an opinion, it simply will not and cannot happen. This debate is pointless from a view of anything other than a purely theoretical exercise.


I appreciate I'm displaying a certain level of ignorance here as I really am interested in getting my head around this, but why? Why can it not happen? The way I see it, the basis for this debate begins and ends with it.


----------



## wrwhiteknight

^^Constitutional amendments are for all intents and purposes impossible due to their legal and political impracticability. It would be difficult to pass an amendment saying that everybody gets a lollipop and a nickel on alternating tuesdays, so taking away their guns.......

How to amend the constitution: https://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html


----------



## VictorRomeo

wrwhiteknight said:


> ^^Constitutional amendments are for all intents and purposes impossible due to their legal and political impracticability. It would be difficult to pass an amendment saying that everybody gets a lollipop and a nickel on alternating tuesdays, so taking away their guns.......
> 
> How to amend the constitution: https://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html


Fair enough, but I suppose where I'm coming from is living in a place that amends its constitution as it needs to by way of plebicite. We have also employed a constitutional convention now twice (we are currently initiatind the second convention for completion in 2014). So while I get it's no mean feat, the complexity and legal obstacles can be overcome - for the most controversal of topics.


----------



## wrwhiteknight

^^Victor - I genuinely applaud your optimism; for my part I will simply hope for a safe life for myself and my family. I simply hope that those for whom gun ownership is a core part of their value system will be responsible and sane in exercising their rights.


----------



## mrkleen

wrwhiteknight said:


> I simply hope that those for whom gun ownership is a core part of their value system will be responsible and sane in exercising their rights.


Good luck with that


----------



## Bjorn

Mike Petrik said:


> I agree with this, though do think that it is pretty easy to observe the moral high ground phenomenon even on this thread. Some people have not learned that not all problems have solutions, and some solutions create worse problems. Caution, measure, and reasons should prevail over impulse and feelings.


Please reread your own arguments regarding abortions and sex.


----------



## Bjorn

Mike Petrik said:


> Yes indeed. The atrophy of the American family has wreaked havoc on our society, resulting in enormous social costs. The federal government contributed to this atrophy, but by no means is the exclusive agent. While there are policy prescriptions that are advisable, it is doubtful that government can now remedy this phenomenon. It is even more doubtful that government programs can serve as an effective social welfare substitute for family commitment.


I suggest you benchmark your (still fairly anachronistic) family values system against other nations, and you'll see that the demise of the core family has nothing to do with the problems wreaking about. The reasons for enormal social costs are readily found elsewhere.


----------



## Bjorn

hardline_42 said:


> The 2A has the distinction of being the only protected right directly tied to a material artifact, and it's easy to mentally separate the "right" from the "arms," even though the 2A can't exist without them. Could a religious group be forced to purchase insurance in case its members commit atrocities in the name of its teachings? We don't even tax religious groups, let alone ask them to take on some financial responsibility. It would be an interesting undertaking though, and would stand up to your argument. There is no guarantee that freedom of religion would be cheap, especially if society at large has to shoulder the cost of some wayward fanatics.


Seems to me that society at large is indeed shouldering the cost of some wayward fanatics right now...

There aren't any religious groups exempt from personal income tax is there? As for being taxed, since they are not conducting business, I don't see the point of taxing them either.

Since the 2A is tied to a certain type of property (there's generally a right to property, which is defined as a human right, and of course supersedes any countries individual constitution) a tax on that property or a mandatory insurance would affect that right. But rights generally compete, they are not isolated from each other, and the right to life competes with this supposed right to bear arms. Rights are generally truncated. This is not a problem. It's just determining balance.


----------



## wrwhiteknight

Bjorn said:


> Since the 2A is tied to a certain type of property (there's generally a right to property, which is defined as a human right, and of course supersedes any countries individual constitution)
> 
> and the right to life competes with this supposed right to bear arms.


Bjorn, while I am absolutely and unequivocally for gun control and against gun ownership except hunting rifles for hunters, you should be careful in crafting your arguments so that folks have less to spit back at you.:icon_smile_wink:

First of all, while international conventions on human rights may supersede national constitutions in some symbolic ways, these international conventions are not enforceable.

Secondly, it is a logical disjunction to say that the right to life competes with the right to bear arms. The missing linch-pin that is implied in your argument is that sometimes what people choose to _do_ in exercising these rights may bring them into conflict; however, this does not mean that the rights conflict.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Bjorn said:


> Since the 2A is tied to a certain type of property (there's generally a right to property, which is defined as a human right, and of course supersedes any countries individual constitution) a tax on that property or a mandatory insurance would affect that right. But rights generally compete, they are not isolated from each other, and the right to life competes with this supposed right to bear arms. Rights are generally truncated. This is not a problem. It's just determining balance.


Bjorn,

International law carries a good deal of weight in Europe. It carries very little in American courts. If it did, we wouldn't have capital punishment, or several other things that most European nations have ditched.

And you are right that rights often bump into one another. But my right to own guns has yet to cost anyone their life. An actual infringement of my rights to prevent a purely speculative harm is not an obviously-valid balancing.

Frankly, this discussion is well down the road from simplistic and unhelpful "rights" language, except to the extent that certain constitutionally-enumerated rights may place some proposed arrangements beyond the power of the US government.


----------



## wrwhiteknight

CuffDaddy said:


> Frankly, this discussion is well down the road from simplistic and unhelpful "rights" language, except to the extent that certain constitutionally-enumerated rights may place some proposed arrangements beyond the power of the US government.


Bingo. And I absolutely and wholeheartedly _disagree_ with CuffDaddy in his gun-toting ways. However, THIS is where it is at in the good ol' U.S. of A.


----------



## CuffDaddy

VictorRomeo said:


> Fair enough, but I suppose where I'm coming from is living in a place that amends its constitution as it needs to by way of plebicite. We have also employed a constitutional convention now twice (we are currently initiatind the second convention for completion in 2014). So while I get it's no mean feat, the complexity and legal obstacles can be overcome - for the most controversal of topics.


We haven't amended our federal constitution in almost 100 years. Doing so requires a super-majority that spans several bodies and (functionally) lasts several years. Depending on which polls you believe, in the wake of Sandy Hook, there may or may not be even a majority in favor of more gun control at all, let alone a repeal or modification of a constitutional amendment.

The predisposition against constitutional amendment is so strong that advocacy of a constitutional amendment is generally taken to be a sign of a crackpot or at least a person with no political savvy. Newt Gingrich was the last to try; suffice it to say, the Constitution remained untouched, and his prestige was not enhanced.

To put it shortly: We don't do that here.


----------



## Bjorn

wrwhiteknight said:


> Bjorn, while I am absolutely and unequivocally for gun control and against gun ownership except hunting rifles for hunters, you should be careful in crafting your arguments so that folks have less to spit back at you.:icon_smile_wink:
> 
> First of all, while international conventions on human rights may supersede national constitutions in some symbolic ways, these international conventions are not enforceable.
> 
> Secondly, it is a logical disjunction to say that the right to life competes with the right to bear arms. The missing linch-pin that is implied in your argument is that sometimes what people choose to _do_ in exercising these rights may bring them into conflict; however, this does not mean that the rights conflict.


No, rights do compete. In legislation, competing rights are taken into account, and societal interpretation of the meaning of the right is vital. An example would be the common interpretation of "bearing arms". The fallacy is viewing rights as absolute. There are times when the claim to a right of one individual or group directly affects the claim to the rights of another group. Modification, legislation or litigation follows. Rights conflict. Even more so when they are outdated or motivated by circumstances no longer in play. Of course they conflict. Public interest vs constitutional right. Proportionality in legislation.

One would have to be a fairly anachronistic to propose any rights as pure 'natural rights' anymore. It no longer bears up.

The American constitution is simply going through an evolution many new founded nations basic legislation goes through. It has not been decisively altered. People have put it on pedestal, ignoring that its a complete derivative from other previous works, and now getting on in age. Out of sentimentalism, it has been moved to a point where it cannot be altered in a balanced way. This ignores the basic principle that primary legislation of that more permanent character is best altered by a sufficient majority (generally two thirds) with two separate votes with an election in between. Generally, this situation cannot last, since a point is generally reached where not even the most far reaching interpretation can make it valid for present day circumstances. Then it changes.

Generally, the 2A cannot even be construed to automatically confer an individual right. That its not the job of the Supreme Court to say that it's outdated is another issue, thats best left to the legislator. Humans legislators make constitutions, human legislators may change it. The rest is just nitpicking, and bad lawyering, to boot. It completely ignores general legal history.

'The' human rights convention is enforceable in most civilized countries. There's even a court for it.


----------



## wrwhiteknight

^^Bjorn, again, while I agree with you morally, your logic falls a bit short. If you re-read my post, I did not say that rights do not compete (because some do, and of course you are correct that balancing happens sometimes). However, I said that the right to bear arms does not compete with the right to life and this is simply true. The right of someone to own a gun does not compete with somebody else's right to life.

"The human right convention is enforceable in most civilized countries. There's even a court for it." Again, I agree with you morally, but sadly _enforceable_ is not the same as _enforced_. A country will submit to the jurisdiction of the Hague and other relevant authorities if they want to, but there is absolutely no way for them to be forced to do so.


----------



## Shaver

VictorRomeo said:


> Now those are most dangerous rumours to spread....! With a trigger-itchy CID, London burned not so long ago for less!!!


I'd not fancy the chances of any CO19 team that tried to take Mr Haffman down. It would be a lead-storm and no mistake. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## CuffDaddy

Bjorn, your analysis is quintessentially European (and I don't mean that as a criticism). In America, once things are deemed rights, they generally are deemed to be placed _beyond_ balancing, as mere interests would be. When we say something is a constitutional right, we mean that even if a majority of elected officials feel that it should, on balance, be forgone in favor of some other interest, the ability of the majority to take action is what yields.

This is, in many ways, an enlightenment-era view that has never fully incorporated the views of the utilitarians and other 19th and 20th century political philosophies that have been accepted in Europe. Sometimes this strict adherence to rights limits our ability to deal with problems in the most efficient way. On the other hand, unlike many European nations, we never succumbed at any point to the siren songs of fascism, communism, or various other ideologies that are now rejected as thoroughly wrong-headed. There are plusses and minuses to both approaches. But we're not about to change anytime soon, for better or worse.

Regarding our Second Amendment, perhaps you should read the Heller decision that the Supreme Court recently issued. It found an *individual* constitutional right to those weapons "in common use." Handguns - previously banned in Washington, D.C. (where I once lived, and which was ridden with violent crime despite its handgun ban) - were deemed to be constitutionally protected. The majority specifically _rejected_ an "interest balancing" approach as being inconsistent with an enumerated constitutional right.


----------



## Bjorn

CuffDaddy said:


> Bjorn, your analysis is quintessentially European (and I don't mean that as a criticism). In America, once things are deemed rights, they generally are deemed to be placed _beyond_ balancing, as mere interests would be. When we say something is a constitutional right, we mean that even if a majority of elected officials feel that it should, on balance, be forgone in favor of some other interest, the ability of the majority to take action is what yields.
> 
> This is, in many ways, an enlightenment-era view that has never fully incorporated the views of the utilitarians and other 19th and 20th century political philosophies that have been accepted in Europe. Sometimes this strict adherence to rights limits our ability to deal with problems in the most efficient way. On the other hand, unlike many European nations, we never succumbed at any point to the siren songs of fascism, communism, or various other ideologies that are now rejected as thoroughly wrong-headed. There are plusses and minuses to both approaches. But we're not about to change anytime soon, for better or worse.
> 
> Regarding our Second Amendment, perhaps you should read the Heller decision that the Supreme Court recently issued. It found an *individual* constitutional right to those weapons "in common use." Handguns - previously banned in Washington, D.C. (where I once lived, and which was ridden with violent crime despite its handgun ban) - were deemed to be constitutionally protected. The majority specifically _rejected_ an "interest balancing" approach as being inconsistent with an enumerated constitutional right.


I have read the Heller decision, that was what my comment on it not being the courts place to abolish the 2A was about.

I'm a little hesitant to accept a correlation between natural rights and not succumbing to extreme ideologies. Also, you are changing all the time, haven't you noticed?


----------



## Bjorn

wrwhiteknight said:


> ^^Bjorn, again, while I agree with you morally, your logic falls a bit short. If you re-read my post, I did not say that rights do not compete (because some do, and of course you are correct that balancing happens sometimes). However, I said that the right to bear arms does not compete with the right to life and this is simply true. The right of someone to own a gun does not compete with somebody else's right to life.
> 
> "The human right convention is enforceable in most civilized countries. There's even a court for it." Again, I agree with you morally, but sadly _enforceable_ is not the same as _enforced_. A country will submit to the jurisdiction of the Hague and other relevant authorities if they want to, but there is absolutely no way for them to be forced to do so.


I think that's the court of justice you're thinking about... In Hague.
I'm sure you could join the European convention on human rights if you wanted to 
The court is in Strasbourg and its decisions are enforced.

As for the right to bear arms not competing with the right to life, I'm guessing you're not a positivist?

You can read this, for example: https://www.academia.edu/1808656/The_Right_to_Bear_Arms_v._the_Right_to_Life_The_Balancing_Test


----------



## CuffDaddy

Bjorn said:


> I have read the Heller decision, that was what my comment on it not being the courts place to abolish the 2A was about.
> 
> I'm a little hesitant to accept a correlation between natural rights and not succumbing to extreme ideologies. Also, you are changing all the time, haven't you noticed?


I misunderstood your Heller comment, then.

I'm not arguing for a connection between natural rights and resisting ideologies. The US Constitution does not require a natural rights view, and only one of our current Supreme Court justices is a natural rights theorist (Clarence Thomas) and he was the first appointed since about 1910. Our view of rights being inviolate is positivist.


----------



## wrwhiteknight

Bjorn said:


> As for the right to bear arms not competing with the right to life, I'm guessing you're not a positivist?


Positively not a positivist, but I am proactively protective about the personal possibility of having a positive life, and I try to propagate same.


----------



## Bjorn

CuffDaddy said:


> I misunderstood your Heller comment, then.
> 
> I'm not arguing for a connection between natural rights and resisting ideologies. The US Constitution does not require a natural rights view, and only one of our current Supreme Court justices is a natural rights theorist (Clarence Thomas) and he was the first appointed since about 1910. Our view of rights being inviolate is positivist.


In that case, there's no limit on a balancing approach from a legal standpoint, but perhaps you were simply describing the state of affairs?

Generally, debating a single right without weighing it against other rights gets a little boorish. I mean, the people whose kids got shot have a valid argument that the right to life was infringed. Perhaps that can negate the validity of an amendment mainly made to support 18th century militia.

You can argue a ban on guns would not be efficient, but efficiency is not everything when it comes to balancing rights. Life has an absolute value which the right to bear arms does not have.

Wouldn't it be anticlimactic if you negated the 2A, banned most guns, people actually turned them in and the almost nothing else happened in terms of negated liberties or civil unrest? Which is what typically has happened as a result of such legislative efforts...

Perhaps in fact the right to tweet is now more essential to keeping your freedom than toting about armed.


----------



## Bjorn

wrwhiteknight said:


> Positively not a positivist, but I am proactively protective about the personal possibility of having a positive life, and I try to propagate same.


Sorry, I meant that in the philosophical sense


----------



## wrwhiteknight

^^Of course I knew what you meant silly Bjorn! :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Mike Petrik

Bjorn said:


> Please reread your own arguments regarding abortions and sex.


I have. Now I await your point.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Bjorn said:


> I suggest you benchmark your (still fairly anachronistic) family values system against other nations, and you'll see that the demise of the core family has nothing to do with the problems wreaking about. The reasons for enormal social costs are readily found elsewhere.


I'll tell you what. I'll take the time to list and link studies in support of my position if you agree to respond in kind. Otherwise, being a working stiff with family obligations I have better things to do.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Bjorn said:


> In that case, there's no limit on a balancing approach from a legal standpoint, but perhaps you were simply describing the state of affairs?


Of course there's a limit. The limit is a positive enactment - the second amendment to the US constitution. We Americans are, of course, free to amend it again, but as I explained before, we don't really do that anymore. We could, but we don't and won't. Unless we change our minds. But the chances of getting 67% of Americans to agree on anything controversial is essentially zero.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Bjorn said:


> Generally, debating a single right without weighing it against other rights gets a little boorish. I mean, the people whose kids got shot have a valid argument that the right to life was infringed. Perhaps that can negate the validity of an amendment mainly made to support 18th century militia.


That's not even close to the debate. The right of those kids not to be shot is undisputed. That's already enshrined in law.

Their right to not be shot was never in conflict with my right to keep arms. I've kept arms for years. They've never interfered with anyone else's right to live. Nor will they ever, unless someone is on the verge of killing or doing grevious injury to me or my family.

The question is whether my right - and the rights of millions of others - can be definitively infringed in the hope that some other person's already-legally-protected rights will be less likely to be infringed.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Bjorn said:


> Wouldn't it be anticlimactic if you negated the 2A, banned most guns, people actually turned them in and the almost nothing else happened in terms of negated liberties or civil unrest?


More sad than anticlimactic. We've banned types of guns before, and some locales have banned guns almost entirely. Nothing magical happened. People didn't stop dying. People didn't stop killing.

That's exactly what happened when the Brits grabbed all the handguns they could: nothing.










But while nothing magical would happen to violent crime rates, my life would be worse. I derive enjoyment from shooting. Shooting sports call for precision, focus, discipline, and a focus on safety. It also calls for a present-ness, a state of being in-the-moment that is otherwise difficult to replicate on a regular basis. If I thought there would be a big payoff in terms of increased safety, I'd give up something that I find deeply engaging and rewarding. But there won't be. Some people will be worse off, and virtually nobody will be better off. It would just be a waste.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Haffman said:


> And yet compare our homicide and incarceration rates (but not our overall crime rates which actually I think are comparable)!


Haff',

If you're still following this thread (and I hope you are, your posts were interesting to me even when I disagreed), further to your questions about whether American society is more violent than the UK beyond the influence of guns, consider this chart:










Notice that America was hugely more violent before either country had major gun control. When both countries had guns, America was more violent. Per another chart I just posted, when the UK got rid of guns, they stayed just as violent - less than Americans, but in line with their gunpowder-singed eras.

GUNS DON'T CAUSE CRIME. That's not a slogan, that's the truth, as best I can tell.


----------



## mrkleen

Mike Petrik said:


> I'll tell you what. I'll take the time to list and link studies in support of my position if you agree to respond in kind. Otherwise, being a working stiff with family obligations I have better things to do.


I like this. Not only is Mike's intellect superior, but his time is more valuable as well.


----------



## Mike Petrik

mrkleen said:


> I like this. Not only is Mike's intellect superior, but his time is more valuable as well.


Logic is not your strong suit, is it?


----------



## mrkleen

Mike Petrik said:


> Logic is not your strong suit, is it?


Yes, I do have a hard time making sense of the ramblings of self righteous blowhards.


----------



## Bjorn

Mike Petrik said:


> I'll tell you what. I'll take the time to list and link studies in support of my position if you agree to respond in kind. Otherwise, being a working stiff with family obligations I have better things to do.


Social expenditure 2001:


----------



## Bjorn

CuffDaddy said:


> Of course there's a limit. The limit is a positive enactment - the second amendment to the US constitution. We Americans are, of course, free to amend it again, but as I explained before, we don't really do that anymore. We could, but we don't and won't. Unless we change our minds. But the chances of getting 67% of Americans to agree on anything controversial is essentially zero.


I guess I follow that.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

VictorRomeo said:


> Guns terrify me. Their purpose is to kill. I'm so glad they play no part of my life in Ireland and I'm so glad I can go from one year to the next(here) without ever having to see one.


Well said. Just replace Ireland with Sweden and the same applies for me.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

TheGreatTwizz said:


> To clarify Earl: No, sales of 'military style assault rifles and SMGs' aren't 'through the roof'. This reasons for this are multiple, and I'm going to stick to FACTS here, as I have no interest in the political debate in this forum.


I only wrote what I wrote, directly reporting what I heard on the news from the US. I'm not guessing or assuming. I'm simply reporting what was reported. And that is what they said.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Seems to me that what the US needs to do is to go back to its consitution and look at what parts are still reasonable to retain for the 21st C and what rights it is reasonsble to retain for its people.


----------



## Bjorn

Bjorn said:


> I guess I follow that.


Doesn't really seem to be a matter of values, Inglehart-Welzel map:

Left is survival values, right self expression values.

Up is secular rational values, down is traditional values. Note that Ireland is far more trad in its values than the US.


----------



## Haffman

CuffDaddy said:


> Haff',
> 
> If you're still following this thread (and I hope you are, your posts were interesting to me even when I disagreed), further to your questions about whether American society is more violent than the UK beyond the influence of guns, consider this chart:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Notice that America was hugely more violent before either country had major gun control. When both countries had guns, America was more violent. Per another chart I just posted, when the UK got rid of guns, they stayed just as violent - less than Americans, but in line with their gunpowder-singed eras.
> 
> GUNS DON'T CAUSE CRIME. That's not a slogan, that's the truth, as best I can tell.


Thank you, CuffDaddy and yes I am still following the debate. I certainly accept the evidence you adduce in the 'case for the defence' ! (and thank you for finding both charts with data comparing USA and UK)

However, the dataset is incomplete. For me to truly pack up my bags and go home, we need to have data for civilian gun ownership during the periods we are looking at homicide. Otherwise, all we have to add to the data is the Second Amendment (1791) and Gun Control Act (1968) for the USA and the Firearms Acts of 1937, 1968, 1997 for the UK. Forgive me if I have missed some key legislation but you see my point. We need to know how high the levels of civilian gun ownership were/are as well. Furthermore, I would submit that we need to be able to take a view if civilian gun ownership is low, medium or high. I think one of the problems with people saying that a surge in gun ownership in the USA has not led to a surge of gun homicide if that if you are going from a high level of civilian gun ownership to a _ridiculously high_ level, the threshold has in any case been passed - it doesn't have to be a linear relationship to be meaningful.

I suspect the civilian gun ownership levels in the UK have always been low. Even before the 1997 Firearms Act, to own a gun outside grouse shooting circles was (in my experience anyway - others may want to chip in) a rarity. For most of their history, the UK police have been unarmed. For example, the extremely violent miner's strikes of the 1980s (well before the 1997 Act) had - to my knowledge - no guns involved. I think there are many reasons for this beyond some sort of inherent peacefulness of the Brits versus their American cousins (!). As far as I know, UK common law has not been friendly to the use of guns in self-defence, so I think few of my countrymen would ever conceive of owning guns for this reason. I think it has been an offence for some time to have a weapon on your person. The legal minds on the forum may want to clarify further, but my point is that I believe that _guns have been 'regulated' in the UK versus the USA for most of our recent history_.

It would also be interesting to compare the data on civilian gun ownership, homicide and multiple-homicides and spree killings. If my position is right, the levels of multiple-homicide would be much higher in countries where guns were readily available (especially automatic and semi-automatic weapons and weapons with magazines of some description).

Finally, a couple of non-evidence based observations - I am not sure how useful they are so please discount as you wish. You and I got into a (friendly thank goodness) bit of a row yesterday, voices were raised, personal comments were made on both sides (well, sort of, you know what I mean). Imagine we were doing this in a bar in both countries. One of us might go pale and leave the room. If we were in America, it would be shocking but not completely surprising if you or I returned with a handgun in our hands ('the great leveller'!). In the UK, unless we were in gangland circles, it would be _almost inconceivable_. Looking back on our altercation today I can barely see what the fuss was about - but things can seem very different in the heat of the moment - _civilians shouldn't have ready access to guns!_

Another 'home spun' example. Some friends of mine in America were going through severe relationship problems. Bitter arguments, alcohol consumed, emotions frayed, you know what I mean. Sadly (or perhaps fortunately) they are now divorced. I lost so much sleep at that time knowing that there was aGlock pistol in the bedside cabinet and a pump action shotgun in the closet. I would really like to know how many 'domestics' in America spill over into outright gun-fuelled violence. In the UK, an episode like that would almost certainly make the national news.

As a final point, (not directed at you Cuff just a general observation), one cultural difference that is obvious to me in this debate is the different use of the word 'liberal' in America. I consider the 'liberal' position to be the one that allows people to do more or less as they choose. I am certainly not a liberal, I am if anything a conservative and could certainly be criticised for having a rather 'paternalistic' view of the world. It just seems weird to have the gun-control position attacked as being 'too liberal'! :wink2:

*[I do not count Northern Ireland in my account of the UK as, due to the 'Troubles', the situation there was sadly very different. Although it perhaps makes the point that dramatic reductions in the number of weapons in civilian ownership _are _possible, if there is enough political and social will].


----------



## VictorRomeo

Israel's placement smack bang in the middle of Catholic Europe made me smile..... on a few different levels!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Bjorn said:


> Social expenditure 2001:


Your last two charts don't say a lot without context.

What are you trying to say these numbers mean??


----------



## Howard

Shaver said:


> We have proposed plenty of 'facts' and often circular arguments from morality and utility. However, I wonder if I am alone in finding guns, erm, how can I put this? Thrilling, that'll do.
> 
> Guns _are_ rather thrilling, aren't they?
> 
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .


guns are evil.


----------



## Shaver

Howard said:


> guns are evil.


Exactly. Thrillingly evil. :icon_smile:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Howard said:


> guns are evil.


I agree.


----------



## hardline_42

Guns are pieces of metal and wood (or plastic). They're no more good or evil than a hammer.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Thanks, Bjorn, for taking the time to try to respond so helpfully. I appreciate it and will return the favor as soon as I can -- hopefully this weekend. 
Merry Christmas,
Mike


----------



## CuffDaddy

Haffman said:


> However, the dataset is incomplete. For me to truly pack up my bags and go home, we need to have data for civilian gun ownership during the periods we are looking at homicide. Otherwise, all we have to add to the data is the Second Amendment (1791) and Gun Control Act (1968) for the USA and the Firearms Acts of 1937, 1968, 1997 for the UK. Forgive me if I have missed some key legislation but you see my point.


Actually, significant gun control at the federal level in America really began in 1934 with the National Firearms Act. That act is the reason that one cannot walk into a store an walk out with an actual automatic weapon/assault rifle, nor with a suppressor, nor with a sawed-off shotgun, nor with a 20mm cannon. Then there was a 10-year period when "assualt weapons" were banned in the US, as were "high-capacity" magazines. The 1934 act was actually correlated with a decrease in crime, although the end of prohibition, the creation of the modern FBI, and various demographic changes probably played a bigger role. The latter caused nothing beneficial.

The American data set is pretty clear. After 1934, all the forms of gun control we've enacted haven't done anything. There is no chance we will go so far as to remove all guns from society, so debate over whether "complete" control of guns would work is purely academic. Nothing that is remotely feasible will make any difference.

As for the completeness of the data set for comparisson between the US and the UK, sure, there's always more data that would be nice to have. But if guns were a significant causal contributor to crime, that should be screaming out of the data. It isn't.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I only wrote what I wrote, directly reporting what I heard on the news from the US. I'm not guessing or assuming. I'm simply reporting what was reported. And that is what they said.


As usual, the journalists were sloppy with their terms. The sales of those items that are currently legal but that might be banned have been through the roof. Discussion of gun control does more to expand gun ownership and levels of guns than simply remaining silent would.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Haffman said:


> Finally, a couple of non-evidence based observations - I am not sure how useful they are so please discount as you wish. You and I got into a (friendly thank goodness) bit of a row yesterday, voices were raised, personal comments were made on both sides (well, sort of, you know what I mean). Imagine we were doing this in a bar in both countries. One of us might go pale and leave the room. If we were in America, it would be shocking but not completely surprising if you or I returned with a handgun in our hands ('the great leveller'!). In the UK, unless we were in gangland circles, it would be _almost inconceivable_. Looking back on our altercation today I can barely see what the fuss was about - but things can seem very different in the heat of the moment - _civilians shouldn't have ready access to guns!_


If two middle-class, well-educated gentlemen got into a political discussion and it turned violent in America, whether with guns, knives, or beer bottles, it would be national news briefly and local news for months and months. Contrary to what you may understand, when someone is shot and killed in my city, it is still big news. (There is, unfortunately, a terrible bias in the media regarding race and class - the murder of a poor black person will recieve less coverage than that of a rich white person. That has nothing to do with guns, though.)

Also, you seem to imagine that bars in America are like the saloons of the old west. I've spent a decent amount of times in things that might be called bars, or at least pubs. I've never seen a gunfight, or even seen a gun be brandished. Maybe brawls are common at seedier bars, but I haven't seen one in years and years. Most of the additional violence in America is confined to certain circles. Stay out of those circles, and you're likely to be pretty safe.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Haffman said:


> Another 'home spun' example. Some friends of mine in America were going through severe relationship problems. Bitter arguments, alcohol consumed, emotions frayed, you know what I mean. Sadly (or perhaps fortunately) they are now divorced. I lost so much sleep at that time knowing that there was aGlock pistol in the bedside cabinet and a pump action shotgun in the closet. I would really like to know how many 'domestics' in America spill over into outright gun-fuelled violence. In the UK, an episode like that would almost certainly make the national news.


My parents had a miserable marriage, and should have been divorced years before they were. I got to hear lots of heated arguments as a kid. There were always guns in the house (a pair of antiquated revolvers, a .22 rifle, and a few hunting shotguns). Nobody ever got shot. Nobody ever waved a gun around. We also had knives, which can be (and often are) used in domestic disputes. Nobody ever got stabbed, nor did anyone wave around a knife. Why? Because neither of my parents was a murderer. Lousy spouses? Probably.

Some domestic disputes will turn violent. If that happens, it's any tool to hand, I'm sure. If there's no gun, then a fireplace poker will do. At least for the men. Women have no chance in a physical, violent confrontation without the egalitarianism of a gun. But guns don't cause domestic disputes (unless its bickering over how much the latest gun purchase cost!), and they certainly don't cause an unhappy spouse to become a murderer.


----------



## Haffman

CuffDaddy said:


> Also, you seem to imagine that bars in America are like the saloons of the old west.


Ha! Fair comment!


----------



## CuffDaddy

Haffman said:


> As a final point, (not directed at you Cuff just a general observation), one cultural difference that is obvious to me in this debate is the different use of the word 'liberal' in America. I consider the 'liberal' position to be the one that allows people to do more or less as they choose. I am certainly not a liberal, I am if anything a conservative and could certainly be criticised for having a rather 'paternalistic' view of the world. It just seems weird to have the gun-control position attacked as being 'too liberal'! :wink2:


Yep. I understand the point. You won't find me attacking gun control as liberal. I actually am something of a liberal, at least on many issues. I do believe in generally letting people do as they please until their conduct negatively impacts others. Which is why I am for laws against shooting people but not laws against gun ownership. I own guns. That doesn't interfere with anyone else's rights.


----------



## Haffman

CuffDaddy said:


> But guns don't cause domestic disputes (unless its bickering over how much the latest gun purchase cost!), and they certainly don't cause an unhappy spouse to become a murderer.


Sure, but I would be interested to see if there is a real difference in domestics turning into shootings between our two countries or if it is just a fanciful fear of mine. I'm not asking you to get that data but I'd just be interested to see it.

It's SO much easier to kill someone (and indeed several people) with a gun versus a knife!


----------



## Haffman

CuffDaddy said:


> Actually, significant gun control at the federal level in America really began in 1934 with the National Firearms Act. That act is the reason that one cannot walk into a store an walk out with an actual automatic weapon/assault rifle, nor with a suppressor, nor with a sawed-off shotgun, nor with a 20mm cannon. Then there was a 10-year period when "assualt weapons" were banned in the US, as were "high-capacity" magazines. .


I suppose it all depends on whether you think there has ever been 'significant' civilian gun control in the US, at least compared to other modern civilised nations. In addition, From what I understand the 'assault weapon' ban was from the outset a deeply flawed and readily circumvented piece of legislation (I assume it was legislation?).

I'm not criticising you for not providing the data on gun ownership and linking it to serious crime, homicide, gun homicide and multiple homicide, across modern nations . I can't find decent figures over a chronological period. But I think we need them to dismiss my arguments.

I really do struggle to understand Americans as inherently more murderous. Guns, welfare policies and religion aside, our cultures are so similar (and tend to be lumped together as Anglo-Saxon especially by the Europeans). Something has gone seriously wrong to get you (or anyone) in a position to feel you must arm yourself to protect your loved ones from 'lunatics' and so forth


----------



## CuffDaddy

Haffman said:


> It's SO much easier to kill someone (and indeed several people) with a gun versus a knife!


If you're a bigger, stronger person in an enclosed space, I don't think that's right at all. I know several policemen who fear knife attacks more than guns.


----------



## Haffman

CuffDaddy said:


> Yep. I understand the point. You won't find me attacking gun control as liberal. I actually am something of a liberal, at least on many issues. I do believe in generally letting people do as they please until their conduct negatively impacts others. Which is why I am for laws against shooting people but not laws against gun ownership. I own guns. That doesn't interfere with anyone else's rights.


I see, but it's when you have a situation where people feel they must arm themselves because others are armed that the personal ownership becomes antisocial, taken in the round (IMHO). Guns are after all primarily designed as weapons, not tools or even sporting or hunting equipment, but originally and primarily as weapons


----------



## CuffDaddy

Haffman;1354436Something has gone seriously wrong to get you (or anyone) in a position to feel you must arm yourself to protect your loved ones from 'lunatics' and so forth[/QUOTE said:


> For me, that something else was realizing that, *when seconds count, the cops are only minutes away*. Go back and read my story about my wife's confrontation with the street lunatic. If someone decides to direct violence at you, there is generally no help coming, at least not in a space of time that is helpful. You're on your own. That's reality. Any other view is denial. If you live your life in a smart way, chances are that your denial will never cost you a thing. But if the little ball lands in your space on the roulette wheel, you can either be prepared to deal with it, or just accept that fate chose for you to be murdered, beaten into a coma, raped, etc. I don't accept that. I do not expect my wife to accept that.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Haffman said:


> I see, but it's when you have a situation where people feel they must arm themselves because others are armed that the personal ownership becomes antisocial, taken in the round (IMHO). Guns are after all primarily designed as weapons, not tools or even sporting or hunting equipment, but originally and primarily as weapons


I didn't follow that.

But if MY rights are taken, they aren't taken "in the round." They are MY rights, and I will lose them. Something I want to do that is harmful to nobody will be denied me. I object to that strongly. VERY strongly.

Why I want to exercise those rights is really nobody's business. As long as I'm not planning to violate the rights of others, who cares why I want to do something? A pluralistic society demands that we respect the wishes and desires of others to the extent that they not harm others.


----------



## Haffman

CuffDaddy said:


> If you're a bigger, stronger person in an enclosed space, I don't think that's right at all. I know several policemen who fear knife attacks more than guns.


Well I will defer to our military or law enforcement friends, but I was even taught that in army cadet training...from a chap in special forces no less.

Of course, there are certain situations where knives might be preferred to guns for the purpose of killing, but I understand it as a more difficult and bloody business and its not easy to see why!


----------



## Haffman

CuffDaddy said:


> I didn't follow that.
> 
> But if MY rights are taken, they aren't taken "in the round." They are MY rights, and I will lose them. Something I want to do that is harmful to nobody will be denied me. I object to that strongly. VERY strongly.
> 
> Why I want to exercise those rights is really nobody's business. As long as I'm not planning to violate the rights of others, who cares why I want to do something? A pluralistic society demands that we respect the wishes and desires of others to the extent that they not harm others.


Yes badly worded sorry. I meant that if people are buying weapons, and gun ownership rises, then other people who would not otherwise buy weapons may feel that they have to as well, to protect themselves. So an individual act, or more rightly many individual acts, produces an antisocial outcome of people being so scared or the world outside they feel they need an AR-15 (or some such) to defend themselves


----------



## CuffDaddy

Additional data point: A town adjacent to the one where I grew up has a _MANDATORY_ gun ownership law. By city ordnance, each residence MUST have a firearm. Despite being in a major metropolitan area, and despite having a wide range of incomes and classes, that town has a _very _low crime rate.

Do I support such a law? No, it is antithetical to my ideas of liberty. But if we're looking for an approach to make people safer, individual rights be damned (or "balanced" out of existence), then there's some evidence that mandatory gun ownership is a better approach in America than any attempt at banning.


----------



## Haffman

CuffDaddy said:


> For me, that something else was realizing that, *when seconds count, the cops are only minutes away*. Go back and read my story about my wife's confrontation with the street lunatic. If someone decides to direct violence at you, there is generally no help coming, at least not in a space of time that is helpful. You're on your own. That's reality. Any other view is denial. If you live your life in a smart way, chances are that your denial will never cost you a thing. But if the little ball lands in your space on the roulette wheel, you can either be prepared to deal with it, or just accept that fate chose for you to be murdered, beaten into a coma, raped, etc. I don't accept that. I do not expect my wife to accept that.


I understand. But frankly i don't think that you as a civilian should be in the position to make that assessment and apply lethal force with a gun. It is a big enough responsibility to give to law enforcement, and they have extensive training and oversight. I appreciate that we differ on this and respect your views and the views of others. I do not have a gun in my house to defend my family against a murderer or rapist. I accept that might mean that I am less able to protect my loved ones. But I also feel it is a price worth paying to live in a society where the situation is far less likely to arise.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Haffman said:


> Yes badly worded sorry. I meant that if people are buying weapons, and gun ownership rises, then other people who would not otherwise buy weapons may feel that they have to as well, to protect themselves. So an individual act, or more rightly many individual acts, produces an antisocial outcome of people being so scared or the world outside they feel they need an AR-15 (or some such) to defend themselves


Even if everyone else had no guns, I would still enjoy mine and want to own them. Self-defense is only part of it. Pure enjoyment is a big part of it, too.

There are lots of people who enjoy fast, powerful cars. Nobody NEEDS a car that will go 0-60 in 4.5 seconds. But we don't treat that desire as being illegitimate. Because I guarantee that every person here enjoys something that others - a _majority_ of others - would find stupid or meritless.


----------



## Haffman

CuffDaddy said:


> Additional data point: A town adjacent to the one where I grew up has a _MANDATORY_ gun ownership law. By city ordnance, each residence MUST have a firearm. Despite being in a major metropolitan area, and despite having a wide range of incomes and classes, that town has a _very _low crime rate.
> 
> Do I support such a law? No, it is antithetical to my ideas of liberty. But if we're looking for an approach to make people safer, individual rights be damned (or "balanced" out of existence), then there's some evidence that mandatory gun ownership is a better approach in America than any attempt at banning.


It's an interesting point and i had never heard of such a thing but for me that is an example of the difference between a high level of civil gun ownership and a _ridiculously high_ one. Once the threshold is passed, the rest is probably not important. I find it hard to believe that mandatory gun ownership will make America safer.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Haffman said:


> I understand. But frankly i don't think that you as a civilian should be in the position to make that assessment and apply lethal force with a gun.


You cannot seriously mean that. *You think that I should allow myself and my wife and my daughter to be murdered on the view that I am not to be trusted to make the decision to take a life? *


----------



## CuffDaddy

Haffman said:


> It is a big enough responsibility to give to law enforcement, and they have extensive training and oversight.


You should do a little research on the "error rate*" in shootings by police and by civilians not trying to commit a crime. Let's just say that the cops make errors at rates MANY TIMES the rate of civilians. There are reasons for that, but civilians shooting in self-defense have demonstrated themselves to be EXTREMELY careful, and far MORE reliable than cops. It's not even close.

(I.e., innocent person shot)


----------



## Haffman

CuffDaddy said:


> Even if everyone else had no guns, I would still enjoy mine and want to own them. Self-defense is only part of it. Pure enjoyment is a big part of it, too.
> 
> There are lots of people who enjoy fast, powerful cars. Nobody NEEDS a car that will go 0-60 in 4.5 seconds. But we don't treat that desire as being illegitimate. Because I guarantee that every person here enjoys something that others - a _majority_ of others - would find stupid or meritless.


Well we've had this debate before, cars are not weapons. If everyone was buying Ferraris, as long as they still obeyed the laws of the road, I would not feel a need to 'defend' myself or my family against them.

Don't get me wrong, I used to enjoy shooting guns. I admire the design principles of some of them, and respect others that are reliable and easy to maintain. I found it very satisfying to group well at target shooting and exasperating when I couldn't. But I've given it all up and I feel have done so in a good cause!


----------



## CuffDaddy

Haffman said:


> I find it hard to believe that mandatory gun ownership will make America safer.


I recognize that most of the points I am making are "hard to believe" for someone who has bought into the view that guns are bad. That's called cognitive dissonance. Fight through it.


----------



## hardline_42

CuffDaddy said:


> If you're a bigger, stronger person in an enclosed space, I don't think that's right at all. I know several policemen who fear knife attacks more than guns.


Assuming an able-bodied person at close range (as I would assume most domestic disputes would be) I'd say a pistol and knife would be just about the same with regards to ease of use, with a slight edge (npi) to the knife because it will never stovepipe, short-stroke, misfire or double-feed. Despite our relatively high rate of gun-ownership, even the Violence Policy Center, has to admit that firearms are rarely used in domestic violence incidents:



Violence Policy Center said:


> *Although firearms are used in a relatively small percentage of domestic violence incidents,* when a firearm is present, domestic violence can and all too often does turn into domestic homicide.


Interestingly, according to the Fiebert Study, women are actually more likely to use a weapon (like throwing a plate or using a gun) during a domestic dispute.


----------



## Haffman

CuffDaddy said:


> You cannot seriously mean that. *You think that I should allow myself and my wife and my daughter to be murdered on the view that I am not to be trusted to make the decision to take a life? *


I believe it the way I stated it. Civilians should not be able to make that assessment and apply lethal force with a gun. We _have_ to leave that to law enforcement


----------



## Haffman

CuffDaddy said:


> That's called cognitive dissonance. Fight through it.


Surely it's just an alternative perspective!


----------



## Haffman

CuffDaddy said:


> You should do a little research on the "error rate*" in shootings by police and by civilians not trying to commit a crime. Let's just say that the cops make errors at rates MANY TIMES the rate of civilians. There are reasons for that, but civilians shooting in self-defense have demonstrated themselves to be EXTREMELY careful, and far MORE reliable than cops. It's not even close.
> 
> (I.e., innocent person shot)


This could be right but the solution is better cops not vigilante civilians !!


----------



## Haffman

Hardline and CuffDaddy, if you genuinely believe that it is easier for a civilian to kill someone at close quarters with a knife versus a gun (of the sort lets say that is bought for home defence rather than an antique duelling pistol) all I can say is I respectfully and genuinely disagree.


----------



## hardline_42

Haffman said:


> I believe it the way I stated it. Civilians should not be able to make that assessment and apply lethal force with a gun. We _have_ to leave that to law enforcement


Haffman, in the United States, law enforcement has absolutely no duty to protect the individual. This is not opinion. It has been ruled as such by the Supreme Court (Warren v. DC). The police are an auxiliary deterrent at best. Legally speaking, the responsibility of self-protection lies with the individual. We can _chose_ to leave the application of lethal force solely in the hands of law enforcement (many do) but our government gives no guarantee with regards to our safety (nor should it be required to).


----------



## Haffman

hardline_42 said:


> Haffman, in the United States, law enforcement has absolutely no duty to protect the individual. This is not opinion.


Well how completely bizarre. What is the point in having them? No wonder people are stocking up on guns!!


----------



## hardline_42

Haffman said:


> Hardline and CuffDaddy, if you genuinely believe that it is easier for a civilian to kill someone at close quarters with a knife versus a gun (of the sort lets say that is bought for home defence rather than an antique duelling pistol) all I can say is I respectfully and genuinely disagree.


If I thought that to be true, I would replace all of my home defense guns with knives and save myself a bunch of money. My point was simply that, in the scenario of a domestic dispute turned violent, guns are used very rarely in favor of weapons of opportunity (stuff lying around) like kitchen knives.


----------



## hardline_42

Haffman said:


> Well how completely bizarre. What is the point in having them? No wonder people are stocking up on guns!!


Their presence is a general deterrent to would-be criminals, and they investigate crimes and hopefully catch criminals after the crime has been committed.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Haffman said:


> But I've given it all up and I feel have done so in a good cause!


And I will never criticize your decision. As I said, while mandatory gun ownership might lead to lower crime, I find it abhorent to the rights of individuals to follow their own conscience.


----------



## Haffman

hardline_42 said:


> If I thought that to be true, I would replace all of my home defense guns with knives and save myself a bunch of money. My point was simply that, in the scenario of a domestic dispute turned violent, guns are used very rarely in favor of weapons of opportunity (stuff lying around) like kitchen knives.


I see, I must have misread your post I thought it said knives would have the 'edge' on ease of use and thought you meant ease of use in killing. I can agree with what you have written above. I was wondering however how many domestics turn into gun homicides in the USA. I understand that you and Cuff think very few?


----------



## Haffman

CuffDaddy said:


> And I will never criticize your decision. As I said, while mandatory gun ownership might lead to lower crime, I find it abhorent to the rights of individuals to follow their own conscience.


Yes and I respect your social philosophy. As I said, my own is a variant of paternalistic social conservatism with all the pros and cons that implies.


----------



## CuffDaddy

hardline_42 said:


> Their presence is a general deterrent to would-be criminals, and they investigate crimes and hopefully catch criminals after the crime has been committed.


Right. This.

Cops can't be everywhere. They can rarely be where needed. Relying on them to save you in-person is about as rational as relying on spiderman.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Haffman said:


> Well how completely bizarre. What is the point in having them?


To issue traffic citations and sieze college kids' weed.


----------



## Haffman

hardline_42 said:


> Their presence is a general deterrent to would-be criminals, and they investigate crimes and hopefully catch criminals after the crime has been committed.


Maybe I've been wrong all my life but I believed the UK police had a responsibility to protect civilians in distress (within reason). I hope that's right !:icon_pale:


----------



## Haffman

CuffDaddy said:


> Right. This.
> 
> Cops can't be everywhere. They can rarely be where needed. Relying on them to save you in-person is about as rational as relying on spiderman.


Well OK but if the alternative is my fellow countrymen running around with Glocks and Armalites then it's old Spidie for me every time!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Haffman said:


> Maybe I've been wrong all my life but I believed the UK police had a responsibility to protect civilians in distress (within reason). I hope that's right !:icon_pale:


When you are a victim, sue them for not protecting you and find out!!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

hardline_42 said:


> Their presence is a general deterrent to would-be criminals, and they investigate crimes and hopefully catch criminals after the crime has been committed.


...and in some areas, (DC comes to mind) -50% of murders and violent crimes are ever solved.


----------



## hardline_42

Haffman said:


> Maybe I've been wrong all my life but I believed the UK police had a responsibility to protect civilians in distress (within reason). I hope that's right !:icon_pale:


They may. I'm unaware of how far the UK police's liability extends with regard to protecting the individual. I have heard reports that they no longer investigate certain lower-level crimes to focus on bigger stuff.

In the US, I would venture to say that most people believe what you do. Police departments have slowly been removing the "to serve and protect" verbiage from their motto, once proudly emblazoned on the sides of police vehicles, and few have noticed. The average person still thinks the police are required to protect them and act/think accordingly.


----------



## Haffman

"To be hanging around nearby and hopefully deterring criminals and have a 50% chance of catching the hoods who did that to you", it just doesn't have the same ring about it!


----------



## hardline_42

Haffman said:


> "To be hanging around nearby and hopefully deterring criminals and have a 50% chance of catching the hoods who did that to you", it just doesn't have the same ring about it!


:biggrin:
It's a bit long to fit on the side of your average cop car.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Haffman said:


> Maybe I've been wrong all my life but I believed the UK police had a responsibility to protect civilians in distress (within reason). I hope that's right !:icon_pale:


Oh, cops will try to help you here. If they're around. America is a BIG place. Cops are hardly ever around when you need them. They'll help you fill out paperwork after a crime, but they're not going to interrupt a crime in progress except by chance.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Haffman said:


> "To be hanging around nearby and hopefully deterring criminals and have a 50% chance of catching the hoods who did that to you", it just doesn't have the same ring about it!


Not very good marketing for the annual requests to increase the budget.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Another source of academic research: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck

"Kleck conducted a national survey in 1994 (the National Self-Defense Survey) and, extrapolating from the 5,000 households surveyed, estimated that in 1993 there were approximately 2.5 million incidents in which victims used guns for self-protection, an average of 4.75 times per minute for each minute of the year, compared to about four hundred thousand crimes committed by offenders with guns"

One of his scholarly works is available here (the URL is just where it can be found, not its journal of publication): https://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

hardline_42 said:


> Guns are pieces of metal and wood (or plastic). They're no more good or evil than a hammer.


Tell me how shooting a person (even a criminal or enemy soldier) is a good thing then?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

CuffDaddy said:


> The sales of those items that are currently legal but that might be banned have been through the roof.


Which is EXACTLY what I wrote!!!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Haffman said:


> Hardline and CuffDaddy, if you genuinely believe that it is easier for a civilian to kill someone at close quarters with a knife versus a gun (of the sort lets say that is bought for home defence rather than an antique duelling pistol) all I can say is I respectfully and genuinely disagree.


Well said.


----------



## Haffman

CuffDaddy said:


> Another source of academic research: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck


Damn! My subscription to the Journal of Quantitative Criminology has lapsed!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

mrkleen said:


> Yes, I do have a hard time making sense of the ramblings of self righteous blowhards.


Using the term self-righteous blowhard of someone whose opnion you don't agree with I think says more about you than him. I believe it's called projection.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Which is EXACTLY what I wrote!!!


Right. I was the one who intially responded by agreeing with your post. Another poster (Hardline?) correctly pointed out that the language in your quoted report was inaccurate. But you were correct about the basic phenomenon. My more recent post was in _support_ of your general analysis.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Sorry, but I have to chime in here with BALDERDASH, TOMMYROT, STUFF AND NONSENSE. I have been involved in several knife incidents and knife fights, I have disarmed several people with everything from flickknives to huge butcher's knives & received commendations for it. I have NEVER been afraid of anyone waving a knife around (*** more on this later)
I was however always wary of people with guns, pull the trigger, BANG, you're dead. I've dealt with a few gun incidents as well, while myself unarmed. 


*** RIGHT, anyone who says a knife and a gun are roughly the same at close quarters & in the level of threat and fear they present is quite frankly talking utter rubbish.

Here are two well know street rules for you that the vast majority of copers and obuncers in the UK are well aware of: 

1, a person waving a knife about or threatening you with it, perhaps to rob you or to scare you, is not a knifeman and will NEVER stab you, I have disarmed such people on and off duty. A swift kick to the bollox for example disarmed one young bloke, shouting disarmed another in Paris, running at a robber in Notting Hill made another turn and run away.


2, The person who stabs you is the one who walks past you with the knife concealed, it flashes out does its job, usually upper chest or upper back, without you even seeing it, then gets concelaed again. THAT is how most stabbings occur on the streets, in pubs, nightclubs, as assassinations, hits, vendettas.

A visible knife is rarely a real threat. ANY gun visible or otherwise IS!
Those of you who clearly don't know what you're talking about please stop comparing guns and knives.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

CuffDaddy said:


> Right. I was the one who intially responded by agreeing with your post. Another poster (Hardline?) correctly pointed out that the language in your quoted report was inaccurate. But you were correct about the basic phenomenon. My more recent post was in _support_ of your general analysis.


Oh I see, right, sorry, this thread is getting really confusing.


----------



## hardline_42

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Tell me how shooting a person (even a criminal or enemy soldier) is a good thing then?


You say, "tell me how _shooting _a person is a good thing", but, unless I'm reading you wrong, I assume you actually mean _killing_. Using lethal force against a person who is intent on harming you or a loved one is always sad because harm or loss of life has come to a human being. But it is a justified loss because you are protecting your innate right to life from the encroachment upon it by another.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Those of you who clearly don't know what you're talking about please stop comparing guns and knives.


I'll certainly defer to your expertise and experience, Earl. I was merely repeating what I have been told by others.

But surely you would agree that for a civilian with no significant martial training, a larger, stronger adversary armed with a knife in a closed space is a very serious problem indeed. And that if the civilian is a woman or is physically infirm in some way, the problem is essentially insurmountable. No?


----------



## hardline_42

CuffDaddy said:


> Right. I was the one who intially responded by agreeing with your post. Another poster (Hardline?) correctly pointed out that the language in your quoted report was inaccurate. But you were correct about the basic phenomenon. My more recent post was in _support_ of your general analysis.


Was it me? I don't even remember. But it IS important to make the distinction. Never, ever trust the media when it comes to firearms nomenclature or identification. Machine guns, submachine guns and assault rifles are not in question. They've been under a de facto ban since the 1930's. Unfortunately, the media is still using this guide when they report their stories:












Earl of Ormonde said:


> A visible knife is rarely a real threat. ANY gun visible or otherwise IS!
> Those of you who clearly don't know what you're talking about please stop comparing guns and knives.


I don't have your experience, though what you say sounds very accurate. I was referring to domestic violence incidents, specifically, and the low percentage of firearms used.


----------



## dba

Haffman said:


> I accept that might mean that I am less able to protect my loved ones. But I also feel it is a price worth paying to live in a society where the situation is far less likely to arise.


Yes, it's much more noble to be a murder victim instead of a survivor.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

CuffDaddy said:


> But surely you would agree that for a civilian with no significant martial training, a larger, stronger adversary armed with a knife in a closed space is a very serious problem indeed. And that if the civilian is a woman or is physically infirm in some way, the problem is essentially insurmountable. No?


Yes, I agree with both your points. However, if a person is so much stronger & in such a greater position in the situation is doesn't really matter if he's got a knife or gun or not, his unarmed person will also be unbeatable. AND then a gun will help the underdog but not a knife.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Earl of Ormonde said:


> AND then a gun will help the underdog but not a knife.


That's right. That was my point earlier about guns being the most egalitarian of weapons. An 80 year old woman can be just a dangerous to tangle with as a 19 year old street thug, if she's got a gun and has learned how to use it.


----------



## Haffman

dba said:


> Yes, it's much more noble to be a murder victim instead of a survivor.


What a stupid thing to say.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

CuffDaddy said:


> That's right. That was my point earlier about guns being the most egalitarian of weapons. An 80 year old woman can be just a dangerous to tangle with as a 19 year old street thug, if she's got a gun and has learned how to use it.


Exactly, and I am using the same point to dismiss the argument that someone made earlier suggesting that guns and knives are roughly the same when in use and as regards effect and consequences, when in fact they aren't even in the same league.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

hardline_42 said:


> You say, "tell me how _shooting _a person is a good thing", but, unless I'm reading you wrong, I assume you actually mean _killing_. Using lethal force against a person who is intent on harming you or a loved one is always sad because harm or loss of life has come to a human being. But it is a justified loss because you are protecting your innate right to life from the encroachment upon it by another.


No, I'm talking purely from the standpoint of good and bad. Even shooting someone necessarily to protect yourself or other innocents is not a good thing, you have injured or killed another human being, that is never good, no matter how evil or malintended that person is.

I'm anti-firearms, anti-death penalty, anti-killing, anti-abortion, anti-war, anti-armaments.

For me killing is killing and a state can never justify it, no matter how hard they try. The moral maze is too obvious: "We're executing you because you killed a person" No logic there at all. "We're killing you because what you did, killing a person, is so terrible so we're going to do the same to you!!!" ????? Who then will execute the executioners?


----------



## hardline_42

Earl of Ormonde said:


> No, I'm talking purely from the standpoint of good and bad. Even shooting someone necessarily to protect yourself or other innocents is not a good thing, you have injured or killed another human being, that is never good, no matter how evil or malintended that person is.
> 
> I'm anti-firearms, anti-death penalty, anti-killing, anti-abortion, anti-war, anti-armaments.
> 
> For me killing is killing and a state can never justify it, no matter how hard they try. The moral maze is too obvious: "We're executing you because you killed a person" No logic there at all. "We're killing you because what you did, killing a person, is so terrible so we're going to do the same to you!!!" ????? Who then will execute the executioners?


The obvious question is, if your life or that of a loved one were in imminent danger at the hands of another human being, would you defend yourself knowing that the death of your attacker is a possible outcome? Or would you resign yourself or a loved one to accept whatever harm comes your way to uphold your convictions? Just to be clear, I find it admirable for anyone to be willing to die for what they believe in. I find it less so when someone suggests that I should also die for what they believe in.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

hardline_42 said:


> ...Just to be clear, I find it admirable for anyone to be willing to die for what they believe in. I find it less so when someone suggests that I should also die for what they believe in.


I believe this is how some of the well-intended feel about our rights as gun owners and the unfortunate side effects (occasional whack-job shoot-em ups) They think that innocent victims are sacrificed for our rights.

We think they are wrong, but I think that's what they think.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Haffman said:


> I suspect the civilian gun ownership levels in the UK have always been low.


 Correct, very low in fact. Obtaining a firearms licence was a very rigorous process. I even did some licence application enquiries myself in the 80s.



Haffman said:


> Even before the 1997 Firearms Act, to own a gun outside grouse shooting circles was (in my experience anyway - others may want to chip in) a rarity.


 Correct again.



Haffman said:


> For most of their history, the UK police have been unarmed.


 Trivia point: Sabres were held at police stations well into the 1960s.



Haffman said:


> For example, the extremely violent miner's strikes of the 1980s (well before the 1997 Act) had - to my knowledge - no guns involved.


 Correct. The only firearms available to us on Shield Serials, the SPG and on the DSU (District Support Units), and never used as far as I know, was the FRG (Federal Riot Gun) for firing rubber bullets and CS gas cannisters. Firearms only became available to the TSG (Territorial Support Group) via ASUs in 87 after the SPG & DSU were disbanded and replaced by the TSG. I served on the DSU in 86, and on Shield Serials at Broadwater Farm, Brixton, Wapping, and the first Poll Tax riot. Nowadays ASUs are on everyday regular patrol.



Haffman said:


> As far as I know, UK common law has not been friendly to the use of guns in self-defence, so I think few of my countrymen would ever conceive of owning guns for this reason. I think it has been an offence for some time to have a weapon on your person. The legal minds on the forum may want to clarify further, but my point is that I believe that _guns have been 'regulated' in the UK versus the USA for most of our recent history_.


 Correct. There is no common law or "constitutional" right for the carrying of weapons of any kind in the UK, be it knives, clubs, mace or fierarms. It was all a bit wishy washy though until the 1937 Firearms Act came into force, then the 65 act, then the long standing 1968 Act that I learned at police college.

As regards Northern Ireland, 99.9% percent of the population had less access to firearms during The Troubles than did civilians in Britain. Why? Well, for the simple reason that ALL firearms during the Troubles in NI were controlled by the various paramilitaries and that includes the firearms used for non-terrorist crime, and God forbid anyone who did anything tooled up without permission from his local commander. Hence all the kneecappings for anti-social behaviour, which included thieving from your own people, drug dealing or being a rude twat! The IRA invented the ASBO! 

Now, one of the safest places I've ever been in the UK & one of the places I feel safest in the UK is Belfast. I'd much rather walk around on my own in Belfast at nightime (and have done) than in Peckham, Bermondsey or Tottenham (which I have also done).


----------



## Bjorn

Was this quoted already? Can't remember:

I am cer*tain*ly not an advo*cate for for fre*quent and untried changes in laws and con*sti*tu*tions. I think mod*er*ate imper*fec*tions had bet*ter be borne with; because, when once known, we accom*mo*date our*selves to them, and find prac*ti*cal means of cor*rect*ing their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and insti*tu*tions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more devel*oped, more enlight*ened, as new dis*cov*er*ies are made, new truths dis*closed, and man*ners and opin*ions change with the change of cir*cum*stances, insti*tu*tions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fit*ted him when a boy, as civ*i*lized soci*ety to remain ever under the reg*i*men of their bar*barous ancestors.

- Thomas Jef*fer*son

As for not wanting to be less secure, without guns, because other people would prefer it if you were not armed, if its a democracy, you just have to suck it up. I don't have a problem with legally requiring people not to be armed. Does that make them more vulnerable? Maybe. Does it make society as a whole more secure? You betcha.


----------



## hardline_42

Bjorn said:


> As for not wanting to be less secure, without guns, because other people would prefer it if you were not armed, if its a democracy, you just have to suck it up. I don't have a problem with legally requiring people not to be armed. Does that make them more vulnerable? Maybe. Does it make society as a whole more secure? You betcha.


It's a good thing we don't, and never have lived in a democracy. Our country's Founding Fathers hated democracy and it's often been compared to "two wolves and a sheep deciding on what's for dinner." We live in a Constitutional Republic, governed by rule of law, not popular opinion. The powers of the government are limited by the Constitution regardless of what "the people" want.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Bjorn said:


> ...I don't have a problem with legally requiring people not to be armed.
> 
> Does that make them more vulnerable? Maybe.
> 
> Does it make society as a whole more secure? You betcha.


1) Yes. Not maybe.

2) Actually, that's still debatable.

We may not always be different than you (USA vs. Europe) but we are and there is good reason.

There is a profound mistrust of a controlling central authority and confidence in the autonomy of the individual since our inception.

It's obvious with the re-election of Obama that may change as the masses trade in their liberty for security. False sense of security that is.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

hardline_42 said:


> The obvious question is, if your life or that of a loved one were in imminent danger at the hands of another human being, would you defend yourself knowing that the death of your attacker is a possible outcome? Or would you resign yourself or a loved one to accept whatever harm comes your way to uphold your convictions? Just to be clear, I find it admirable for anyone to be willing to die for what they believe in. I find it less so when someone suggests that I should also die for what they believe in.


Don't get me wrong. I would have no problem killing a person in such a situation if absolutely necessary. However, I would try to my utmost ability to incapacitate the attacker without killing, I would happily batter the feck out of anyone attacking me or mine.

BUT it is this, that I think that the presence of firearms makes the defence of yourself or family far too easy and deadly i.e. pull the trigger, kill the attacker, end of problem. It's as if not all the options have been examined.

Let me paint that for you another way, whenever you see an American cop approach a vehicle s/he has stopped, the hand is on the butt of the pistol or the pistol is drawn.

I never had that option when I was a cop in London, I had to think on my feet, use my brain and my tongue to defuse situations i.e. find solutions without using violence & certainly without shooting suspects the minute they start acting up. That said, in my over 13 years of service I only ever encountered guns in front of me 2 or 3 times. 99.9% of people back then simply didn't and still don't carry firearms in the UK.


----------



## hardline_42

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Don't get me wrong. I would have no problem killing a person in such a situation if absolutely necessary. However, I would try to my utmost ability to incapacitate the attacker without killing, I would happily batter the feck out of anyone attacking me or mine.


Agree 100%. I would only change the word "incapacitate" to "stop," and it would echo my feelings exactly.



Earl of Ormonde said:


> BUT it is this, that I think that the presence of firearms makes the defence of yourself or family far too easy and deadly i.e. pull the trigger, kill the attacker, end of problem. It's as if not all the options have been examined.


Firearms are easy to use, and they are effective. That is why they are my self-defense tool of choice (and that of almost 100 million other civilians, law enforcement and every branch of the armed forces). That doesn't mean it's my only tool, nor is it my first tool. It's the very last line of defense in a multi-tiered plan that consists of layers of passive tools including but not limited to: security lights, hardened exterior doors and door frames, alarm system, dogs, hardened interior doors and a well rehearsed family drill. Yes, I take it seriously. The police have no responsibility towards my family, but I do.



Earl of Ormonde said:


> I had to think on my feet, use my brain and my tongue to defuse situations i.e. find solutions without using violence & certainly without shooting suspects the minute they start acting up.


This sounds exactly like the first things you would learn in a CCW class. American gun owners might be gun-happy, but we are not trigger-happy. There is a lot of emphasis on de-escalation of aggression, situational awareness and how to identify a justified shoot (immediate, unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm) among gun-enthusiasts.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Bjorn said:


> Social expenditure 2001:


Thanks for posting this, Bjorn. While interesting I honestly do not see how it impeaches my assertion that:

"The atrophy of the American family has wreaked havoc on our society, resulting in enormous social costs. The federal government contributed to this atrophy, but by no means is the exclusive agent. While there are policy prescriptions that are advisable, it is doubtful that government can now remedy this phenomenon. It is even more doubtful that government programs can serve as an effective social welfare substitute for family commitment."

I suppose your point is that poverty is a function of the level of social expenditure, but the pattern does not really hold. In general, poverty is not a larger problem in the US than the countries with other colors, especially on an absolute scale. What is true is that in the US it is disproportionately concentrated in single parent families. I have not studied the data from other countries.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Bjorn said:


> Doesn't really seem to be a matter of values, Inglehart-Welzel map:
> 
> Left is survival values, right self expression values.
> 
> Up is secular rational values, down is traditional values. Note that Ireland is far more trad in its values than the US.


The term traditional values has a very relaxed understanding in this portrait. The traditional values in Sub-Saharan Africa are not comparable to thise in South Asia which are not common to those in the US, etc. Which values are traditional matters. Moreover, I my assertion was regarding the atrophy of the family in the US. I stand by that point and will post some supporting literature with considerable embedded data.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Bjorn,

Thanks again for taking the time to explain your position. The following serves to return the favor:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1566637538/

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307453421/

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/us/two-classes-in-america-divided-by-i-do.html?_r=0

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0767906322/

https://www.heritage.org/research/r...erica-s-greatest-weapon-against-child-poverty

https://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2002/03/marriage-reduces-poverty

https://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc262d.pdf

https://www.sagepub.com/oswmedia3e/study/chapters/handbooks/handbook10.2.pdf

https://www.economist.com/node/18867552

https://news.virginia.edu/content/f...genda-reverse-decline-marriage-middle-america

I appreciate that it is unlikely that the foregoing will convince you. Fair enough and feel free to respond with the last word.
Cheers and Merry Christmas!


----------



## dba

Haffman said:


> What a stupid thing to say.


That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. As you said in post #561, you believe that civilians should not be allowed to make a deadly force decision with a gun. You further say that we have to leave that to law enforcement. If you want to outsource your safety to law enforcement, then by all means wait for them. If you chose not to take any measures to protect yourself and/or family, so be it. If you do become a victim, please don't cry to the police when they arrive and ask, "Where were you?" As someone on this forum so eloquently stated, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."

As Hardline _42 said in post 565, the police have no duty to protect you. While I was working as a police officer, I'd do what I could but I couldn't be everywhere at once. Most of the time, I was busy helping people that got hurt while waiting for Spiderman to help them.

I might suggest you read this link https://www.gleamingedge.com/mirrors/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.htmlas it talks about cops in American society. It's about 15 years old. While I don't subscribe to it literally, I liken myself not so much as a sheepdog but a porcupine. Porcupines are great; they walk around foraging for food, and avoid starting $*it with other animals. So long as you don't attack a porcupine you'll be OK but if you mess with a porcupine you're going to get a face full of wrath filled quills.

An armed society is a polite society:


----------



## Haffman

^^
You still just don't seem to understand that statistically you are much more likely to be a murder victim in your society, living in the way you describe above , than I am in mine. 

But it sounds like we are both happy with the way things are in our respective homes, so lets leave it at that. I spend much of my professional life working with the police and have the highest respect for them. And if you want to be seen as a porcupine, good luck to you!


----------



## Haffman

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Correct, very low in fact. Obtaining a firearms licence was a very rigorous process. I even did some licence application enquiries myself in the 80s.
> 
> Correct again.
> 
> Trivia point: Sabres were held at police stations well into the 1960s.
> 
> Correct. The only firearms available to us on Shield Serials, the SPG and on the DSU (District Support Units), and never used as far as I know, was the FRG (Federal Riot Gun) for firing rubber bullets and CS gas cannisters. Firearms only became available to the TSG (Territorial Support Group) via ASUs in 87 after the SPG & DSU were disbanded and replaced by the TSG. I served on the DSU in 86, and on Shield Serials at Broadwater Farm, Brixton, Wapping, and the first Poll Tax riot. Nowadays ASUs are on everyday regular patrol.
> 
> Correct. There is no common law or "constitutional" right for the carrying of weapons of any kind in the UK, be it knives, clubs, mace or fierarms. It was all a bit wishy washy though until the 1937 Firearms Act came into force, then the 65 act, then the long standing 1968 Act that I learned at police college.
> 
> As regards Northern Ireland, 99.9% percent of the population had less access to firearms during The Troubles than did civilians in Britain. Why? Well, for the simple reason that ALL firearms during the Troubles in NI were controlled by the various paramilitaries and that includes the firearms used for non-terrorist crime, and God forbid anyone who did anything tooled up without permission from his local commander. Hence all the kneecappings for anti-social behaviour, which included thieving from your own people, drug dealing or being a rude twat! The IRA invented the ASBO!
> 
> Now, one of the safest places I've ever been in the UK & one of the places I feel safest in the UK is Belfast. I'd much rather walk around on my own in Belfast at nightime (and have done) than in Peckham, Bermondsey or Tottenham (which I have also done).


Thank you for taking the time to clarify all that Earl and particularly the points about Northern Ireland. It's good to have the perspective of someone with some first hand knowledge of the matter.


----------



## dba

Haffman said:


> ^^
> You still just don't seem to understand that statistically you are much more likely to be a murder victim in your society, living in the way you describe above , than I am in mine.


I do understand. The violence in this country is out of control. I lived in Wales as an infant and toddler. I wonder how different my life would have been had my parents stayed in the UK. I am retired now, hence the porcupine adage; don't bother me, and I won't bother you.

Cheers,

David


----------



## Haffman

dba said:


> I do understand. The violence in this country is out of control. I lived in Wales as an infant and toddler. I wonder how different my life would have been had my parents stayed in the UK. I am retired now, hence the porcupine adage; don't bother me, and I won't bother you.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> David


I understood the adage and also read the parable you suggested about sheep, sheepdogs and wolves. I did notice the following section :

"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."

I was pleased to see this talk of a need for the sheep to be protected by the sheepdogs. The police having no duty to protect civilians is nothing to be proud of (I'm not saying you are). As a doctor I am required to come to your aid in a time of need. I can't get out of it, nor should i want or try to.

PS in case the above sounds pompous what I mean is I am actually legally required to come to your aid...although in the USA it may be different


----------



## hardline_42

After a week of silence, the NRA speaks:






Cliff's notes:

- NRA calls upon Congress to make the resources available to station an armed police officer in every school in America

- NRA launches the "National School Shield" program, run by Congressman Asa Hutchinson, with the purpose of providing proven protection to schools now, while gun-control debates will undoubtedly rage on with few tangible results

- Program will make use of the NRA's training and tactics resources to tailor security plans, free of charge, for any school that wants it

- Programs are customizable by locality, need and even stance on guns (for example, if the parents don't want armed guards)

- Bunch of other stuff I missed


----------



## pleasehelp

This is obviously a pretty emotional debate, and not one that I think I’ll dive into, but I do want to make one observation – there are a few issues that are getting mixed up here, and I think that distinguishing those issues would be helpful. 

Discussion A) Some folks are debating the issue of what level (if any) of gun control is permissible in the US under the constitution – this is an issue of legal interpretation, public policy (not with respect to gun control, but with respect to how constitutional amendments should or should not be implemented) and governmental theory. The issue of gun control is really just ancillary to the discussion.

Discussion B) Some folks are debating whether there should be gun control. This is more of a public policy and social issue, rather than an issue of legal interpretation. 

There are obviously other discussions as well, but I think the intertwining nature of Discussion A and B in this thread is causing unnecessary hostility on certain points. 

For folks advocating a position of the free use of guns under Discussion A, it is a bit unfair for someone to attack that person with an argument that gun control in another country yields a superior social result unless that argument is made to say that superior social results should dictate how the constitution is interpreted or should give rise to a constitutional amendment. Similarly, for folks saying that gun control yield a positive social outcome under Discussion B, it is a bit unfair for someone to attack that person by saying it is a protected right under the US Constitution.

Feel free to ignore me, but I think that it's helpful to keep the above distinctions in mind. 

My two cents is that gun control is a very complicated issue in the US. My emotional reaction is that gun control feels very appropriate when I'm walking down city streets and feels inappropriate when I'm hunting or shooting out in the country. 

I think that treating the constitution as a "living document" is very dangerous proposition because it allows the erosion of rights and the consolidation of power in the executive branch of the government in an inappropriate manner, and I think the proposition that that this is a republican v. democratic view is simply incorrect. There's a lot of good stuff in our constitution, but it was not written by perfect people and certain fundamental elements of society have thankfully improved since that time (e.g., the treatment of women and non-white people). While there were some amendments to the constiution to address many of these social changes head-on, other social changes were advanced by the Supreme Court through distorted interpretations in order to acheieve a desired result. I often support the social outcome, but the legal underpinnings are faulty and I would prefer to achieve that same social result through the proper channels.

If you were to sit down a group of highly intelligent people today and ask them to write the rules that another group of people should follow two hundred years into the future, I suspect that one of the first things that group would discuss and write would be a manner by which their rules could later be amended to accomodate changes because they would understand their limitations in foreseeing the challenges that the future would face. I think that US society has deified the authors of the constitution - going so far as calling them the "founding father" (as if they truly felt a father's love) - and society therefore scared to touch their words. I think that the authors showed their wisdom in allowing for amendments to the constitution, and when a societal change is so desirable to the population at large that it can amend the constitution, then it is appropriate to do so.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Haffman said:


> Thank you for taking the time to clarify all that Earl and particularly the points about Northern Ireland. It's good to have the perspective of someone with some first hand knowledge of the matter.


You're welcome, and reading back through it now I realise I need to point out an update, and take the opportunity to provide a breif history.

Up to 87 the ASU (Armed Support Unit or Force Firearms Unit to give it its proper name that we never used ) D11 (previoulsy the 1960s D6) was a unit based in East London who were called out & attended incidents on demand, obviously not satisfactory, as most spontaneous incidents were over long before they arrived, which was why until 87 local officers could draw revovlers (S & W .38s) from the station armoury.

Then in 87 the ASU/FFU changed its designaiton to PT 17 (Personnel & Training).

Then in 91 there was a huge reorganisation, which among other things, in response to the rise in armed crime saw the creation of the ARVs (Armed Response Vehicle) on the streets of London crewed by AFOs (Authorised Firearms Officers) which replaced the FO at station level and the SFO (Specialist Firearms Officers) of PT17. Anyway 4 ARVs flew around the capital (Rover 800s) responding to armed incidents happening at the time. (The SFOs of PT17 still made up the teams for planned ops.)

However, initially the AFOs in the ARV needed command authority before (the yanks are going to laugh at this) unlocking the locker in their vehicle to remove weapons for use. (sidebar: that prevented of course the tragic US statistic of over 30% of US cops being shot by their own sidearm in the hands of a third party).

With the creaiton of the ARVs in 91 PT17 became SO19 (under the Specialist Operations Directorate).

In 2005 (9 years after I left) SO19 was renamed CO19 (Central Operations Directorate - or Commissioner's Office as we on the districts used to call it in the 80s).

At that point the FFU (Force Firearms Unit) was renamed SFC (Specialist Firearms Command).

Then in January this year (2012), I recently found out from an ex-colleague on Thames Division that they'd changed designation again so now CO19 is called SCO19 because of the merger of CO (Central Ops.) with the SCD (Specialist Crime Directorate) resulting in the SCO (Specialist Crime & Operations) designation.

1960s - D6 (Firearms Wing - part of the Civil Defence and Communications Branch of the Met) Formed as a result of the shooting murder of 3 detectives in Shepherds Bush in a Q car (unmarked) tailing 3 armed villians in another car. 
1970s - D11 (Force Firearms Unit - Met Police) 
1987 - PT17 
1991 - SO19 - ARVs on the road
2005 - CO19
2012 - SCO19

The first firearm EVER fired by a police officer on duty in London was in 1887 - a whole 58 years after the force was formed. 
In 1936, the authority for officers on outer districts to carry revovlers was removed.
In 1987, the authority for district officers lke myself to draw a revolver from the amroury in the event of an ongoing incident on our own streets was removed.

Basically, the Met has always been an unarmed police force.

A potted history of firearms in the Met, hope you liked it


----------



## eagle2250

Howard said:


> guns are evil.


Guns are not evil...truth be known, they are inert! People, however, frequently are unspeakably evil! Perhaps we should ban people? 



Haffman said:


> It's an interesting point and i had never heard of such a thing but for me that is an example of the difference between a high level of civil gun ownership and a _ridiculously high_ one. Once the threshold is passed, the rest is probably not important. I find it hard to believe that mandatory gun ownership will make America safer.


Alas, all too frequently our police departments require woefully inadequate standards to be met in terms of firearms training for their officers. Having an officer report to a gun range perhaps twice per year to fire less than 100 rounds from their service weapon might insure familiarity, but not proficiency with that weapon. In comparison, as a hobbiest I have fired perhaps 2500 to 5000 rounds from the firearms in my collection, over the course of a year!



hardline_42 said:


> After a week of silence, the NRA speaks:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cliff's notes:
> 
> - NRA calls upon Congress to make the resources available to station an armed police officer in every school in America
> 
> - NRA launches the "National School Shield" program, run by Congressman Asa Hutchinson, with the purpose of providing proven protection to schools now, while gun-control debates will undoubtedly rage on with few tangible results
> 
> - Program will make use of the NRA's training and tactics resources to tailor security plans, free of charge, for any school that wants it
> 
> - Programs are customizable by locality, need and even stance on guns (for example, if the parents don't want armed guards)
> 
> - Bunch of other stuff I missed


While I consider myself mostly on the other side of this debate (I am not in favor of weapons bans), the suggested effectiveness of putting an armed guard in every school, to prevent or neutralize future attacks is at once misleading and (based on past experience) patently inaccurate. At Columbine HS there was an armed deputy sheriff in the school at the time the attack was initiated...he was in another part of the school when the attack commenced. He played no part in neutralizing the threat or reducing the casualties incurred!


----------



## Howard

Shaver said:


> Exactly. Thrillingly evil. :icon_smile:


They don't belong on the streets anymore.


----------



## Howard

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Tell me how shooting a person (even a criminal or enemy soldier) is a good thing then?


It just creates more violence.


----------



## Shaver

The manipulated empty statistics and twee colour coded diagrams bore me.

I'd rather be considering this:


----------



## CuffDaddy

eagle2250 said:


> Guns are not evil...truth be known, they are inert! People, however, frequently are unspeakably evil! Perhaps we should ban people?
> 
> Alas, all too frequently our police departments require woefully inadequate standards to be met in terms of firearms training for their officers. Having an officer report to a gun range perhaps twice per year to fire less than 100 rounds from their service weapon might insure familiarity, but not proficiency with that weapon. In comparison, as a hobbiest I have fired perhaps 2500 to 5000 rounds from the firearms in my collection, over the course of a year!
> 
> While I consider myself mostly on the other side of this debate (I am not in favor of weapons bans), the suggested effectiveness of putting an armed guard in every school, to prevent or neutralize future attacks is at once misleading and (based on past experience) patently inaccurate. At Columbine HS there was an armed deputy sheriff in the school at the time the attack was initiated...he was in another part of the school when the attack commenced. He played no part in neutralizing the threat or reducing the casualties incurred!


Agreed re: round counts for cops. It's the biggest reason that law-abiding civilians generally have been more accurate in armed confrontations. They practice!

I'm no fan of the NRA, as I think they've taken a number of silly positions over the years, tend to prey unrealistically on people's fears, have abdicated their prior safety advocacy role, etc. That said, one's feelings towards an organization should not color one's evaluation of their proposal.

I have spent much of the fall touring private ("public" for Brits) schools for my daughter; unfortunately, my local public (state school for Brits) school is not great, so I'm shopping around. At many of the best of these schools, a year of kindergarten costs as much as a year of university, and there are so many parents trying to get their kids in that acceptance rates are low. These schools, consequently, have very large and unconstrained budgets. In every instance that I have observed, they have ALWAYS got armed, off-duty police officers on campus.

In short, the kids of rich parents (or parents, like me, who aren't exactly rich but are fortunate and willing to sacrifice in other areas for the sake of education) get armed protection already, and have for years. If it was a waste of money, I doubt the schools would spend it that way. We ought to afford the same level of security to everyone's children. My overall slightly-left political views make me support the NRA's proposal.

Incidentally, the cost could be 100% defrayed by simply reallocating LE resources currently directed against marijuana.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Howard said:


> They don't belong on the streets anymore.


Well, they haven't been legal on the streets of the place where you live for years, so you've already got your wish for your community. Can you agree to let other communities that feel differently have their own rules?


----------



## hardline_42

CuffDaddy said:


> Agreed re: round counts for cops. It's the biggest reason that law-abiding civilians generally have been more accurate in armed confrontations. They practice!
> 
> I'm no fan of the NRA, as I think they've taken a number of silly positions over the years, tend to prey unrealistically on people's fears, have abdicated their prior safety advocacy role, etc. That said, one's feelings towards an organization should not color one's evaluation of their proposal.
> 
> I have spent much of the fall touring private ("public" for Brits) schools for my daughter; unfortunately, my local public (state school for Brits) school is not great, so I'm shopping around. At many of the best of these schools, a year of kindergarten costs as much as a year of university, and there are so many parents trying to get their kids in that acceptance rates are low. These schools, consequently, have very large and unconstrained budgets. In every instance that I have observed, they have ALWAYS got armed, off-duty police officers on campus.
> 
> In short, the kids of rich parents (or parents, like me, who aren't exactly rich but are fortunate and willing to sacrifice in other areas for the sake of education) get armed protection already, and have for years. If it was a waste of money, I doubt the schools would spend it that way. We ought to afford the same level of security to everyone's children. My overall slightly-left political views make me support the NRA's proposal.
> 
> Incidentally, the cost could be 100% defrayed by simply reallocating LE resources currently directed against marijuana.


I have to agree with this. I'm not a friend of the NRA and let my membership lapse years ago for similar reasons. The issue is that there are currently 300 million legal guns and probably millions more unaccounted for in this country. Even if the POTUS signed an executive order tomorrow banning certain types of firearms or even an all out ban, those 300 million + guns won't just disintegrate the moment he lifts his pen from the paper and the words of such an order won't automatically make anyone safer. What the NRA is proposing is something that 30% of public schools already do. Police presence works as a deterrent. Armed security works as a deterrent. If it didn't, institutions wouldn't spend the money on them. It is, of course, a stop-gap measure, but it's something that could bring tangible results immediately. As for the cost of such an endeavor, I believe the idea is to use volunteers as much as possible (retired LEOs, retired military, trained first responders etc.).


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Howard said:


> It just creates more violence.


Exactly! Violence begets violence.


----------



## Hitch

Howard said:


> It just creates more violence.


Is this your vow to never call on the police?


----------



## CuffDaddy

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Exactly! Violence begets violence.


In a situation where there are warring factions or clans, that's right. If some violent criminal is hurt or killed in the commission of an act of predation, how does that beget more violence?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

CuffDaddy said:


> In a situation where there are warring factions or clans, that's right. If some violent criminal is hurt or killed in the commission of an act of predation, how does that beget more violence?


His killing by law enforcement.


----------



## hardline_42

Earl of Ormonde said:


> His killing by law enforcement.


Again, this is only true if the assumption is that violence is always bad. It isn't.


----------



## Shaver

hardline_42 said:


> Again, this is only true if the assumption is that violence is always bad. It isn't.


Indeed. Using logical argument to attempt to disprove the merits of violence is as futile as using a punch to the jaw to contradict a mathematical theorem.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

hardline_42 said:


> Again, this is only true if the assumption is that violence is always bad. It isn't.


In my opinion it is always bad. This is a circular arugment of opinions however. I could now ask you to give me an example of when violence is good. But it would be pointless as my defualt setting is that violence is always bad.


----------



## hardline_42

Earl of Ormonde said:


> In my opinion it is always bad. This is a circular arugment of opinions however. I could now ask you to give me an example of when violence is good. But it would be pointless as my defualt setting is that violence is always bad.


I understand, but society in general does not share such an absolute view on the matter. Why continue insisting that we adopt it?


----------



## Haffman

CuffDaddy said:


> In a situation where there are warring factions or clans, that's right. If some violent criminal is hurt or killed in the commission of an act of predation, how does that beget more violence?


It's also correct within families. Violence begets violence.


----------



## Bjorn

hardline_42 said:


> After a week of silence, the NRA speaks:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cliff's notes:
> 
> - NRA calls upon Congress to make the resources available to station an armed police officer in every school in America
> 
> - NRA launches the "National School Shield" program, run by Congressman Asa Hutchinson, with the purpose of providing proven protection to schools now, while gun-control debates will undoubtedly rage on with few tangible results
> 
> - Program will make use of the NRA's training and tactics resources to tailor security plans, free of charge, for any school that wants it
> 
> - Programs are customizable by locality, need and even stance on guns (for example, if the parents don't want armed guards)
> 
> - Bunch of other stuff I missed


How charmingly naive. Will he wear a mask? A star?

NRA would dig up John Wayne and prop him against a wall with a shotgun glued to his hands if they thought it would get them out of this mess.


----------



## Bjorn

hardline_42 said:


> I understand, but society in general does not share such an absolute view on the matter. Why continue insisting that we adopt it?


Because its true.


----------



## Bjorn

As for the extensive list as to why all problems stem from the demise of the American family, I shall not require to have the last word in that debate, no, it's still plenty of time to respond; but in large parts of the world the core family as well as core family values have receded. Good riddance. And this without homicidal tendencies skyrocketing.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I could now ask you to give me an example of when violence is good. But it would be pointless as my defualt setting is that violence is always bad.


The executions after the Nuremburg trials were good.

You won't agree. And I deeply respect the consistency of your views - it probably makes you a better Christian than I am. But violence is sometimes good, and it is more often a preferable alternative to something even worse.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Bjorn said:


> How charmingly naive. Will he wear a mask? A star?


As I mentioned in an earlier post, this practice (having armed LE on campus) is already very common among schools with the means to have it. Hardly fanciful.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Haffman said:


> It's also correct within families. Violence begets violence.


Of course. But to offer it as a truism that means all violence only leads to more violence is simplistic, and false for some circumstances.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Earl of Ormonde said:


> His killing by law enforcement.


And then that's the end of it. Your argument, if I understood it, is that a given act of violence (X) begets more violence in the future (X+1). The same act of violence cannot be proof of, or even an example of, the inevitability of X+1. Sometimes violence spawns more violence. Sometimes it ends a particular strain of it.

I have a hard time believing that the humongous amounts of violence unleashed by the allies in WWII did not prevent more violence in the end. Do you disagree?


----------



## tocqueville

Shaver said:


> The manipulated empty statistics and twee colour coded diagrams bore me.
> 
> I'd rather be considering this:


Bless you for using the word twee.


----------



## Shaver

People who are violent, whether they like it or not, are entering into a contract whereby violence can be legitimately visited upon them in return. Once a fellow commences violent behaviour, including excessive intimidation or aggressive abuse, then my ears are deaf to any bleating from him about the consequences. 

In an amazingly uncharacteristic event for my neighbourhood, earlier this year three junkies, one armed with a knife, accosted a gentleman early morning at his own front door. They threatened him and barged their way in to his home. His wife and children were in the house. He 'persuaded them of the error of their actions' and killed one in the process. No charges were pressed against the gent. Good. Serves them right.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
As a firm believer in Biblical justice, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth!" Your neighbor's only mistake was in allowing two of those home invaders to walk away from their transgression. When an intruder forces their way into your home, the time for understanding and compassion are well past and focused reaction on your part is the order of the day.



hardline_42 said:


> I have to agree with this. I'm not a friend of the NRA and let my membership lapse years ago for similar reasons. The issue is that there are currently 300 million legal guns and probably millions more unaccounted for in this country. Even if the POTUS signed an executive order tomorrow banning certain types of firearms or even an all out ban, those 300 million + guns won't just disintegrate the moment he lifts his pen from the paper and the words of such an order won't automatically make anyone safer. What the NRA is proposing is something that 30% of public schools already do. Police presence works as a deterrent. Armed security works as a deterrent. If it didn't, institutions wouldn't spend the money on them. It is, of course, a stop-gap measure, but it's something that could bring tangible results immediately. As for the cost of such an endeavor, I believe the idea is to use volunteers as much as possible (retired LEOs, retired military, trained first responders etc.).


+1. Now that's a volunteer assignment that I would gladly add to the mix! :thumbs-up:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

hardline_42 said:


> Why continue insisting that we adopt it?


Because I'm a Christian and a peacemaker. I know from experience that violence of all sorts always has a psychologial effect on both the executor and the victim, regardless of legal standing.

And may I now take this opportunity to wish you all a peaceful and merry Christmas.

God bless you all, look after yourselves and your families and enjoy each other's company.


----------



## tocqueville

Rumor has it that the NRA is providing Santa with an armed escort for when he traverses America.


----------



## Shaver

tocqueville said:


> Rumor has it that the NRA is providing Santa with an armed escort for when he traverses America.


He knows when you are sleeping,
He knows when you're on the can,
He'll hunt you down and blast your ass from here to Pakistan.
Oh,You'd better not breathe, you'd better not move,
You're better off dead, I'm telling you, dude.
Santa Claus is gunning you down!


----------



## blairrob

tocqueville said:


> Rumor has it that the NRA is providing Santa with an armed escort for when he traverses America.


Surprising given he is already accompanied by a small herd of reindoor outfitted with cranially mounted weaponry.


----------



## CuffDaddy

That is _exactly_ what I thought of when I read touq's post!


----------



## Howard

CuffDaddy said:


> Well, they haven't been legal on the streets of the place where you live for years, so you've already got your wish for your community. Can you agree to let other communities that feel differently have their own rules?


Sure I can agree on that.


----------



## Howard

Hitch said:


> Is this your vow to never call on the police?


I call the police if there's an emergency but I have no reason whatsoever to carry a gun, that's not me.


----------



## Howard

tocqueville said:


> Rumor has it that the NRA is providing Santa with an armed escort for when he traverses America.


he can shoot all the bad kiddies.


----------



## blairrob

Howard said:


> he can shoot all the bad kiddies.


My God Howard, that is just so inappropriate right now that it's, well, appropriate!

Well said.


----------



## Hitch

Howard said:


> he can shoot all the bad kiddies.


 Somebody piss in your mouth? There just isnt any other reason to vomit such drivel


----------



## Hitch

Howard said:


> I call the police if there's an emergency but I have no reason whatsoever to carry a gun, that's not me.





> *Howard*
> *Connoisseur*
> 
> Join DateDecember 6th, 2004LocationNew York CityPosts6,996​
> 
> 
> 
> _
> Originally Posted by *Earl of Ormonde* https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=1354502#post1354502
> Tell me how shooting a person (even a criminal or enemy soldier) is a good thing then?
> 
> _
> 
> It just creates more violence.​



Odd why would you want to create more violence?​


----------



## VictorRomeo

Hitch said:


> Somebody piss in your mouth? There just isnt any other reason to vomit such drivel


Holy crap, it's satire. Brilliant, pointed and most of all relevant.

And in another gloriously ironic twist, you and your children can all tune in here later this even to see how Santa's getting on....

https://www.noradsanta.org/


----------



## Shaver

VictorRomeo said:


> Holy crap, it's satire. Brilliant, pointed and most of all relevant.


And what's more directed at Howard _of all people_! Anybody even vaguely familiar with this forum should know that seemingly there isn't a bad bone in Howard's body.



VictorRomeo said:


> And in another gloriously ironic twist, you and your children can all tune in here later this even to see how Santa's getting on....
> 
> https://www.noradsanta.org/


Good call VR - Norad Santa tracker is a staple xmas eve passtime in the Shaver household. :icon_smile:


----------



## eagle2250

^^LOL.
At the eagle's roost we follow Santa on the "Norad Santa tracker" and take shots at the red suited rascal with our "anti-aircraft guns" and surface to air missiles! It's just such a typically 'American gun nut' activity and loads of fun for all you other competitive sorts.


----------



## Kingstonian

CuffDaddy said:


> The executions after the Nuremburg trials were good.


That is debatable. Victor's justice? Show trials?

For example, Lord Haw Haw was executed for treason against The British Crown though as an American citizen and naturalised German this is not applicable.


----------



## Howard

Hitch said:


> Somebody piss in your mouth? There just isnt any other reason to vomit such drivel


I was just kidding Sorry if you took to any offense I apologize.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

VictorRomeo said:


> Holy crap, it's satire. Brilliant, pointed and most of all relevant.


Exactly!


----------



## Hitch

Howard said:


> I was just kidding Sorry if you took to any offense I apologize.


 Kidding or not I over reacted, apologies accepted and offered.


----------



## Liberty Ship

I'd like to make a couple of points. This is a whole different world from 1999 when Columbine happened. True, there was an armed guard there. And, true, he was ineffective. But since Beslan in 1994, the entire thinking of how to react to an active shooter has changed. No longer do you wait for back up. If you are there, and you are armed, you don't wait for anything; you close and engage.

Tactics prior to Columbine and Beslan were designed to set up a perimeter and negotiate with what was presumed to be a hostage taker. We have since learned that is not what we are dealing with in these situations.

In the mall shooting recently, the police responded within 90 seconds and went straight in. In the meantime, a well trained and licensed-to-carry civilian had already drawn his Glock and taken a sight picture of the shooter. He did not shoot because at that moment, there were innocents in motion behind the shooter. Good training; good judgement. However, the shooter saw him and the next shot the shooter took was to kill himself. In the case of the mall shooting, the police ended up being the "Second Responders." In a very target rich environment, the shooter only killed two.

I believe that if the shooter at Sandy Hook, another target rich environment, had been so confronted, he, too, would have folded like a bad poker hand and either 1) given up 2) killed himself or 3) been killed. As it was, he killed himself only after armed responders breached the school perimeter; otherwise, I suspect he would have kept going until he ran out of ammo. The arrival of armed responders changed the game.

The teachers were brave, fought bravely, and died because they were not armed, and there was no one armed to come to their aid in a practical length of time. And "afterwards, men in tall hats with gold watch fobs spoke and thumped their chests and talked of how brave they were." They didn't have to die.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Liberty Ship said:


> The teachers were brave, fought bravely, and died because they were not armed.


NO, they died becasue a man with a gun shot them. Not because they didn't have weapons. I'd hate to live in your society where you think the death of a shooting victim is the fault of the victim because said victim was unarmed.


----------



## Hitch

Earl of Ormonde said:


> NO, they died becasue a man with a gun shot them. *Not because they didn't have weapons*. I'd hate to live in your society where you think the death of a shooting victim is the fault of the victim because said victim was unarmed.


Care to explain how you know this ?


----------



## Bjorn

Hitch said:


> Care to explain how you know this ?


If you highlight the first sentence as well, I'm sure you'll get his point.

Guess I'm not really sure you will get it but that's where it is.


----------



## hardline_42

Earl of Ormonde said:


> NO, they died becasue a man with a gun shot them. Not because they didn't have weapons. I'd hate to live in your society where you think the death of a shooting victim is the fault of the victim because said victim was unarmed.


If the police had been there, armed, and stopped the shooter would you admit that the teachers and students survived because of armed force? Or, would you turn it around and say "who knows if the shooter would have killed anyone, if he hadn't been prematurely and unjustly shot?" It's quite a convenient world you live in.


----------



## Hitch

Bjorn said:


> If you highlight the first sentence as well, I'm sure you'll get his point.
> 
> Guess I'm not really sure you will get it but that's where it is.


Enough spin will rip your bowels Bjorn.


----------



## Hitch

hardline_42 said:


> If the police had been there, armed, and stopped the shooter would you admit that the teachers and students survived because of armed force? Or, would you turn it around and say "who knows if the shooter would have killed anyone, if he hadn't been prematurely and unjustly shot?" It's quite a convenient world you live in.


And we can say,in certainty, the bastard avoided places where there were armed men.


----------



## Liberty Ship

Earl of Ormonde said:


> NO, they died becasue a man with a gun shot them. Not because they didn't have weapons. I'd hate to live in your society where you think the death of a shooting victim is the fault of the victim because said victim was unarmed.


I don't blame the victim. I blame the shooter. However, if the principal or the teachers had been armed and properly trained, the shooter would not have had the disparity of force that allowed him to murder the teachers and children. He would have been stopped early on.

Why would you asked unarmed people to face armed murders when the lives of children are at stake? Why does the system rely on armed good guys to intervene when armed bad guys are killing the innocent?

If someone had (illegally) possessed a firearm at Sandy Hook and had shot the killer after he had shot, say, only six children, would you say he had done the wrong thing?  Or should he have stood down and let the killer continue his murderous expedition?

What if a cop,arriving late, had shot the shooter after he killed, say, 20 children? Would that be ok? Would that be a better outcome than if the principal or an armed parent had shot the killer when he first breached the security door?

Do only the police have the right to invoke lethal force in defense of the innocent? I can answer that question, legally, for the United States. The answer is no. Generally, you can "use lethal force to preempt an immediate and otherwise unavoidable threat of death or great bodily harm to the innocent." That will work in all 50 states.

So, given that, what we are dealing with is the fact that certain areas are designated "victim disarmament zones." That means that in spite of the fact the law acknowledges the fundamental right of self defense and a possible duty to defend the innocent, certain areas prohibit your having the means to do so. Victim disarmament zones are created to appease the ignorant, to appease those who are clueless about the nature of and laws surrounding armed confrontation. Thus, some die, and some get to feel good about themselves. Sad.

Question: If I am armed (legally or illegally) and at a your child's school and a killer shoots his way through security, do you want me to engage him -- and I would be very effective -- or do you want me to let him walk on down the hall, masked and armed? Engage him or let him go?


----------



## blairrob

Liberty Ship said:


> The teachers were brave, fought bravely, and died because they were not armed, and there was no one armed to come to their aid in a practical length of time.





Earl of Ormonde said:


> NO, they died becasue a man with a gun shot them. Not because they didn't have weapons. I'd hate to live in your society where you think the death of a shooting victim is the fault of the victim because said victim was unarmed.





Bjorn said:


> If you highlight the first sentence as well, I'm sure you'll get his point.
> 
> Guess I'm not really sure you will get it but that's where it is.





hardline_42 said:


> If the police had been there, armed, and stopped the shooter would you admit that the teachers and students survived because of armed force? Or, would you turn it around and say "who knows if the shooter would have killed anyone, if he hadn't been prematurely and unjustly shot?" It's quite a convenient world you live in.


Good Lord, guys, do you reread your posts? It's a nonsensical debate that extirpolates the reason your arguments both have.

Obviously this tragedy occurred because 1) a man was armed with powerful weapons who had great anger in his heart; 2) nobody shot him before he inflicted the damage he did ...

...and 3) his mother carried him to term; 4) he was born with and/or developed whatever mental illness he had 5) the school and/or familial and/or mental health support systems failed him...

...and many more.

To try to boil down the argument to one critical failure and ignore all others is patently ridiculous when so many critical failures led to this sickening tragedy.


----------



## Flairball

blairrob said:


> To try to boil down the argument to one critical failure and ignore all others is patently ridiculous when so many critical failures led to this sickening tragedy.


Exactly. Thank you.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Liberty Ship said:


> I don't blame the victim. I blame the shooter. However, if the principal or the teachers had been armed and properly trained


So, your solution is to arm everyone in the USA? How about the little children that died, give them firearms as well or maybe mace?

Here's a novel idea, how about the USA takes its head out of its 18th century Constitution and removes firearms from society?

When was the last time civilians and militias had to fight Indians, the British, the French or the Spanish?


----------



## hardline_42

blairrob said:


> To try to boil down the argument to one critical failure and ignore all others is patently ridiculous when so many critical failures led to this sickening tragedy.


I agree. Does this mean we can stop blaming it all on the guns?



Earl of Ormonde said:


> Here's a novel idea, how about the USA takes its head out of its 18th century Constitution and removes firearms from society?


Thanks, we'll bring it up at the next Constitutional Convention. Scout's Honor.


----------



## Bjorn

Hitch said:


> Enough spin will rip your bowels Bjorn.


What clarity, given your recent posts.


----------



## Bjorn

Earl of Ormonde said:


> So, your solution is to arm everyone in the USA? How about the little children that died, give them firearms as well or maybe mace?
> 
> Here's a novel idea, how about the USA takes its head out of its 18th century Constitution and removes firearms from society?
> 
> When was the last time civilians and militias had to fight Indians, the British, the French or the Spanish?


This.


----------



## Howard

Hitch said:


> Kidding or not I over reacted, apologies accepted and offered.


Thanks Hitch.


----------



## Howard

hardline_42 said:


> If the police had been there, armed, and stopped the shooter would you admit that the teachers and students survived because of armed force? Or, would you turn it around and say "who knows if the shooter would have killed anyone, if he hadn't been prematurely and unjustly shot?" It's quite a convenient world you live in.


I think students and teachers would've survived.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Indeed, such may be true...or not! Another potential reality, that we have all failed to suggest (to this point in our conversation) is that if his fellow students had not teased and taunted Adam Lanza during his primary and middle school years, to the point that in high school his life had become a living hell and his mother pulled him out of the traditional school system and home schooled him, this tragedy might not have happened. Now we act so shocked that in his self imposed isolation, instituted because he didn't quite fit in with the "normal" kids, his thoughts became so twisted and perverse that the shooter could even consider carrying out such a tragedy. The fact is that our society has become such a mean group of boys and girls, virtually devoid of any consistent sense of human caring/compassion, we literally breed and nurture these perpetrators in our midst...and then we are so very shocked and outraged when they go off!


----------



## Hitch

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Indeed, such may be true...or not! Another potential reality, that we have all failed to suggest (to this point in our conversation) is that if his fellow students had not teased and taunted Adam Lanza during his primary and middle school years, to the point that in high school his life had become a living hell and his mother pulled him out of the traditional school system and home schooled him, this tragedy might not have happened. Now we act so shocked that in his self imposed isolation, instituted because he didn't quite fit in with the "normal" kids, his thoughts became so twisted and perverse that the shooter could even consider carrying out such a tragedy. The fact is that our society has become such a mean group of boys and girls, virtually devoid of any consistent sense of human caring/compassion, we literally breed and nurture these perpetrators in our midst...and then we are so very shocked and outraged when they go off!


It bears repeating. The society that wantonly destroys three thousand little girls and boys every day has rotted it own underpinnings of decency.


----------



## Hitch

Earl of Ormonde said:


> So, your solution is to arm everyone in the USA? How about the little children that died, give them firearms as well or maybe mace?
> 
> Here's a novel idea, how about the USA takes its head out of its 18th century Constitution and removes firearms from society?
> 
> When was the last time civilians and militias had to fight Indians, the British, the French or the Spanish?


Militias are currently fighting in Afganistan.


----------



## Jovan

Hitch, I think he meant militia as in a civilian armed force, not an official branch of the government (which most would define as a military).



eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Indeed, such may be true...or not! Another potential reality, that we have all failed to suggest (to this point in our conversation) is that if his fellow students had not teased and taunted Adam Lanza during his primary and middle school years, to the point that in high school his life had become a living hell and his mother pulled him out of the traditional school system and home schooled him, this tragedy might not have happened. Now we act so shocked that in his self imposed isolation, instituted because he didn't quite fit in with the "normal" kids, his thoughts became so twisted and perverse that the shooter could even consider carrying out such a tragedy. The fact is that our society has become such a mean group of boys and girls, virtually devoid of any consistent sense of human caring/compassion, we literally breed and nurture these perpetrators in our midst...and then we are so very shocked and outraged when they go off!


Actually I suggested this pages and pages ago, but I don't think anyone cared to respond to that point.


----------



## hardline_42

Jovan said:


> Actually I suggested this pages and pages ago, but I don't think anyone cared to respond to that point.


Jovan, you mentioned it and it has been reiterated several times by Snow Hill Pond, myself and other members, but it's been conveniently ignored. It's easier to blame guns than to have to deal with those issues.


----------



## Jovan

Indeed. Although a few people here I consider friends are opposed to guns outright, I will respectfully disagree with them.


----------



## Hitch

Jovan said:


> Hitch, I think he meant militia as in a civilian armed force, not an official branch of the government (which most would define as a military).
> 
> Actually I suggested this pages and pages ago, but I don't think anyone cared to respond to that point.


My reference is to activated National Guard units.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Hitch said:


> Militias are currently fighting in Afganistan.


Then you need to look up the word "militia".


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Hitch said:


> Care to explain how you know this ?


Don't you watch the news?

I know it for the same reason as nearly everyone else - i.e. I understand what the news is reporting.

They didn't die because they weren't armed they died because a man with a firearm shot them dead.
If he hadn't been shooting at them,they would still be alive even though they weren't carrying firearms.

As I said before - defending the undefendable is indefensible.

And what you & Liberty Ship are saying amounts to blaming the victims for their own deaths because they didn't have firearms to defend themselves with. Ridiculous and disrespectful.

If you think every person armed with a firearm always has time to draw that firearm to defend themselves then you know very little about the real world of fear, fight or flight, confusion, adrenalin, survivial instinct. A civilian's best chance to tackle an armed gunman exists only in the first few seconds of the gunman producing the weapon before he has control of the situation. NOW, most civilians don't realise this and most don't think of drawing their own wepaons once threatened by a gunman. I'm aware of this having done some very high level VIP protection and bodyguard training. I've just got home about an hour ago from a VIP safety & protection job that I've been on since 11 o'clock this morning - no incidents thank God.

If we're to believe the NRA then no one carrying a personal protection firearm (including teachers) should ever die at the hands of a criminal gunman. Well, you'd have to walk a helluva long way to come across naivety of that calibre again.

And explain to me then the high level of deaths of armed police officers in the US and the high murder rate in the US of armed victims if the NRA is to be believed about arming civilians being the best defence?

You couldn't make your argument any weaker if you tried.

More arms breeds more arms - it's called escalation.
More violence breeds more violence - it's called escalation.
More legal weapons in society simply provides more weapons for criminals to steal and use - it's called escalation.


----------



## Shaver

M134. Up to 6,000 rounds per minute. :icon_smile:


----------



## Hitch

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Don't you watch the news?
> 
> I know it for the same reason as nearly everyone else - i.e. I understand what the news is reporting.
> 
> They didn't die because they weren't armed they died because a man with a firearm shot them dead.
> If he hadn't been shooting at them,they would still be alive even though they weren't carrying firearms.
> 
> As I said before - defending the undefendable is indefensible.
> 
> And what you & Liberty Ship are saying amounts to blaming the victims for their own deaths because they didn't have firearms to defend themselves with. Ridiculous and disrespectful.
> 
> If you think every person armed with a firearm always has time to draw that firearm to defend themselves then you know very little about the real world of fear, fight or flight, confusion, adrenalin, survivial instinct. A civilian's best chance to tackle an armed gunman exists only in the first few seconds of the gunman producing the weapon before he has control of the situation. NOW, most civilians don't realise this and most don't think of drawing their own wepaons once threatened by a gunman. I'm aware of this having done some very high level VIP protection and bodyguard training. I've just got home about an hour ago from a VIP safety & protection job that I've been on since 11 o'clock this morning - no incidents thank God.
> 
> If we're to believe the NRA then no one carrying a personal protection firearm (including teachers) should ever die at the hands of a criminal gunman. Well, you'd have to walk a helluva long way to come across naivety of that calibre again.
> 
> And explain to me then the high level of deaths of armed police officers in the US and the high murder rate in the US of armed victims if the NRA is to be believed about arming civilians being the best defence?
> 
> You couldn't make your argument any weaker if you tried.
> 
> More arms breeds more arms - it's called escalation.
> More violence breeds more violence - it's called escalation.
> More legal weapons in society simply provides more weapons for criminals to steal and use - it's called escalation.


[email protected] .
You had a chance to make some sense all you needed to to do was to admit that its not even possible for you to know what you stated as fact. However you chose to fumble about in the mediocrity of ridiculous overstatement and silly speculation, typical.


----------



## Hitch

*If we're to believe the NRA then no one carrying a personal protection firearm (including teachers) should ever die at the hands of a criminal gunman. Well, you'd have to walk a helluva long way to come across naivety of that calibre again.

*Perhaps the great intellect ,aka Earl, will produce a quote of to from the NRA saying this???
Nahhhh...


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Hitch said:


> [email protected] .
> You had a chance to make some sense all you needed to to do was to admit that its not even possible for you to know what you stated as fact. However you chose to fumble about in the mediocrity of ridiculous overstatement and silly speculation, typical.


As personal insults are your response rather than discussing the facts then I am finished discussing the issue with you.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Hitch said:


> Perhaps the great intellect ,aka Earl,


As personal insults are your response rather than discussing the facts then I am finished discussing the issue with you.


----------



## Liberty Ship

Earl of Ormonde said:


> And what you & Liberty Ship are saying amounts to blaming the victims for their own deaths because they didn't have firearms to defend themselves with. Ridiculous and disrespectful.


In no way was I "blaming the victims for their own deaths because they did not have firearms with them." Please don't put words in my mouth. how could I blame the victims when it would have been illegal for them to be armed anyway. I blame law makers and out dated laws prohibiting those who wish to be armed to have arms available to them. All victims of mass shootings are victims of the shooter, but often the laws disarming the innocent are culpable and contributory in the crime.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Liberty Ship said:


> In no way was I "blaming the victims for their own deaths because they did not have firearms with them." Please don't put words in my mouth. how could I blame the victims when it would have been illegal for them to be armed anyway. I blame law makers and out dated laws prohibiting those who wish to be armed to have arms available to them. All victims of mass shootings are victims of the shooter, but often the laws disarming the innocent are culpable and contributory in the crime.


In which case I apologise for misinterpreting what you wrote.

But my view as you know is stronger, for me it isn't legislation that makes it easier for law-abiding citizens (e.g. the teachers) to arm themselves, it is legislation that *prevents as many people as possible *from 1, arming themselves and 2, legislation that means the US becomes a society *where they don't need to arm themselves in the first place.*

I know that sounds like a gargantuan and difficult task to many Americans but all such tasks need to start at some point in time to improve society.

One can't hide behind the "too difficult" "too long" "anti-constitutional" "it couldn't possibly work" arguments forever in order to avoid societal improvements.

The NRA lobby is too strong, too influential, too wealthy.
The manufacture of firearms is far too lucrative to the US for it to be stopped.
The import and sale of firearms is far too lucrative to the US for it to be stopped.


----------



## Hitch

Earl of Ormonde said:


> As personal insults are your response rather than discussing the facts then I am finished discussing the issue with you.


Did the NRA tell you to say that?


----------



## Liberty Ship

Based on the conversation so far, I think we can ALL agree to sign this:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...amilies-and-establish-gun-free-zones/6RDGkxLK


----------



## Bjorn

Hitch said:


> [email protected] .
> You had a chance to make some sense all you needed to to do was to admit that its not even possible for you to know what you stated as fact. However you chose to fumble about in the mediocrity of ridiculous overstatement and silly speculation, typical.


What an @ss.


----------



## Bjorn

Liberty Ship said:


> Based on the conversation so far, I think we can ALL agree to sign this:
> 
> https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...amilies-and-establish-gun-free-zones/6RDGkxLK


Gun nut politics at its best


----------



## Bjorn

hardline_42 said:


> Jovan, you mentioned it and it has been reiterated several times by Snow Hill Pond, myself and other members, but it's been conveniently ignored. It's easier to blame guns than to have to deal with those issues.


Or guns are partly to blame for violent deaths by guns.

No one ever claims cars are blameless for automobile accidents. In fact copious amounts of work goes into making cars safer. Perhaps we could do that with guns?

Or wait a minute. Guns kill people.


----------



## Shaver

Bjorn said:


> Or guns are partly to blame for violent deaths by guns.
> 
> No one ever claims cars are blameless for automobile accidents. *In fact copious amounts of work goes into making cars safer.* Perhaps we could do that with guns?
> 
> Or wait a minute. Guns kill people.


I must pleasantly dispute that statement Bjorn. Copious amounts of work goes into useless gadgetry and minor cosmetic modifications of what is essentially the same dangerous vehicle which the car companies have been churning out for a hundred years. Worse than that a false sense of security is imparted to drivers by anti-lock brakes etc which has been shown to encourage recklessness and offset any net effect. (https://www.erie.bd.psu.edu/schbus/SOB Faculty Webpages/articles/sobel_nesbit_nascar_sej.pdf and many, many more)


----------



## Bjorn

Shaver said:


> I must pleasantly dispute that statement Bjorn. Copious amounts of work goes into useless gadgetry and minor cosmetic modifications of what is essentially the same dangerous vehicle which the car companies have been churning out for a hundred years. Worse than that a false sense of security is imparted to drivers by anti-lock brakes etc which has been shown to encourage recklessness and offset any net effect. (https://www.erie.bd.psu.edu/schbus/SOB Faculty Webpages/articles/sobel_nesbit_nascar_sej.pdf and many, many more)


Nope. Deformation zones. Active security.

Try a Mercedes a class with and without the active security engaged.

I will pleasantly stand by my argument.

What's your take on improvements made on guns? I would like to see a function that takes the hand off of anyone who's not a judge who fiddles with a gun. As in Judge Dredd


----------



## Hitch

Liberty Ship said:


> Based on the conversation so far, I think we can ALL agree to sign this:
> 
> https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...amilies-and-establish-gun-free-zones/6RDGkxLK


 Its almost that we must sign , this petition, for the sake of the children at the WhiteHouse


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Liberty Ship said:


> Based on the conversation so far, I think we can ALL agree to sign this:
> 
> https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...amilies-and-establish-gun-free-zones/6RDGkxLK


Eliminate guns!


----------



## Shaver

Bjorn said:


> Nope. Deformation zones. Active security.
> 
> Try a Mercedes a class with and without the active security engaged.
> 
> I will pleasantly stand by my argument.
> 
> What's your take on improvements made on guns? I would like to see a function that takes the hand off of anyone who's not a judge who fiddles with a gun. As in Judge Dredd


Deformation zones have become neccessary primarily because cars are now so compact. I don't know what Mercedes A class active security is - but if I did you can bet I would dispute it. :icon_smile_wink: I know that some people see this as a 'spoiling' argument when guns are discussed but there is simply no getting away from the fact that automobiles are dramatically more dangerous and responsible for more injury and loss of life (in a non-military context).

Whilst I enjoy the stories of Judge Dredd we must bear in mind that he is representative of a dreadful police state which none of us (presumably) would wish to live in.

We cannot remove all of those things which are dangerous from the world.

I notice that this is far and away the most succesful thread on the forum at the moment, accruing more posts and passion than the 'What Are You Wearing Today' thread. Something doesn't seem right........?


----------



## blairrob

Shaver said:


> I must pleasantly dispute that statement Bjorn. Copious amounts of work goes into useless gadgetry and minor cosmetic modifications of what is essentially the same dangerous vehicle which the car companies have been churning out for a hundred years. Worse than that a false sense of security is imparted to drivers by anti-lock brakes etc which has been shown to encourage recklessness and offset any net effect. (https://www.erie.bd.psu.edu/schbus/SOB Faculty Webpages/articles/sobel_nesbit_nascar_sej.pdf and many, many more)


While there is little doubt that preventative safety improvements may encourage some to drive beyond their skills or reasonable prudence it is also true that for most drivers such improvements do reduce injuries and save lives. I agree that many so called improvements are gadgetry or cosmetic however there is little doubt that such things as traction and stability control do improve safety, as does ABS for most drivers. For drivers who understand how to drive properly with ABS, particularly with motorcycles, safety is noticebly improved yet many drivers still believe they must pump their brakes and thus ABS won't be truly effective until the next generation of drivers wearned on ABS are the majority. On the other hand, one survey suggests that while fewer cars with ABS are rearending other vehicles, the reverse scenario has increased significantly:icon_cheers:.

And to the point of referencing safety improvements in car racing, well, who would think that improving safety is going to encourage professional drivers to push that much more? :teacha:

ETA: I think the fact that you have actually watched Judge Dread :eek2: ic12337: is proof of the intellectual inferiority of your argument  .

ETA: And I note with glee I spelled Judge Dredd incorrectly due to my lack of awareness of same :thumbs-up: :icon_jokercolor:


----------



## Bjorn

Shaver said:


> Deformation zones have become neccessary primarily because cars are now so compact. I don't know what Mercedes A class active security is - but if I did you can bet I would dispute it. :icon_smile_wink: I know that some people see this as a 'spoiling' argument when guns are discussed but there is simply no getting away from the fact that automobiles are dramatically more dangerous and responsible for more injury and loss of life (in a non-military context).
> 
> Whilst I enjoy the stories of Judge Dredd we must bear in mind that he is representative of a dreadful police state which none of us (presumably) would wish to live in.
> 
> We cannot remove all of those things which are dangerous from the world.
> 
> I notice that this is far and away the most succesful thread on the forum at the moment, accruing more posts and passion than the 'What Are You Wearing Today' thread. Something doesn't seem right........?


We sure can remove guns from civilians though...

As for cars being more dangerous, they are necessary. Guns are not.


----------



## Bjorn

blairrob said:


> While there is little doubt that preventative safety improvements may encourage some to drive beyond their skills or reasonable prudence it is also true that for most drivers such improvements do reduce injuries and save lives. I agree that many so called improvements are gadgetry or cosmetic however there is little doubt that such things as traction and stability control do improve safety, as does ABS for most drivers. For drivers who understand how to drive properly with ABS, particularly with motorcycles, safety is noticebly improved yet many drivers still believe they must pump their brakes and thus ABS won't be truly effective until the next generation of drivers wearned on ABS are the majority. On the other hand, one survey suggests that while fewer cars with ABS are rearending other vehicles, the reverse scenario has increased significantly:icon_cheers:.
> 
> And to the point of referencing safety improvements in car racing, well, who would think that improving safety is going to encourage professional drivers to push that much more? :teacha:
> 
> ETA; I think the fact that you have actually watched Judge Dread :eek2: ic12337: is proof of the intellectual inferiority of your argument  .


I'm sure shaver has only read and collected the (trad) comic magazine... 

Though I quite enjoyed the latest itineration. The Stallone version really sucked though...


----------



## Shaver

Bjorn said:


> *We sure can remove guns from civilians though... *
> 
> As for cars being more dangerous, they are necessary. Guns are not.


Honestly, in America? I'd like to see them try. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Shaver

Bjorn said:


> I'm sure shaver has only read and collected the (trad) comic magazine...
> 
> Though I quite enjoyed the latest itineration. The Stallone version really sucked though...


I have read 2000ad (the magazine in which Judge Dredd stars) every week since issue 1 (February 1977). I have kept every issue.

Stallone movie version was OK except for that damnable comedy sidekick.


----------



## Shaver

blairrob said:


> ........ETA: I think the fact that you have actually watched Judge Dread :eek2: ic12337: is proof of the intellectual inferiority of your argument  .
> 
> ETA: And I note with glee I spelled Judge Dredd incorrectly due to my lack of awareness of same :thumbs-up: :icon_jokercolor:


Judge Dread is a white reggae band with puerile lewd lyrics. :teacha:


----------



## Bjorn

Shaver said:


> I have read 2000ad (the magazine in which Judge Dredd stars) every week since issue 1 (February 1977). I have kept every issue.
> 
> Stallone movie version was OK except for that damnable comedy sidekick.


Ha! I knew it! 

I read a fair bit of 2000ad as well.


----------



## blairrob

Shaver said:


> Judge Dread is a white reggae band with puerile lewd lyrics. :teacha:


Sounds right up my alley....:redface:


----------



## hardline_42

Bjorn said:


> As for cars being more dangerous, they are necessary. *Guns are not*.


This really shows how little you understand about American culture. I think you really believe this. We don't. Not even the most left-leaning gun-control advocate would agree with you. They might think they do, but ask them to remove the guns from the hands of police officers, body guards or any other security personnel. Ask them to remove the guns from the hands of our military. And if you really want to see them squirm, ask them to remove guns from our entertainment. They won't because the argument here is not that nobody should have guns, it's that _civilians_ shouldn't have guns.


----------



## Liberty Ship

hardline_42 said:


> This really shows how little you understand about American culture. I think you really believe this. We don't. Not even the most left-leaning gun-control advocate would agree with you. They might think they do, but ask them to remove the guns from the hands of police officers, body guards or any other security personnel. Ask them to remove the guns from the hands of our military. And if you really want to see them squirm, ask them to remove guns from our entertainment. They won't because the argument here is not that nobody should have guns, it's that _civilians_ shouldn't have guns.


This is the essence of the discussion. The "anti-gun" faction really is not anti-gun, they are just in favor of a government monopoly on force. Lol! What could possibly go wrong?










The 2nd Amendment establishes a balance of power. Acknowledging the "necessary evil" of a "well regulated militia" in order to maintain a free state, the founders guaranteed the People the right to be commensurately armed as a check and balance against abuse by the government.


----------



## Hitch

George Washington's address to the second session of the First U.S. Congress:


"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens' firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies provethat, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that's good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour."​


----------



## blairrob

Liberty Ship said:


> This is the essence of the discussion. The "anti-gun" faction really is not anti-gun, they are just in favor of a government monopoly on force. Lol! What could possibly go wrong?


The "pro-gun" faction really is not pro-gun, they are just in favor of making guns freely available to the civilian population (that's a _big _militia) in anticipation of a fascist or despotic coup. Lol. What could possibly go wrong?!?



Liberty Ship said:


> The 2nd Amendment establishes a balance of power. * Acknowledging the "necessary evil" of a "well regulated militia" in order to maintain a free state*, the founders guaranteed the People the right to be commensurately armed as a check and balance against abuse by the government.


Have not many countries such as Canada, Sweden, Norway, Australia, etc., etc., proven your 'well regulated militia' is _not_ a requirement to maintain a free state?


----------



## Liberty Ship

Canada, Sweden, Norway, Australia are free today because either their own or some other "well regulated militia" defended that freedom against tyranny. Well, maybe not Canada; but certainly the Empire of Japan had its eye on Australia before its expansion was arrested.


----------



## eagle2250

Bjorn said:


> We sure can remove guns from civilians though...
> 
> As for cars being more dangerous, they are necessary. Guns are not.





Shaver said:


> Honestly, in America? I'd like to see them try. :icon_smile_wink:


^^+1 Mr. Shaver and indeed, exactly as it was intended by the framers of our constitution! There is an excellent book titled, The Genius of The People, written by Charles Mee, Jr. (I think?), that many of the posters to this thread should take the time to read...it just might enhance their understanding of this subject! :teacha:


----------



## Howard

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Eliminate guns!


eliminate them all together or burn them.


----------



## Shaver

eagle2250 said:


> ^^+1 Mr. Shaver and indeed, exactly as it was intended by the framers of our constitution! There is an excellent book titled, The Genius of The People, written by Charles Mee, Jr. (I think?), that many of the posters to this thread should take the time to read...it just might enhance their understanding of this subject! :teacha:


Thanks for the recommendation Eagle - an interesting looking read, it's just been added to my Amazon wish list.


----------



## Jovan

Howard said:


> eliminate them all together or burn them.


I think we all know that task is just about impossible for a number of reasons. We're not talking about the religious right's excuses for their support of DADT here... we're talking about something that a whole lot of people own, have been constitutionally protected for over 200 years, and are going to be held onto even if there is a nationwide collection of arms. We're seriously going to go to every little town in the United States with a garbage truck and say, "Hand 'em over"? Get real!

Listen, I respect the idealism and convictions of people who, again, I call friends here, but I just don't see any way of realistically implementing this.

You'd have better luck passing all the restrictions that have been proposed. But I see no way that's going to help either. We already tried the assault weapons ban for a decade. It didn't work then, it's unlikely to work now. And if you're saying it didn't work because of all the pre-ban stuff that was already out there, well, again... are we going to go around and get people to pitch their 30-round magazines into a big truck across the entire United States? Set up assault... stuff... disposal centres? Who will pay for all that? And how will it be enforced? We don't exactly have a firearms registry like Canada or other countries do. Nor should we, IMO.

Sorry, just trying to bring some perspective here.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Shaver said:


> Judge Dread is a white reggae band with puerile lewd lyrics. :teacha:


Correction Judge Dread WAS a white man not a band who sang ska and reggae.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Howard said:


> eliminate them all together or burn them.


Amounts to the same thing. Ploughshares from swords.
Society shouldn't need firearms.


----------



## hardline_42

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Amounts to the same thing. Ploughshares from swords.
> Society shouldn't need firearms.


Oh, how quaint. The words you quote are from the book of Isaiah and present a foregleam of the Messianic Kingdom. You want something applicable to the REAL world? How about 2 Timothy 3:1-5:



> But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self‐assuming, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal,having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self‐control, fierce, without love of goodness,betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power; and from these turn away.


THAT is the world we live in. Society will stop needing firearms when humans no longer resort to force as a means to execute their will, or until a more effective means of force equalization is invented.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Strange then how so many Western European countries get by with only the police and military carrying firearms. THAT is the world I live in. Glad I'm NOT in the world you live in where civilians have a right to carry firearms.


----------



## hardline_42

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Strange then how so many Western European countries get by with only the police and military carrying firearms. THAT is the world I live in. Glad I'm NOT in the world you live in where civilians have a right to carry firearms.


I think the cultural and legal differences between our countries that make this a false comparison have been covered ad nauseam so, I'll just say, I'm happy you're happy with your situation. I would not be happy living in a place where civilians are not to be trusted and forced to rely on the government to defend their safety and liberty. I'm more of a hands-on kind of guy. Now, how about some more funny grammar threads?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Yes, you're right that has been covered enough, so we'll move on. 

But something that screams at me from many of your posts is this idea that the police, govt etc cannot be trusted to defend the people.

By that do you mean purely as regards resources, attendance times, ability etc? 

Or are you referring to something more sinister? I.e. not trusting the police/govt politically, socially etc.


----------



## hardline_42

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Yes, you're right that has been covered enough, so we'll move on.
> 
> But something that screams at me from many of your posts is this idea that the police, govt etc cannot be trusted to defend the people.
> 
> By that do you mean purely as regards resources, attendance times, ability etc?
> 
> Or are you referring to something more sinister? I.e. not trusting the police/govt politically, socially etc.


Opinions vary on this topic, but my personal feelings are that the police, try as they might, can never respond as quickly as someone who is at the scene of a crime as it takes place. This is compounded by a myriad of local issues from high crime rates in a specific city to lack of officers due to budget restraints to low population density in rural areas, etc. Add the fact that the police have no legal duty to protect individuals (their duty is to preserve safety in general) and it makes it that much harder to put all of my trust in the police.

I'm ok with this. I want police presence, investigations and arrests to DETER most criminals. I want the judicial system to prosecute and punish criminals to the fullest extent of the law to LESSEN crime. But I also want the ability to DEFEND myself where the police and justice system cannot.

As to something more sinister (armed resistance against a totalitarian government?), I don't particularly fear that anymore than I fear the average person walking through my neighborhood. Would I feel differently if my doors weren't equipped with locks? Maybe.


----------



## eagle2250

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Yes, you're right that has been covered enough, so we'll move on.
> 
> But something that screams at me from many of your posts is this idea that the police, govt etc cannot be trusted to defend the people.
> 
> By that do you mean purely as regards resources, attendance times, ability etc?
> 
> Or are you referring to something more sinister? I.e. not trusting the police/govt politically, socially etc.


But Earl, that's the point...our forefathers did not trust organized governments...power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and all that rot! That's a primary reason our constitution is written as is, to include an inviolable "bill of rights!" If you would take the time to read the book I suggested in an earlier post, The Genius of The People, it would provide good insight into some of the thought processes that lead to the drafting of these cherished documents (that established this great and storied Nation of ours), in the manner that they are presently written. Given the recent performance of our Congress and Presidential administration(s) over the past decade or so, this institutionalized distrust of the powers that be is well warranted! By gawd, we just might have to defend ourselves from ourselves. :crazy:


----------



## Hitch

Interesting that the 'Western Europeans'are still trying to dictate US internal policy.


----------



## Bjorn

Hitch said:


> Interesting that the 'Western Europeans'are still trying to dictate US internal policy.


Nag nag nag. Full stop.

It's not like it doesn't go both ways.


----------



## Bjorn

hardline_42 said:


> Opinions vary on this topic, but my personal feelings are that the police, try as they might, can never respond as quickly as someone who is at the scene of a crime as it takes place. This is compounded by a myriad of local issues from high crime rates in a specific city to lack of officers due to budget restraints to low population density in rural areas, etc. Add the fact that the police have no legal duty to protect individuals (their duty is to preserve safety in general) and it makes it that much harder to put all of my trust in the police.
> 
> I'm ok with this. I want police presence, investigations and arrests to DETER most criminals. I want the judicial system to prosecute and punish criminals to the fullest extent of the law to LESSEN crime. But I also want the ability to DEFEND myself where the police and justice system cannot.
> 
> As to something more sinister (armed resistance against a totalitarian government?), I don't particularly fear that anymore than I fear the average person walking through my neighborhood. Would I feel differently if my doors weren't equipped with locks? Maybe.


You don't find the safety in general vs. protect individuals somewhat academic? The particular case law underlying that is often toted by gun lobbyists to defend gun ownership as a right, but if you look at how the police works, the difference is small. That the liability of the police is limited is secondary. They still work to protect individuals. Why? Because that's how you preserve "safety in general". Bit of a straw man. Ask any policeman what they do, daily.


----------



## Bjorn

eagle2250 said:


> But Earl, that's the point...our forefathers did not trust organized governments...power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and all that rot! That's a primary reason our constitution is written as is, to include an inviolable "bill of rights!" If you would take the time to read the book I suggested in an earlier post, The Genius of The People, it would provide good insight into some of the thought processes that lead to the drafting of these cherished documents (that established this great and storied Nation of ours), in the manner that they are presently written. Given the recent performance of our Congress and Presidential administration(s) over the past decade or so, this institutionalized distrust of the powers that be is well warranted! By gawd, we just might have to defend ourselves from ourselves. :crazy:


Mismanagement warrants an armed uprising?


----------



## hardline_42

Bjorn said:


> You don't find the safety in general vs. protect individuals somewhat academic? The particular case law underlying that is often toted by gun lobbyists to defend gun ownership as a right, but if you look at how the police works, the difference is small. That the liability of the police is limited is secondary. They still work to protect individuals. Why? Because that's how you preserve "safety in general". Bit of a straw man. Ask any policeman what they do, daily.


If you read through my post you'll see that I wrote "I'm OK with this," "this" referring to the fact that I don't have a right to police protection. I accept this because it helps the police do their job. If everyone who suffered a loss could sue the pants off their local police because something bad happened to them while they waited for an officer to arrive, there would be no police. The point is that the police can't be everywhere all the time, regardless of their legal responsibility, yet people think that they're the solution to all the bad things that could befall them. They rarely stop a crime in progress. Their aim is to preserve "safety in general" by promoting observance of the law, not defending victims.


----------



## hardline_42

Bjorn said:


> Mismanagement warrants an armed uprising?


Depends on the definition of "mismanagement." I think both sides can agree that gems like the Patriot Act are a bit misrepresented by the term.


----------



## Liberty Ship

Hitch said:


> Interesting that the 'Western Europeans'are still trying to dictate US internal policy.


After WWI, Great Britain pretty much disarmed all her subjects -- a tradition that continues to this day. However when Germany, who had also disarmed its population, threatened the British Isles, they called on Free America to contribute small arms so that the British population could defend the homeland:

Thousands of firearms were donated through the National Rifle Association.

Winston Churchill wrote in Their Finest Hour: "When the ships from America approached our shores with their priceless arms, special trains were waiting in all ports to receive their cargoes. The Home Guard in every county, in every village, sat up through the night to receive them. ... By the end of July we were an armed nation ... ."


----------



## Hitch

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Strange then how so many Western European countries get by with only the police and military carrying firearms. THAT is the world I live in. Glad I'm NOT in the world you live in where civilians have a right to carry firearms.


So am I.


----------



## Liberty Ship

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Yes, you're right that has been covered enough, so we'll move on.
> 
> But something that screams at me from many of your posts is this idea that the police, govt etc cannot be trusted to defend the people.
> 
> By that do you mean purely as regards resources, attendance times, ability etc?
> 
> Or are you referring to something more sinister? I.e. not trusting the police/govt politically, socially etc.


We have learned, in some of our lifetimes, not to trust the police or government and, ironically, it is a lesson we learned largely from observing Europe! I don't know how old you are, but it seems you have forgotten the examples of Nazi Germany and the gun control of the Wiemar Republic, then of Nazi Germany itself. An intellectually curious person could surface endless articles showing the relationship between gun control and genocide, so I won't belabor the point. But to prime the pump, I will provide one link.

https://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html

Further, regarding your comment, the police and government can NOT be trusted to "defend the people." Historically, in fact, they can be expected to abuse the people unless their power is held in check through a carefully constructed balance of power such as is found in the U.S. Constitution and its bill of rights.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Hitch said:


> Interesting that the 'Western Europeans'are still trying to dictate US internal policy.


Really, what Western Europeans are in the US doing that?

All I see globally is US representatives, both political and military, waving big sticks at small countries in Africa, Asia, South Ameirca and the Middle East. I wasn't aware that there were any Western European representatives actually in the US dictating US internal policy? Who are they exactly?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Hitch said:


> So am I.


So where do you live then if not in the USA?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Liberty Ship said:


> After WWI, Great Britain pretty much disarmed all her subjects


Actually, the irony is that legally British civilians were disarmed in 1936 only three years before it all kicked off again. But your point stands.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Liberty Ship said:


> I don't know how old you are, *but it seems you have forgotten *


We're having a pleasant discussion, no need to be condescending. You have no idea what I am or amn't aware of so don't assume to know.

As for age? Totally irrelevant! I know what happened, for example, 2000 years ago....and I'm only 51 

Are you claiming that you were alive during the Second World War?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Liberty Ship said:


> Historically, in fact, they can be expected to abuse the people unless their power is held in check through a carefully constructed balance of power such as is found in the U.S. Constitution and its bill of rights.


And here we have the greatest cultural clash between the US and Europe on the whole firearms, public order, civil protection and defence issue. We*** want our police and armed forces to protect us, to be the ONLY bodies armed, to be the ONLY bodies doing that job. We don't want militias, we don't want over a 100 police forces in each county as is not uncommon in each US State, we don't want paramilitary civilian organisations, we don't want vigilantes, we don't want private sector security doing police and military jobs, we don't want firearms clubs, we don't want armed security guards, we don't want gung-ho middle-aged civilians running round the country at the weekend firing off live rounds.

***I am speaking from the perspecitve of a former resident of the UK, Ireland and as a current resident of Sweden.


----------



## eagle2250

Bjorn said:


> Mismanagement warrants an armed uprising?


I don't know that I would personally recommend that approach, but would reserve such options for further deliberation. Let us not forget that, at it's essence, mismanagement occasionally begets armed revolution. Currently and in the recent past take a look at what has been happening with increasing frequency in the middle east...and was it not mismanagement on the part of mother England (almost 240 years ago) that lit the fuse on the American revolution? "Heaven's to Betsy," it has been known to happen. Was not the intent (at least in major part!) of the 2nd Amendment to our constitution to preserve such capability for future times in which our government needed reminding that it was intended to be "of the people, by the people and for the people"? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Liberty Ship

Earl of Ormonde said:


> We're having a pleasant discussion, no need to be condescending. You have no idea what I am or amn't aware of so don't assume to know.
> 
> As for age? Totally irrelevant! I know what happened, for example, 2000 years ago....and I'm only 51
> 
> Are you claiming that you were alive during the Second World War?


My apologies, I am really trying to remain civil. This forum is nearly unique on the Internet in that generally, we are all gentlemen! I'm 60; its just that I tend to be more familiar with the details history than my peers, and, it seems, incredibly more familiar with history than those half my age who have been taught "not to know." I figured if you were in your 20's, it might explain things..... ;-)


----------



## Shaver

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Correction Judge Dread WAS a white man not a band who sang ska and reggae.


I bow to your superior knowledge. :icon_smile:

I remember a couple of friends of mine listening to it when I was about 13. I found it very puerile... as I'm sure did you.


----------



## Howard

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Amounts to the same thing. Ploughshares from swords.
> Society shouldn't need firearms.


Should we use our fists instead?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Shaver said:


> as I'm sure did you


Yes, his very overt sexual lyrics were extremely puerile and most of us in the ska/reggae/skinhead community realised it was his form of gay cover up. Judge Dread (real name Alexander Minto Hughes, born in Kent) died of a heart attack in 98 aged 53 as he walked off stage after a gig.

Here he is on one of his own album covers https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_kJWWRipRdSk/SNBQQ1xLZ3I/AAAAAAAAApM/CZOLkbGYpoY/s400/JudgeDreadRubA.jpg

He has two records to his name, that I know of, there may be more:

1. He was the first white artist to have a reggae hit in Jamaica
2. He has had more songs banned by the BBC than any other artist and by a very large margin


----------



## Liberty Ship

Earl of Ormonde said:


> And here we have the greatest cultural clash between the US and Europe on the whole firearms, public order, civil protection and defence issue. We*** want our police and armed forces to protect us, to be the ONLY bodies armed, to be the ONLY bodies doing that job. We don't want militias, we don't want over a 100 police forces in each county as is not uncommon in each US State, we don't want paramilitary civilian organisations, we don't want vigilantes, we don't want private sector security doing police and military jobs, we don't want firearms clubs, we don't want armed security guards, we don't want gung-ho middle-aged civilians running round the country at the weekend firing off live rounds.
> 
> ***I am speaking from the perspecitve of a former resident of the UK, Ireland and as a current resident of Sweden.


If you were involved in or around the troubles on Northern Ireland, I can certainly better understand your position and the context of some of the thoughts you have shared, above.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Earl of Ormonde said:


> over a 100 police forces in each county as is not uncommon in each US State


Other than a few sparsely-populated western states, my guess is that there are few states that don't have more than 1,000 separate law enforcement agencies.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

CuffDaddy said:


> Other than a few sparsely-populated western states, my guess is that there are few states that don't have more than 1,000 separate law enforcement agencies.


Blimey, I was being conservative, based on what a friend, a former Georgia State Patrolman told me back in the 90s, that when he was a cop in Georgia, there were over a 100 police forces in the state, but he meant real patrolling police forces, he wasn't including correctional and probation services and such like nor was he including sheriff's offices in one-horse towns nor federal forces active in the state, US Marshall's Service etc.

But I didn't realise it was as many as you say.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Liberty Ship said:


> If you were involved in or around the troubles on Northern Ireland, I can certainly better understand your position and the context of some of the thoughts you have shared, above.


Indeed, several points of contact.

1. In 1969 after my paternal grandfather died in Rosslare, we stayed with relatives for a while in Dublin, then moved up to Newtonabbey north of Belfast where we lived for several months. One of my protestant cousins was UDR and a target
2. 1970s - very close to several bombs that went off both in London and Ireland
3. RAF service 80-82 - a constant IRA threat to servicemen in the UK, Germany and NI.
4. Three colleagues from my shift killed at the 1983 IRA bomb at Harrods
5. Police service in London from 83-96


----------



## CuffDaddy

*Two experiences*

In the past few days, I've had a couple of interesting experiences that might be relevant to these discussions. I share them for what they are worth:
*
At the range*:

I went to my usual indoor shooting range for the first time since the Newton tragedy just a couple of days ago. After that event, I had been searching my conscience to see whether my shooting pursuits were somehow contributing to a bad culture, a malformed market, etc. After a couple of weeks of introspection (and some discussion here and with a few others in person), I had come to the conclusion that I could own and enjoy firearms without indirectly harming others. I packed up a few pistols and some ammunition and headed to the range.

It was crowded, and only my membership got me a lane without a wait. The crowd was diverse, in every sense of the word. There were men, but also women (some with men, but at least two pairs of women without men); there were caucasians and african-americans and asian-americans; there were people in their 20's and people in their 60's (nobody very aged was there that day, but there are some septegenarians who show up regularly). Everyone was unfailingly polite and friendly. Nobody got a gun pointed at them even by accident, nobody's gun went off by accident, and the range officers were close by the newer shooters to anticipate problems before they arose. In short, it was the usual scene of cross-society mixing and camraderie.

With the exception of the .22, all of the ammunition I shot was ammo that I loaded myself. Each round had been made by hand, and meticulously measured and cataloged. One batch of ammunition had been formulated to offer the softest possible recoil while still cycling the action of the pistol it was used for. Another batch was devised to match the impact point and the sight picture at a particular distance (on a revolver with fixed sights, only certain bullet weight and velocity combinations will match the sights at a particular range - the left/right will always be OK, but the up/down will be off by an inch or more for some combinations). Another batch was designed to get an optimal amount of velocity efficiently without excessive pressure being exerted on the gun.

As I was collecting the spent brass from my guns, I met and spoke at some length with the two guys in the range next to me (they had come together). One was an engineer who was also a reloader (which is why he and I were picking around in the same brass piles - but he was looking for .45 ACP and I was after my 10mm, so there was no confusion). I don't recall the other's occupation, but he was clearly another well-educated and well-spoken gentleman. We talked about what each of us was shooting. They shot a few rounds from one of my guns, and I did the same from one that they had brought.

I won't try to capture the experience of actually shooting, as it's a difficult phenomenon to capture. Shooting, done properly, requires an intense awareness, and it's no coincidence that the man who literally wrote _the _book on action pistol shooting in competition is a zen master. (If anyone is interested, Brian Enos is his name, and his book can be had on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Practical-Sh...=1356710357&sr=8-1-spell&keywords=brian+enose ). That book is about 10-15% about mechanics that are specific to shooting, and about 85% about states of mind, levels of awareness, the counter-productivity of certain kinds of effort, etc.

I left the range with a sense of fulfilment, of having had a part of my brain activated that gets relatively little use otherwise, and a sense of peace. Not once during the 90 minutes I was there did I fantasize about killing someone or violence in general, nor did I ever feel aggressive. After dropping off the firearms at my house, I went and hit golf balls, which is the next closest thing, and hit them better than I had in months, in part because of the state of awareness that I was in as a result of shooting.

Can I live without this kind of experience? Yes, absolutely. Would my life be worse without it? Yes, absolutely.

*Overheard at dinner*:

Last night, I went to dinner with my wife and daughter at a barbeque joint. Our table was next to a table full of uniformed police officers, and one un-uniformed young man that I took to be some sort of recruit. Their conversation tuned to gun control discussions, and they all laughed - literally laughed - at the notion that it would make any difference. They began to regale the young guy with various tales of how criminals get guns, and other weapons, how resourceful they can be, etc. They talked about how during the last "assault weapons ban," the gangbangers who couldn't afford the suddenly-expensive "pre-ban hi-cap" mags simply modified the restricted capacity ones (magazines are just a tube of metal or plastic, a spring, and a plastic or metal follower that pushes up on the first bullet loaded - making it illegal to fiddle with them doesn't make it hard to do so). It was just 5 officers from the APD, and maybe they don't know what they were talking about. But maybe they do. Either way, there are certainly plenty of law enforcement officers here in America who either don't want a monopoly on force or don't feel that one is available through any legislative action.

Hope each of you had a merry Christmas (or other solstice-time celebration of your choice); I certainly did!


----------



## CuffDaddy

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Blimey, I was being conservative, based on what a friend, a former Georgia State Patrolman told me back in the 90s, that when he was a cop in Georgia, there were over a 100 police forces in the state, but he meant real patrolling police forces, he wasn't including correctional and probation services and such like nor was he including sheriff's offices in one-horse towns nor federal forces active in the state, US Marshall's Service etc.
> 
> But I didn't realise it was as many as you say.


Well, once you put those qualifiers in, that cuts it down somewhat. But we have 119 counties in Georgia (actually an inordinate amount - only Texas has more), and each will have a sherrif's office. Most cities/towns of any appreciable size will have their own police force in addition to that. My city - the biggest in the state and certainly an outlier - has, IIRC, seven agencies. For instance, our public transit system has its own police force. Some of the universities do as well.

One reason that Americans are inherently more distrustful of government is that ours is rarely as efficient as those found in Western Europe.


----------



## CuffDaddy

And an article about the most recent murder in my metropolitan area:


----------



## hardline_42

CuffDaddy said:


> And an article about the most recent murder in my metropolitan area:


What a sad story. One of the most poignant quotes I read was this one, from the judge:



Judge Grubbs said:


> "You cannot predict human behavior. After (the school massacre in) Newtown people ask, 'How can we stop someone before they do something?' We don't do that."


----------



## CuffDaddy

hardline_42 said:


> What a sad story. One of the most poignant quotes I read was this one, from the judge:


Yep. Here was a woman who knew a man was after her. She took legal steps to seek as much protection from the law as possible. Yet the man - no doubt physically larger and stronger, not to mention more aggressive by nature and biochemistry - killed her. With a knife.

What if, rather than merely asking for the authorities to do something (something beyond their legal power), she had gotten herself a gun and some training in how to use it? At least under our current system, she had that choice; I bristle at the notion that we would deprive a woman in that situation of such a choice.

(Incidentally, I always thought a solution to the problems in Afghanistan might be this: men with firearms are shot on sight, while women are required to be armed at all times. I suspect the Taliban wouldn't last long in such circumstances.)


----------



## Bjorn

CuffDaddy said:


> Yep. Here was a woman who knew a man was after her. She took legal steps to seek as much protection from the law as possible. Yet the man - no doubt physically larger and stronger, not to mention more aggressive by nature and biochemistry - killed her. With a knife.
> 
> What if, rather than merely asking for the authorities to do something (something beyond their legal power), she had gotten herself a gun and some training in how to use it? At least under our current system, she had that choice; I bristle at the notion that we would deprive a woman in that situation of such a choice.
> 
> (Incidentally, I always thought a solution to the problems in Afghanistan might be this: men with firearms are shot on sight, while women are required to be armed at all times. I suspect the Taliban wouldn't last long in such circumstances.)


Incidentally, I find your suggestion doable in all societies, not just Afghanistan. 

You don't want them to enjoy the right to bear arms, in their country?


----------



## CuffDaddy

Bjorn said:


> You don't want them to enjoy the right to bear arms, in their country?


I am not one of those who believes that all rights should be the same for all people in all socities in all the world.

There's a gigantic difference between a military strategy and a structure of organization for one's own society. But I would sooner see a structure in America that disarms men - and only men - than a structure that disarms men and women equally. See my prior posts about the egalitarian nature of firearms.


----------



## Jovan

Before we get overly patriotic here, it is my patriotic duty to link this article. Quite enlightening, really. The British may have been jerks to the colonists, but it kind of went both ways.

https://www.cracked.com/article_18442_5-reasons-founding-fathers-were-kind-dicks.html


----------



## hardline_42

Jovan said:


> Before we get overly patriotic here, it is my patriotic duty to link this article. Quite enlightening, really. The British may have been jerks to the colonists, but it kind of went both ways.
> 
> https://www.cracked.com/article_18442_5-reasons-founding-fathers-were-kind-dicks.html


No offense to you or the MAD magazine wannabe's over at Cracked, but that was the most annoying thing I've ever read.


----------



## Shaver

hardline_42 said:


> No offense to you or the MAD magazine wannabe's over at Cracked, but that was the most annoying thing I've ever read.


Aww Hardline _c'mon_! That cannot be true. You've been a member here for nearly three years! :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## hardline_42

Shaver said:


> Aww Hardline _c'mon_! That cannot be true. You've been a member here for nearly three years! :icon_smile_wink:


Haha! Good point.


----------



## Jovan

I found it humourous and enlightening, but okay.


----------



## hardline_42

Jovan said:


> I found it humourous and enlightening, but okay.


I'm not referring to the content. The writing style is juvenile and grating to the point of making my eyes hemorrhage . Also, what's with the "humourous?" You going Euro on us?:biggrin:


----------



## Jovan

... I've always typed that way, you over-critical jerk! I was born in Canada.


----------



## hardline_42

Jovan said:


> ... I've always typed that way, you over-critical jerk! I was born in Canada.


Don't sweat it, my friend. Nobody's perfect. :tongue2:


----------



## Jovan

It's all aboot respect, my Yankee friend.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Except that in Europe it's spelled humorous. Humour yes, but humorous.


----------



## Shaver

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Except that in Europe it's spelled humorous. Humour yes, but humorous.


Grammar Nazi. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Jovan

Whoops.


----------



## Hitch

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Really, what Western Europeans are in the US doing that?


 For example;

But my view as you know is stronger, for me it isn't legislation that makes it easier for law-abiding citizens (e.g. the teachers) to arm themselves, it is legislation that *prevents as many people as possible from 1, arming themselves and 2, legislation that means the US becomes a societywhere they don't need to arm themselves in the first place.

I know that sounds like a gargantuan and difficult task to many Americans but all such tasks need to start at some point in time to improve society.

One can't hide behind the "too difficult" "too long" "anti-constitutional" "it couldn't possibly work" arguments forever in order to avoid societal improvements. Familiar? *

All I see globally is US representatives, both political and military, waving big sticks at small countries in Africa, Asia, South Ameirca and the Middle East. I wasn't aware that there were any Western European representatives actually in the US dictating US internal policy? Who are they exactly?[/QUOTE] This is not the whine over lost empire thread Earl

Strange thing Earl buy why did you bother to add "_what Western Europeans are in the US doing that?" _Twice ?? LOL Strawmen like these are not the marks of a good argument.


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> This is not the whine over lost empire thread Earl
> 
> Strange thing Earl buy why did you bother to add "_what Western Europeans are in the US doing that?" _Twice ?? LOL Strawmen like these are not the marks of a good argument.


Respectfully, I do not believe that there is an Englishman (or British person) alive who gives the 'lost empire' a moment's thought.

Did you mention 'strawman'? :icon_smile_wink:

.
.
.


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> Respectfully, I do not believe that there is an Englishman (or British person) alive who gives the 'lost empire' a moment's thought.
> 
> Did you mention 'strawman'? :icon_smile_wink:
> 
> .
> .
> .


Well Shaver Earl didnt give specifics as far as what is being done or by whom, except naming the areas; " Africa, Asia, South Ameirca and the Middle East". What stuck out to me was that we would have to follow the Brits in every one of the places named.


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> Well Shaver Earl didnt give specifics as far as what is being done or by whom, except naming the areas; " Africa, Asia, South Ameirca and the Middle East". What stuck out to me was that we would have to follow the Brits in every one of the places named.


Well, and in this criticising neither you nor the Earl, I find foreign policy (whatever the nation) to be intrinsically self-centred and thus poorly motivated. It tends to be Britain following America in this area though, presumably because the vanity of our politicians encourages them in a pretence that they still may project the appearance of influence.


----------



## Flairball

I'm just on a pop this in here.

https://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html?KEYWORDS=two+cautionary+tales+of+gun+control


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Hitch said:


> Interesting that the 'Western Europeans'are still trying to dictate US internal policy.


You said this. I responded correctly to the words you wrote asking you for proof. To do what you are alleging, Western Europeans would have to be in positions of power in the US - power from economics, military might or political pressure just as US representatives are doing and have done in many countries round the world influencing the internal policies of those countries.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Shaver said:


> It tends to be Britain following America in this area though, presumably because the vanity of our politicians encourages them in a pretence that they still may project the appearance of influence.


Exactly, post-WWII most UK PMs have only followed the lead of the US President. Blair certainly felt pushed into a war to support Bush.

The opposite however has never been true post-WWII.

The US gave us no support in The Falklands, in fact Reagan flat out refused.

Aden? No
Malayan Emergency? No

However, British troops were in Korea, Vietnam, The Gulf, Iraq, and still in Afghanistan.

Special relationship MY ARSE!!! Only when it suits the US!!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Flairball said:


> I'm just on a pop this in here.
> 
> https://online.wsj.com/article/SB10...?KEYWORDS=two+cautionary+tales+of+gun+control


Yep, all very true. I posted most of that many pages ago. BUT the quesiton is this really, do you think the US citizenry are prepared for such stringent measures?

As many have said here there are many views and many camps - one militant camp who will resist any change to the constitution. And another camp, reasonably and correctly represented here by CuffDaddy, among others, who fear quite rightly that more stringent gun controls will put innocent civilians at risk if they are not legally able to purchase and carry a firearm for personal protection, not just against unknown criminals but more importantly against known recidivist assailants.


----------



## Liberty Ship

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Indeed, several points of contact.
> 
> 1. In 1969 after my paternal grandfather died in Rosslare, we stayed with relatives for a while in Dublin, then moved up to Newtonabbey north of Belfast where we lived for several months. One of my protestant cousins was UDR and a target
> 2. 1970s - very close to several bombs that went off both in London and Ireland
> 3. RAF service 80-82 - a constant IRA threat to servicemen in the UK, Germany and NI.
> 4. Three colleagues from my shift killed at the 1983 IRA bomb at Harrods
> 5. Police service in London from 83-96


I doubt we shall ever be in agreement, but I now have a better understanding of the rationale behind your position. For what it's worth, in my opinion, Northern Ireland suffered at the hands of what might be called "unregulated militias," as opposed to the "well regulated militias" cited in our 2nd Amendment. Such unregulated militias wrecked havoc on Missouri and Kansas during the mid 19th century. Not a good thing.


----------



## Liberty Ship

*The Sword Hunt*

It is probably worth reviewing one of the "Sword Hunts" in Japanese history to understand how and why civilian disarmament happens.

"In 1588, in what has come to be known as the "sword hunt," Hideyoshi decreed that farmers should be disarmed,
essentially guaranteeing the samurai elite a monopoly on the instruments of violence."

Pretty simple, really. It's hard to be a dictator when The People are armed!

"(a) The Edict:
1. Farmers of all provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords,
short swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other types of weapons. If unnecessary implements of
war are kept, the collection of annual rent (nengu) may become more difficult, and without
provocation uprisings can be fomented..."

But, it was, of course for their own good in the end:

"The swords and short swords collected in the above manner will not be wasted. They
will be used as nails and bolts in the construction of the Great Image of Buddha. In this way,
farmers will benefit not only in this life but also in the lives to come."

https://afe.easia.columbia.edu/ps/japan/tokugawa_edicts_swords.pdf


----------



## Hitch

Earl of Ormonde said:


> You said this. I responded correctly to the words you wrote asking you for proof. To do what you are alleging, Western Europeans would have to be in positions of power in the US - power from economics, military might or political pressure just as US representatives are doing and have done in many countries round the world influencing the internal policies of those countries.


No you didnt Earl. You just applied your usual spin and ridiculous overstatement, like anyone else with a weak argument.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Hitch said:


> No you didnt Earl. You just applied your usual spin and ridiculous overstatement, like anyone else with a weak argument.


Again with the personal attacks. That's all you've done on this thread. I haven't seen you dispute any facts, or prove or disprove any facts stated. You are incapable of joining in the pleasant, reasonable discussion the rest of us are having. I wonder who it is that has the weak argument?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Liberty Ship said:


> For what it's worth, in my opinion, Northern Ireland suffered at the hands of what might be called "unregulated militias,"


That's a whole other discussion we can have on another thread.


----------



## Jovan

FYI, for anyone else who thinks we should ban guns or at least supposed "assault-style" weapons in the USA, part of the reason we can't take them away is because of a little thing where Congress is prohibited from making ex post facto laws. So, they can make a law banning the sale or purchase of weapons, but they have no legal authority to take them away from people who bought them when it was perfectly legal to. Guns are still going to be around no matter what.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Jovan said:


> Congress is prohibited from making ex post facto laws. So, they can make a law banning the sale or purchase of weapons, but they have no legal authority to take them away from people who bought them when it was perfectly legal to. Guns are still going to be around no matter what.


Ah ha, I didn't know that and that is another difference between the US and the UK.


----------



## Jovan

We see what good taking away guns from UK citizens did when the Germans attacked. Then they were looking to the US for weaponry!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Jovan said:


> We see what good taking away guns from UK citizens did when the Germans attacked. Then they were looking to the US for weaponry!


What are you talking about now??


----------



## Jovan

This.



Liberty Ship said:


> After WWI, Great Britain pretty much disarmed all her subjects -- a tradition that continues to this day. However when Germany, who had also disarmed its population, threatened the British Isles, they called on Free America to contribute small arms so that the British population could defend the homeland:
> 
> Thousands of firearms were donated through the National Rifle Association.
> 
> Winston Churchill wrote in Their Finest Hour: "When the ships from America approached our shores with their priceless arms, special trains were waiting in all ports to receive their cargoes. The Home Guard in every county, in every village, sat up through the night to receive them. ... By the end of July we were an armed nation ... ."


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Jovan said:


> This.


oh right yea.


----------



## Shaver

This conversation could take an unpleasant turn if we must start talking about who did what in the second world war. If it wasn't for England we would be discussing this subject in German now. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Jovan

Nah, I'm not dissing them. The USA made a lot of mistakes too, such as not getting involved until the Japanese were at their doorstep. :icon_scratch: In any case, all the Allies made an impact in the war. It would be far from my character to question all the men and women who kept this world free from a ruthless dictator.


----------



## Shaver

Jovan said:


> Nah, I'm not dissing them. The USA made a lot of mistakes too, such as not getting involved until the Japanese were at their doorstep. :icon_scratch: In any case, all the Allies made an impact in the war. It would be far from my character to question all the men and women who kept this world free from a ruthless dictator.


Sorry Jovan I certainly didn't mean it to appear as if that was directed at you. I just had a little premonition as to the way things were maybe heading.......


----------



## Jovan

Ah, I see.


----------



## eagle2250

^^LOL.
During these arguably uncertain times, if I should be so fortunate to be able to actually take delivery of my (on order) .308 cal. Colt Arms AR-15, and paraphrasing the great, late Charlton Heston in comments he offered as the titular head of the NRA years ago, "If they ever want to take my AR-15 from me, they will have to wait until they can pry it from my cold, dead fingers!"


----------



## Shaver

^That's this one, right? :icon_smile:
https://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/civil/colt_901/1346762366.jpg


----------



## Bjorn

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Exactly, post-WWII most UK PMs have only followed the lead of the US President. Blair certainly felt pushed into a war to support Bush.
> 
> The opposite however has never been true post-WWII.
> 
> The US gave us no support in The Falklands, in fact Reagan flat out refused.
> 
> Aden? No
> Malayan Emergency? No
> 
> However, British troops were in Korea, Vietnam, The Gulf, Iraq, and still in Afghanistan.
> 
> Special relationship MY ARSE!!! Only when it suits the US!!


Main reason for not pursuing a NATO membership, if you're not already a member...


----------



## sbdivemaster

*Which Rifle Should Be Banned?*

Here's two rifles:

*Rifle A:*









*Rifle B:*









Which one of these should be banned?


----------



## Shaver

sbdivemaster said:


> Here's two rifles:
> 
> *Rifle A:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Rifle B:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one of these should be banned?


I'm guessing that they are essentially the same mechanism with a different stock?


----------



## Liberty Ship

Good call, Shaver. It's the same gun, a Ruger Mini-14, with different stock, etc.

I checked out a bunch of gun stores today. Madness! No place to park! No magazines for AR's, etc. Ammo up 400%! Obama is selling guns like a Boss! When he got elected, Ruger stock was at 6 dollars a share. It's been as high as 60 recently and is currently in the mid-40's. This could stimulate the economy better than any stimulus plan!


----------



## dba

Mark Twain was once quoted as saying there are three types of lies. "Lies, Damned lies and Statistics." Here are some statistics taken from the internet. Obviously since they were found there, they must be true. :rolleyes2:

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917 about 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953 about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 until 1945 a total 13 million Jews and others, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1968, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1970, Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20[SUP]th[/SUP] Century: 56 million. :icon_peaceplease:


----------



## Jovan

By the same standards we should also ban this evil looking bastard:

https://www.imfdb.org/images/thumb/7/7d/RugerMuzzelite.jpg/400px-RugerMuzzelite.jpg


----------



## Shaver

Many of the air rifles available look more intimidating than real guns these days. It contributes to the hysteria. Although, perhaps to my shame, the appearance is part of the attraction for me. Not being at liberty to own them (legally) firearms do have potential to become more appreciated for form than function.

.
.
.


----------



## Jovan

That's actually a bullpup conversion for the Mini-14. It's used in a lot of movies for its futuristic appearance, and the Mini-14 uppers inside are converted to full automatic.


----------



## blairrob

dba said:


> In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917 about 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
> 
> In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953 about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
> 
> Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 until 1945 a total 13 million Jews and others, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
> 
> China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
> 
> Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1968, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
> 
> In 1970, Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
> 
> Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
> 
> Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20[SUP]th[/SUP] Century: 56 million. :icon_peaceplease:


If you wish to use the experiences of second and third world countries as comparables for any 1st world reality or potential reality go ahead, but it is a ridiculous argument. Perhaps you could use successful Chinese or Russian labour policy to develop stronger economic programs in the US, particularly in mining and heavy industry. That would of course take you directly to the 19th century but since we're being ridiculous such a notion must seem quite palatable to you.

The only exception on your developing country list is of course Germany, and I sincerely doubt that more lax gun control would have changed anything as the Nazi government was originally elected, anti-semitism was rampant in Germany then as it was in most of Europe, and of course there were none of the 'militias' of your constitution organized to overthrow the government should they have wanted to, just groups of intellectuals and artists and such dissenting when they could. It could also be easily argued that because of the terrible consequences of WWl and Versailles both Belgium and Germany were poor and suffocating nations to begin with.

On the flip side to that stupid extermination argument is that many more 2nd and 3rd world nations _didn't_ experience such tragedies despite having large minorities and a paucity of firearms. Your exceptions do not make the rule. It is well known and publicized that a huge issue for a nations government, perhaps the biggest, after a civil war is the availability of guns still in circulation after hostilities have ceased. It makes effective governance practically impossible after reconciliation. The vast majority of arms arrive during or in the lead in to the strife, but tend to stay.

Guns make for incredibly interesting sociological discussion. There are many valid arguments, in my view, from cultural reasons, to personal safety, and yes, to protection of a democracy, for supporters of gun ownership but when one takes a position on such an important topic it should be backed with logic instead of fallacious reasoning.


----------



## eagle2250

Shaver said:


> ^That's this one, right? :icon_smile:
> https://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/civil/colt_901/1346762366.jpg


Indeed, that looks like a "delivery room" shot of my new baby...she's rather pretty (in a manly sort of way), eh? The big questions remain when and if she will ever be delivered...and at what price? I've already been notified of one price increase!


----------



## Shaver

eagle2250 said:


> Indeed, that looks like a "delivery room" shot of my new baby...she's rather pretty (in a manly sort of way), eh? The big questions remain when and if she will ever be delivered?


A very handsome looking weapon. Those deer will need to give the grounds out back of you a wide berth when it arrives. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Howard

sbdivemaster said:


> Here's two rifles:
> 
> *Rifle A:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Rifle B:*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one of these should be banned?


both.


----------



## sbdivemaster

Howard said:


> both.


Ding ding, we have a winner!

It was a trick question; it's a Ruger Ranch Rifle, as many of you know. The only difference being what clothes it's wearing. This will be banned if Diane Feinstein, and Howard, have their way...


----------



## Shaver

sbdivemaster said:


> Ding ding, we have a winner!
> 
> It was a trick question; it's a Ruger Ranch Rifle, as many of you know. The only difference being what clothes it's wearing. This will be banned if Diane Feinstein, and Howard, have their way...


Is Feinstein *still* a pain in the @rse? I thought she went away in the 1980's?


----------



## sbdivemaster

Shaver said:


> I thought she went away in the 1980's?


I wish!!


----------



## dba

blairrob said:


> If you wish to use the experiences of second and third world countries as comparables for any 1st world reality or potential reality go ahead, but it is a ridiculous argument. Perhaps you could use successful Chinese or Russian labour policy to develop stronger economic programs in the US, particularly in mining and heavy industry. That would of course take you directly to the 19th century but since we're being ridiculous such a notion must seem quite palatable to you.
> 
> The only exception on your developing country list is of course Germany, and I sincerely doubt that more lax gun control would have changed anything as the Nazi government was originally elected, anti-semitism was rampant in Germany then as it was in most of Europe, and of course there were none of the 'militias' of your constitution organized to overthrow the government should they have wanted to, just groups of intellectuals and artists and such dissenting when they could. It could also be easily argued that because of the terrible consequences of WWl and Versailles both Belgium and Germany were poor and suffocating nations to begin with.
> 
> On the flip side to that stupid extermination argument is that many more 2nd and 3rd world nations _didn't_ experience such tragedies despite having large minorities and a paucity of firearms. Your exceptions do not make the rule. It is well known and publicized that a huge issue for a nations government, perhaps the biggest, after a civil war is the availability of guns still in circulation after hostilities have ceased. It makes effective governance practically impossible after reconciliation. The vast majority of arms arrive during or in the lead in to the strife, but tend to stay.
> 
> Guns make for incredibly interesting sociological discussion. There are many valid arguments, in my view, from cultural reasons, to personal safety, and yes, to protection of a democracy, for supporters of gun ownership but when one takes a position on such an important topic it should be backed with logic instead of fallacious reasoning.


I guess you missed the "since it was on the internet, it must be true" sarcasm and tongue in cheek sprit it was posted with.


----------



## blairrob

dba said:


> I guess you missed the "since it was on the internet, it must be true" sarcasm and tongue in cheek sprit it was posted with.


Well who would have thunk a ##@!* bear would understand the concept of sarcasm. Certainly the ones I know tend to be grumpy and rather straight forward.

My apologies.

As a complete and ridiculous aside, I have a friend who runs an ICU at a large hospital in New Brunswick. He had to block Wikipedia access on the unit's computers as staff were using the site as a medical reference.


----------



## dba

blairrob said:


> Well who would have thunk a ##@!* bear would understand the concept of sarcasm. Certainly the ones I know tend to be grumpy and rather straight forward.
> 
> My apologies.
> 
> As a complete and ridiculous aside, I have a friend who runs an ICU at a large hospital in New Brunswick. He had to block Wikipedia access on the unit's computers as staff were using the site as a medical reference.


Very scary, but it would be funny if it weren't true.


----------



## Liberty Ship

dba said:


> Mark Twain was once quoted as saying there are three types of lies. "Lies, Damned lies and Statistics." Here are some statistics taken from the internet. Obviously since they were found there, they must be true. :rolleyes2:
> 
> In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917 about 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
> 
> In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953 about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
> 
> Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 until 1945 a total 13 million Jews and others, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
> 
> China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
> 
> Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1968, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
> 
> In 1970, Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
> 
> Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
> 
> Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20[SUP]th[/SUP] Century: 56 million. :icon_peaceplease:


What is interesting is that in almost every country on the list, "gun control" was a progressive process. It always started with Registration of guns and owners, then licensing of transactions, and, over a period of years, possession was banned. Once possession was banned and firearms collected, the governments in question usually targeted some minority segment of their own population for genocide. Not a crime, of course, since the mass murder was implemented by the state. What Rep. Jerry Nadler calls "legitimate violence."

https://cnsnews.com/news/article/nadler-state-ought-have-monopoly-legitimate-violence


----------



## dba

Liberty Ship said:


> What is interesting is that in almost every country on the list, "gun control" was a progressive process. It always started with Registration of guns and owners, then licensing of transactions, and, over a period of years, possession was banned. Once possession was banned and firearms collected, the governments in question usually targeted some minority segment of their own population for genocide. Not a crime, of course, since the mass murder was implemented by the state. What Rep. Jerry Nadler calls "legitimate violence."
> 
> https://cnsnews.com/news/article/nadler-state-ought-have-monopoly-legitimate-violence


I also like the part wherein he says he wants to confiscate the hi-cap mags already legally in possession of the citizenry. He probably goes to sleep every night damning not only the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment but that pesky old 4[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment also!


----------



## CuffDaddy

A few more unintended consequences I observed this weekend:

I went to a gun show this weekend, as much to see the circus as anything else. Although much is made of the "gun show loophole," whereby non-handgun firearms can be sold from one private person to another without going through a dealer (thereby avoiding the background check), in my experience that hardly ever happen at gun shows. The vendors who buy tables are all FFL's (and anyone trying to be in the business of selling guns without an FFL is in violation of the law, and very likely to be severly punished), and far less than .1% of the attendees actually bring a gun to try to sell - and when they do, they usually trade it to a dealer as part of a transaction that involves a background check.

At least that's the way it was until the run on "assault" rifles drove prices for new and used guns through the roof (2-5 times normal prices, from what I saw). Suddenly, the show was full of individuals looking to unload a small part of their stash for giant profits. Ordinarily, someone at a gun show who couldn't pass a background check would have low odds of finding something in a private sale, and would have to run a real risk of being caught in some sort of sting. But with the current prices, second hand guns are coming out of safes and being offered for sale to anyone with cash (all legal, from the seller's perspective). So dodging a background check has gotten easier, though more expensive.

Next, I noticed that, with most semi-auto rifles either sold out or priced at exorbitant mark-ups, dealers have already started to turn "traditional" guns into "tactical" guns. I saw lever-action rifles outfitted with picatinny rails, M4 stocks, and foregrips. Although all the tacti-cool lashups are risible, it just goes to show that the gun with the next-highest rate of fire, and next fastest type of reloading, will fill the market niche purged by any ban on semi-autos. (If anyone doubts that "old-fashioned" long guns, such as pumps or levers, can be reloaded more than fast enough to make an individual mass shooter horrifyingly effective, watch this: 



 )

Finally, a phenomenon that I did not see, but that I predict will develop if we ban "hi-capacity" magazines: In recent years, most people chosing a gun for self-defense (either for the home or for carry) have tended to choose calibers that are in the mid-range of power for handguns (9mm, .40) and at the low end for rifles (.223/5.56mm). They have done so despite the fact that these rounds are not necessarily the most effective (on a bullet-for-bullet basis) at IMMEDIATELY incapacitating an attacker because the additional capacity available makes the trade-off worthwhile. 17 rounds of 9mm (the standard capacity for the Glock and S&W models carried by most beat cops in America) is a good deal of stopping power. But if capacity is limited, I suspect many who own guns for self-defense will go to calibers that are more powerful on a shot-for-shot basis. The magnum revolver may make a return to popularity, for instance.

And that may cause _more_ deaths, because those rounds are more lethal. Most handgun gunshot victims survive. The survival rate is much lower for those shot with magnum revolver rounds. The survival rate is not great for .223 wounds, but is positively terrible for .308/7.62 or .30-06 rounds.

Maybe a revival of the AWB is a good idea. But the idea that it will have the effects that its proponents imagine is already being belied. This stuff is complicated. Simplistic solutions are likely to fail, or make things worse, in ways that are hard to predict.


----------



## Liberty Ship

dba said:


> I also like the part wherein he says he wants to confiscate the hi-cap mags already legally in possession of the citizenry. He probably goes to sleep every night damning not only the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment but that pesky old 4[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment also!


Our tradition, based in English Common Law, is that self defense is a basic human right because no act of law can make you whole if you have been a victim of violence. And the only way that the state can have "a monopoly on legitimate violence," as Nadler suggests, is to outlaw any kind of self defense whatsoever and tell people that they must passively and compliantly be raped, robbed, tortured, and murdered without raising a hand.

God gives you a gun for use as a last resort -- after you have turned all four cheeks!!!!!


----------



## pleasehelp

CuffDaddy said:


> Finally, a phenomenon that I did not see, but that I predict will develop if we ban "hi-capacity" magazines: In recent years, most people chosing a gun for self-defense (either for the home or for carry) have tended to choose calibers that are in the mid-range of power for handguns (9mm, .40) and at the low end for rifles (.223/5.56mm). They have done so despite the fact that these rounds are not necessarily the most effective (on a bullet-for-bullet basis) at IMMEDIATELY incapacitating an attacker because the additional capacity available makes the trade-off worthwhile. 17 rounds of 9mm (the standard capacity for the Glock and S&W models carried by most beat cops in America) is a good deal of stopping power. But if capacity is limited, I suspect many who own guns for self-defense will go to calibers that are more powerful on a shot-for-shot basis. The magnum revolver may make a return to popularity, for instance.


I'm a NYer and from my limited experience observing some friends buying guns, I've seen that the inability to buy high-capacity magazines lead them to buy more powerful handguns. The thought process is slightly different than you might think. This group of people primarily buys guns for either target shooting or because they are interested in gun ownership as an exercise of their rights, and they tend to not be true gun enthusiasts. They view buying a gun a bit like buying a car or a fancy stereo - they are drawn to high quality and interesting features. Self/home defense is generally not a factor for this group. A 9mm that holds 10 bullets isn't considered interesting to many of these buyers when compared to a .45ACP or a magnum.

It's a pretty odd dynamic. I highly doubt the NY legislature thought of this when passing the magazine capacity laws, and I wouldn't have thought of it either until I saw it play out.

I'd be interested in seeing any data on whether limiting magazine capacity makes any difference. Probably a bit tough to isolate as a variable. If I were a criminal, I think it would be pretty easy for me to build high capacity magazines.

Out of curiousity for the non-US folks here. What are the penalties for illegal gun ownership in your countries? I wonder what the impact would be in the US if we made illegal gun ownership a mandatory 10 year/$500k offense - I'm not necessarily suggesting this b/c it might make criminals more likely to feel like they have nothing to lose. I'm just thinking it over...


----------



## Chouan

Jovan said:


> This.
> 
> _Thousands of firearms were donated through the National Rifle Association._
> 
> _Winston Churchill wrote in Their Finest Hour: "When the ships from America approached our shores with their priceless arms, special trains were waiting in all ports to receive their cargoes. The Home Guard in every county, in every village, sat up through the night to receive them. ... By the end of July we were an armed nation ... ."_


Except that the firearms, and binoculars, were destined to equip the Home Guard, a regularly embodied branch of the armed forces, in uniform, under military control, not for individual citizens to use.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Right, Chouan. And such a home guard - a militia, if you will - is easy to constitute on short notice if all citizens already have arms and are familiar with them. No desperate pleas to neutral nations that may or may not help in your hour of need will be required.


----------



## Chouan

eagle2250 said:


> I don't know that I would personally recommend that approach, but would reserve such options for further deliberation. Let us not forget that, at it's essence, mismanagement occasionally begets armed revolution. Currently and in the recent past take a look at what has been happening with increasing frequency in the middle east...and was it not mismanagement on the part of mother England (almost 240 years ago) that lit the fuse on the American revolution? "Heaven's to Betsy," it has been known to happen. Was not the intent (at least in major part!) of the 2nd Amendment to our constitution to preserve such capability for future times in which our government needed reminding that it was intended to be "of the people, by the people and for the people"? :icon_scratch:


One of the great myths of, relatively, modern History. It could be argued that it wasn't mismanagement by the British government, although the government's response to the rebellion was poorly managed, but it was a cleverly managed rebellion by an educated and wealthy elite who saw that they could effectively seize control of the 13 colonies, and political power with it. There were a few legitimate greivances, and quite a few manufactured grievances, and a very good propaganda machine to escalate them, and convince a small majority that their rights, as Englishmen, were being denied them. Militias had virtually no effective role in the success of the rebellion, the success was achieved by trained soldiers, both Continental and French, and the French Navy. The role of militias is, again, one of the myths of modern American history.


----------



## Bjorn

Liberty Ship said:


> Our tradition, based in English Common Law, is that self defense is a basic human right because no act of law can make you whole if you have been a victim of violence. And the only way that the state can have "a monopoly on legitimate violence," as Nadler suggests, is to outlaw any kind of self defense whatsoever and tell people that they must passively and compliantly be raped, robbed, tortured, and murdered without raising a hand.
> 
> God gives you a gun for use as a last resort -- after you have turned all four cheeks!!!!!


Not really. "Our tradition, based in English Common Law" ?

I think you are referring to the right to life. It's capitally ridiculous to refer to self defense as a basic human right.

You have to look at the universal declaration of human rights to find actual human rights. You can't just make them up.


----------



## Bjorn

CuffDaddy said:


> Right, Chouan. And such a home guard - a militia, if you will - is easy to constitute on short notice if all citizens already have arms and are familiar with them. No desperate pleas to neutral nations that may or may not help in your hour of need will be required.


And when you send these militias out to do actual warfare, do they bring their own guns?


----------



## Haffman

pleasehelp said:


> What are the penalties for illegal gun ownership in your countries? .


Up to 10 years in prison (with a mandatory 5 years) and an unlimited fine.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Bjorn said:


> And when you send these militias out to do actual warfare, do they bring their own guns?


That happened a frequently during our Civil War. Moreover, if logistics are a problem and you are to the point of desperation that requires a militia, then, yeah, any weapon to hand.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Bjorn said:


> You have to look at the universal declaration of human rights to find actual human rights. You can't just make them up.


Pfft. What do you think the people who wrote that declaration did? And what about people who disagree with that declaration (whether for its inclusions or it omissions) - they are perforce wrong?


----------



## Jovan

Chouan: "The *Home Guard* (initially _"Local Defence Volunteers"_ or _LDV_) was a defence organisation of the . Operational from 1940 until 1944, the Home Guard - comprising 1.5 million local volunteers otherwise ineligible for military service, usually owing to age, hence the nickname "Dad's Army" - acted as a secondary defence force, in case of invasion by the forces of and their ."

Sound like civilians to me. Okay, okay, I'm splitting hairs here.  But I do agree with CuffDaddy's point.


----------



## Haffman

Jovan said:


> Chouan: "The *Home Guard* (initially _"Local Defence Volunteers"_ or _LDV_) was a defence organisation of the . Operational from 1940 until 1944, the Home Guard - comprising 1.5 million local volunteers otherwise ineligible for military service, usually owing to age, hence the nickname "Dad's Army" - acted as a secondary defence force, in case of invasion by the forces of and their ."
> 
> Sound like civilians to me. Okay, okay, I'm splitting hairs here.  But I do agree with CuffDaddy's point.


Thank God they were never put to the test. I say this as a proud Englishman as far as it goes, but the Wehrmacht would have overrun this 'civilian militia' in about 2.8 microseconds if they had actually been able to get their men and equipment over the Channel


----------



## Jovan

It is always preferable to avoid confrontation if possible. But should they have been overrun, at the very least history could say they tried instead of just throwing up their hands in surrender.


----------



## Haffman

From the point of view of history, I agree. From the point of view of the individual who might have needlessly got themselves killed, I'm not so sure. 

It calls to mind images of the Polish cavalry charging at the Panzer tanks in 1939 - heroic yes, but also pointless.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Haffman said:


> Thank God they were never put to the test. I say this as a proud Englishman as far as it goes, but the Wehrmacht would have overrun this 'civilian militia' in about 2.8 microseconds if they had actually been able to get their men and equipment over the Channel


Well, let's not be too hasty. The ability to prevent occupation is not the same thing as the ability to prevent control and security. Partisans and resistance fighters in Europe and Russia never managed to expel the Germans, but they diverted substantial resources. Iraqi resistance fighters never militarily forced America and the UK from Iraq, but they increased the cost of occupation to the point where we had to find a way out (rather than staying the 100 years that some neo-conservatives desired). You don't have to be able to go toe-to-toe in prolonged combat in order to inflict losses and change dynamics. And potential invaders can know that, and decide that the inevitability of resistance will make even a militarily-successful invasion not worthwhile.


----------



## Haffman

You could be right, but the experience of Vichy France to my mind suggests otherwise. We were fortunate that the English Channel, radar, the fighter pilots, and Hitler's mixed feelings about invading England versus getting on with attacking Russia, meant that our resolve under the German jackboot was never put to the test. (*)We may have resisted like you said but at the end of the day who would have been coming to our rescue?

(*) - no disrespect meant to those that endured the Blitz I am talking about in the event of invasion


----------



## CuffDaddy

Well, even the French managed to divert German resources for security. Imagine what a whole country of gun-totin', quick-tempered, violence-prone Americans could do to an occupying force! Plus, we could shut down the microbreweries and force the invaders to subsist on Budweiser. In combination....


----------



## Haffman

CuffDaddy said:


> Plus, we could shut down the microbreweries and force the invaders to subsist on Budweiser. ..


Chemical warfare too...now that's just plain nasty! :devil:


----------



## Bjorn

CuffDaddy said:


> That happened a frequently during our Civil War. Moreover, if logistics are a problem and you are to the point of desperation that requires a militia, then, yeah, any weapon to hand.


The 19th century civil war?


----------



## Bjorn

CuffDaddy said:


> Pfft. What do you think the people who wrote that declaration did? And what about people who disagree with that declaration (whether for its inclusions or it omissions) - they are perforce wrong?


Yes. In the countries who've signed it, anyway... The US for example.

You saying the right to self defense is a basic human right?


----------



## CuffDaddy

Bjorn said:


> The 19th century civil war?


Yes. Also the first industrialized war. Fortunately, we haven't had another.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Bjorn said:


> You saying the right to self defense is a basic human right?


It seems incontrovertible to me that any reasonable person would have to concede as much.

And although it is not expressly enumerated, roughly half of the declaration implies such a right, either as the logical implementation of the enumerated rights or the only means of securing same.


----------



## Shaver

Haffman said:


> You could be right, but the experience of Vichy France to my mind suggests otherwise. We were fortunate that the English Channel, radar, the fighter pilots, and Hitler's mixed feelings about invading England versus getting on with attacking Russia, meant that our resolve under the German jackboot was never put to the test. (*)We may have resisted like you said but at the end of the day who would have been coming to our rescue?
> 
> (*) - no disrespect meant to those that endured the Blitz I am talking about in the event of invasion


Please do not make comparison with France's *ahem* contribution to WWII. Some European countries don't deserve the freedom others died to secure for them.

Do we have any French members? No? Good. :devil:


----------



## Bjorn

CuffDaddy said:


> It seems incontrovertible to me that any reasonable person would have to concede as much.
> 
> And although it is not expressly enumerated, roughly half of the declaration implies such a right, either as the logical implementation of the enumerated rights or the only means of securing same.


It is not expressly enumerated because its not a basic human right. The right to life is a basic human right.

You can't have basic human rights on that level. Might as well have a right to miniature golf...

I'm not saying that you can't disagree on what the human rights should be. But the statement I contested was that there is such a basic (!) human right, somehow stemming from common law.

You can't just elevate the things you want to do, like shoot guns, or concepts that latch on to that, like self defense, into human rights. It does not hold up. Furthermore, perhaps looking at the 'real' basic human rights and asking oneself what ones country can do to further them might be more generally productive in that area than making up new ones. Is there to be a basic human right of driving petrol cars?

Just some small selections:

Article 2
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Perhaps the above (for example) is way more important than a right to bear arms, that most of the rest of the world can do without. That is incontrovertible to me that any reasonable person would concede.


----------



## Hitch

[email protected]


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> [email protected]


I can't keep up with all this modern jargon - is that a good thing or a bad thing?


----------



## Bjorn

Shaver said:


> I can't keep up with all this modern jargon - is that a good thing or a bad thing?


I'm really not sure. However, I will attempt communication.


----------



## hardline_42

Something to get back on (off?) track:

Crime statistics deciphered and distilled


----------



## Bjorn

Hitch said:


> [email protected]


Hello lol keke! W00t!

Is d4 lolzor d4 roxxzor or d4 suxxzor?

U th3r3 hillbillzord00d?


----------



## Bjorn

hardline_42 said:


> Something to get back on (off?) track:
> 
> Crime statistics deciphered and distilled


He seemingly does not understand that a decline in crime is neither good news nor useful in politics. This has been pointed out in Sweden as well, that the decline in crime rates gets zero coverage.

However, that's neither here nor there...


----------



## hardline_42

Bjorn said:


> Hello lol keke! W00t!
> 
> Is d4 lolzor d4 roxxzor or d4 suxxzor?
> 
> U th3r3 hillbillzord00d?


Bahaha! I roflcoptered.



Bjorn said:


> He seemingly does not understand that a decline in crime is neither good news nor useful in politics. This has been pointed out in Sweden as well, that the decline in crime rates gets zero coverage.
> 
> However, that's neither here nor there...


Very true. For the purposes of news and politics, such information is useless. For our discussion, I thought it useful.


----------



## Shaver

Bjorn said:


> Hello lol keke! W00t!
> 
> Is d4 lolzor d4 roxxzor or d4 suxxzor?
> 
> U th3r3 hillbillzord00d?


Zerg Rush Kekeke!


----------



## Jovan

Hitch said:


> [email protected]


There has got to be a better way for you to articulate your refutation of Bjorn's position. You are at least 40 years old going by the picture you shared, right?


----------



## Shaver

Jovan said:


> There has got to be a better way for you to articulate your refutation of Bjorn's position. You are at least 40 years old going by the picture you shared, right?


There's pics?!

Post pics or the pics didn't happen.

:redface:


----------



## Hitch

Jovan said:


> There has got to be a better way for you to articulate your refutation of Bjorn's position. You are at least 40 years old going by the picture you shared, right?


Nope. It makes no sense at all to bother with anyone who fails to understand that self protection is a basic right. The ridiculous deserves ridicule.

'Pic' on post 840 Shaver.


----------



## Liberty Ship

Bjorn said:


> Not really. "Our tradition, based in English Common Law" ?
> 
> I think you are referring to the right to life. It's capitally ridiculous to refer to self defense as a basic human right.
> 
> You have to look at the universal declaration of human rights to find actual human rights. You can't just make them up.


My reference was based on my recollection of Blackstone's commentaries which I have now had to refresh myself on since it's been a long time. But here is a citation:

"Both the life and limbs of a man are of such high value, in the estimation of the law of England, that it pardons even homicide if committed _se defendendo_, or in order to preserve them. For whatever is done by a man, to save either life or member, is looked upon as done upon the highest necessity and compulsion. Therefore if a man through fear of death or mayhem is prevailed upon to execute a deed, or do any other legal act; these, though accompanied with all other the requisite solemnities, are totally void in law, if forced upon him by a well-grounded apprehension of losing his life, or even his limbs, in case of his non-compliance."

https://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-101.htm


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> Nope. It makes no sense at all to bother with anyone who fails to understand that self protection is a basic right. The ridiculous deserves ridicule.
> 
> 'Pic' on post 840 Shaver.


Post 840 of this thread? I can't find it. #840 is a contribution from CuffDaddy....?


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> Post 840 of this thread? I can't find it. #840 is a contribution from CuffDaddy....?


Correct in response to;
 Originally Posted by *Bjorn* https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=1357479#post1357479
_You saying the right to self defense is a basic human right? _
Not really a photograph but its the closest thing there is to fit your request


----------



## Bjorn

Liberty Ship said:


> My reference was based on my recollection of Blackstone's commentaries which I have now had to refresh myself on since it's been a long time. But here is a citation:
> 
> "Both the life and limbs of a man are of such high value, in the estimation of the law of England, that it pardons even homicide if committed _se defendendo_, or in order to preserve them. For whatever is done by a man, to save either life or member, is looked upon as done upon the highest necessity and compulsion. Therefore if a man through fear of death or mayhem is prevailed upon to execute a deed, or do any other legal act; these, though accompanied with all other the requisite solemnities, are totally void in law, if forced upon him by a well-grounded apprehension of losing his life, or even his limbs, in case of his non-compliance."
> 
> https://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-101.htm


Yes. Not a human right. Simply states that the act of self defense is not illegal. That's true in both civil and common law. For example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(Sweden)


----------



## Bjorn

Hitch said:


> Nope. It makes no sense at all to bother with anyone who fails to understand that self protection is a basic right. The ridiculous deserves ridicule.
> 
> 'Pic' on post 840 Shaver.


It's equally ridiculous to clothe all legalities that one likes as being "basic rights".

However, the consistent (or a priori) assumption that your opponents views are nonsense just because you disagree is, of course, a step on the path to bigotry.

So I will do my best not to


----------



## CuffDaddy

Bjorn,

Whether you view the right to self-defense as a "basic" right or simply a necessary corolary to another more basic right seems immaterial to me.

I consider it a basic right mostly because imagining a regime that does not honor that right fills me with revulsion. Imagine a government that tells you that if a man attacks you, you must submit to his attacks or face criminal liability himself. He may be committing a crime, but if he wishes to feed you slowly into a wood-chipper, feet-first, you cannot strike him in resistance without committing assault. A state that so ties-down its citizenry and forces them to submit to torture by private actors is itself responsible for torture. In denying you the right to strike out against your would-be murderer, it deprives you of a basic human right. No?


----------



## CuffDaddy

Bjorn said:


> Yes. Not a human right. Simply states that the act of self defense is not illegal. That's true in both civil and common law. For example:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(Sweden)


When a right is recognized almost universally around the world, isn't that a pretty good indicator that it might be a "basic" human right? Or at least that a majority of people have that view?


----------



## Shaver

CuffDaddy said:


> Bjorn,
> 
> Whether you view the right to self-defense as a "basic" right or simply a necessary corolary to another more basic right seems immaterial to me.
> 
> I consider it a basic right mostly because imagining a regime that does not honor that right fills me with revulsion. Imagine a government that tells you that if a man attacks you, you must submit to his attacks or face criminal liability himself. He may be committing a crime, but if he wishes to feed you slowly into a wood-chipper, feet-first, you cannot strike him in resistance without committing assault. A state that so ties-down its citizenry and forces them to submit to torture by private actors is itself responsible for torture. In denying you the right to strike out against your would-be murderer, it deprives you of a basic human right. No?


But perhaps you could be allowed to exercise self defence without it being via a gun?

For example, is it self defence if someone attacks you and to prevent this you dip them in a vat of acid?


----------



## CuffDaddy

Shaver said:


> But perhaps you could be allowed to exercise self defence without it being via a gun?


Whether or not the right to self-defense is properly regarded as a basic right (or even a necessary corrollary to another basic right) is one question. Whether such a right necessarily implies or requires the right of gun ownership is a subsidiary question. I'd prefer to take things one at a time.


----------



## Jovan

Shaver: People have been tried for excessive force in defending themselves. Anyone should know where the line is. If someone slaps you, it doesn't warrant pulling out a shotgun. That's not reasonable self-defence. Neither is stabbing an unarmed burglar repeatedly, as in one case a few decades ago.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Background check data out: https://www.cnn.com/2013/01/02/us/background-checks-guns/index.html?hpt=hp_bn1

Almost 3 million gun purchase transactions in December alone. These would not include person-to-person used gun sales of rifles or shotguns.


----------



## hardline_42

Shaver said:


> But perhaps you could be allowed to exercise self defence without it being via a gun?
> 
> For example, is it self defence if someone attacks you and to prevent this you dip them in a vat of acid?


Only if the vat is made of blued steel with wooden handles. If it's black and has plastic handles or accepts a lid with a pressure release valve, it's classified as an "assault vat" and no one should be allowed to own one.


----------



## Jovan

Don't forget the picatinny rails to attach a thermometer and timer. No assault-style vat is complete without them.


----------



## CuffDaddy

That was 1990's thinking. Modern vat-control efforts will focus more on how fast the vat can be re-filled. The vat-control lobby is getting more sophisticated.


----------



## hardline_42

Well, somebody has to keep the NVA in check. Their answer to everything is "more vats!"


----------



## CuffDaddy

In the meantime, the real question is when is someone going to come out with a compact, single-action vat that feeds reliably. Any vat that is easy to conceal seems to jam when you try and fit anything bigger than a squirrel in it.


----------



## Bjorn

CuffDaddy said:


> Whether or not the right to self-defense is properly regarded as a basic right (or even a necessary corrollary to another basic right) is one question. Whether such a right necessarily implies or requires the right of gun ownership is a subsidiary question. I'd prefer to take things one at a time.


Agreed. So the right to bear arms is not based on a basic human right to self defense. In fact, even if such a basic right existed, rather than just being a corollary to real basic human rights, it has no bearing on a right to bear arms.

Therefore, the right to bear arms is not based on a right to self defence, nor any other basic human right. It can thus be limited and removed. And it's evidently not a corollary to a basic human right itself, but can be used or not used interchangeably with other, more effective means of risk control in societies. Such as a sufficient police force, poverty reduction, taking care of the mentally ill, surveillance, personal security measures etc etc.


----------



## Liberty Ship

Bjorn said:


> Agreed. So the right to bear arms is not based on a basic human right to self defense. In fact, even if such a basic right existed, rather than just being a corollary to real basic human rights, it has no bearing on a right to bear arms.
> 
> Therefore, the right to bear arms is not based on a right to self defence, nor any other basic human right. It can thus be limited and removed. And it's evidently not a corollary to a basic human right itself, but can be used or not used interchangeably with other, more effective means of risk control in societies. Such as a sufficient police force, poverty reduction, taking care of the mentally ill, surveillance, personal security measures etc etc.


From "Why the Gun is Civilization," by Marko Kloos:

"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, where 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 weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable."

Bjorn, you are not taking into account how long it takes the police to respond to a crime of violence. If you are attacked, YOU are the "First Responder;" the police are Second Responders.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Bjorn said:


> Agreed. So the right to bear arms is not based on a basic human right to self defense. In fact, even if such a basic right existed, rather than just being a corollary to real basic human rights, it has no bearing on a right to bear arms.
> 
> Therefore, the right to bear arms is not based on a right to self defence, nor any other basic human right. It can thus be limited and removed. And it's evidently not a corollary to a basic human right itself, but can be used or not used interchangeably with other, more effective means of risk control in societies. Such as a sufficient police force, poverty reduction, taking care of the mentally ill, surveillance, personal security measures etc etc.


You're still jumping ahead. One thing at a time. Are you now conceding that self-defense is either itself a basic right or a necessary corrollary of such?


----------



## Jovan

Hitch said:


> Nope. It makes no sense at all to bother with anyone who fails to understand that self protection is a basic right. The ridiculous deserves ridicule.
> 
> 'Pic' on post 840 Shaver.


So I guess "nanernanernaner" was justified because of my ridiculous opinion on pocket squares? 

All I'm saying is that, for someone your age, you rarely articulate yourself beyond the level of a teenager. That's a little disconcerting.


----------



## Chouan

CuffDaddy said:


> Right, Chouan. And such a home guard - a militia, if you will - is easy to constitute on short notice if all citizens already have arms and are familiar with them. No desperate pleas to neutral nations that may or may not help in your hour of need will be required.


No, not a militia, but a reserve force of basically trained soldiers, either over or under age, or in reserved occupations.


----------



## Chouan

Jovan said:


> Chouan: "The *Home Guard* (initially _"Local Defence Volunteers"_ or _LDV_) was a defence organisation of the . Operational from 1940 until 1944, the Home Guard - comprising 1.5 million local volunteers otherwise ineligible for military service, usually owing to age, hence the nickname "Dad's Army" - acted as a secondary defence force, in case of invasion by the forces of and their ."
> 
> Sound like civilians to me. Okay, okay, I'm splitting hairs here.  But I do agree with CuffDaddy's point.


But they were uniformed, regularly embodied, trained by and under British Army command and control. Civilians in uniform, perhaps, rather like most conscript soldiers.


----------



## Chouan

Haffman said:


> From the point of view of history, I agree. From the point of view of the individual who might have needlessly got themselves killed, I'm not so sure.
> 
> It calls to mind images of the Polish cavalry charging at the Panzer tanks in 1939 - heroic yes, but also pointless.


And also never happened. Yet another myth that passes as History.


----------



## Chouan

Haffman said:


> You could be right, but the experience of Vichy France to my mind suggests otherwise. We were fortunate that the English Channel, radar, the fighter pilots, and Hitler's mixed feelings about invading England versus getting on with attacking Russia, meant that our resolve under the German jackboot was never put to the test. (*)We may have resisted like you said but at the end of the day who would have been coming to our rescue?
> 
> (*) - no disrespect meant to those that endured the Blitz I am talking about in the event of invasion


And the Royal Navy and Merchant Navy. If we hadn't won the Battle of the Atlantic the war would have been lost.


----------



## Hitch

Jovan said:


> So I guess "nanernanernaner" was justified because of my ridiculous opinion on pocket squares?


 Since you asked, naner was' justified' because I thought you were making a joke. I failed to take your whining seriously, my mistake.


> All I'm saying is that, for someone your age, you rarely articulate yourself beyond the level of a teenager.


 He said between tears of rage over pocket squares LOL


> That's a little disconcerting.


Well J it appears that you'll find something to complain about whether the pocket square comments are not up to your standards or my own attempts at humor are misunderstood.

Here is something you can take at face value; Since you dont care for my posts exercise a little self control and dont read them.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Chouan said:


> No, not a militia, but a reserve force of basically trained soldiers, either over or under age, or in reserved occupations.


Chouan, I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make. If a nation finds itself in the dire circumstance of needing to mount defenses based on the body of men (and women) who are NOT already in service, having arms among the population makes this easier. And if one is conscripting soldiers, those who already know how to operate firearms will be quicker to train, or will shoot better given equal training. (The same is true for the accomplished outdoorsman, the individual who has kept him/herself in good physical shape, etc.)

All of these things may or may not outweigh other negative consequences of having a populace with many arms. And, in this day and age, the likelihood of a modern western nation needing to avail itself of these advantages may or may not be very low. But to deny that these advantages exist is to deny the obvious.


----------



## Chouan

CuffDaddy said:


> Chouan, I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make. If a nation finds itself in the dire circumstance of needing to mount defenses based on the body of men (and women) who are NOT already in service, having arms among the population makes this easier. And if one is conscripting soldiers, those who already know how to operate firearms will be quicker to train, or will shoot better given equal training. (The same is true for the accomplished outdoorsman, the individual who has kept him/herself in good physical shape, etc.)
> 
> All of these things may or may not outweigh other negative consequences of having a populace with many arms. And, in this day and age, the likelihood of a modern western nation needing to avail itself of these advantages may or may not be very low. But to deny that these advantages exist is to deny the obvious.


The only modern war, as opposed to insurgency, in which Militias fought was the Spanish Civil War, where Militia forces were routinely crushed by regulars, no matter how well they could shoot. It is about command, control, discipline and communications. Most troops in WW2 were hopeless shots! They relied on crew manned automatic weapons or firepower. Whether or not a member of the Home Guard owned a hand gun or rifle in civil life wouldn't have made him a better soldier.

My point was, however, that the firearms being asked for by Churchill weren't for individuals to use to defend their homes, but for soldiers, whether reserves or front line. The US managed to get rid of a lot of dross at the same time, Marlin and Savage machine guns, for example, and the Canadians sold us vast numbers of Ross rifles. Apparently good on the target range, but easily jammed.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Chouan said:


> The only modern war, as opposed to insurgency, in which Militias fought was the Spanish Civil War


Still confused as to the point. Why the exclusion of insurgencies? Is it because you are focused on the term "militia"?


----------



## CuffDaddy

Chouan said:


> Most troops in WW2 were hopeless shots! They relied on crew manned automatic weapons or firepower.


Well, that's a commonly held view, based on SLA Marshall's work, which has been called into question. (You can pick up a hint of the critique here: https://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=2672 )

But if you've ever shot a service rifle of WWII vintage (say, maybe, an Enfield) versus something approximating a modern service rifle (like, for instance, an AR) with modern sighting technology on the latter, you'd know that the ease with which accuracy can be obtained, particularly while moving or while trying to shoot while only briefly exposed, has greatly increased.


----------



## Jovan

Hitch said:


> Since you asked, naner was' justified' because I thought you were making a joke. I failed to take your whining seriously, my mistake. He said between tears of rage over pocket squares LOL Well J it appears that you'll find something to complain about whether the pocket square comments are not up to your standards or my own attempts at humor are misunderstood.
> 
> Here is something you can take at face value; Since you dont care for my posts exercise a little self control and dont read them.


Oh, so it was a joke? We're friends? Hooray!


----------



## Hitch

Jovan said:


> Oh, so it was a joke? We're friends? Hooray!


 You just havent been the same since loosing that official hall monitor's arm band .


----------



## Jovan

You're right. It's a lot less stressful not having to moderate.


----------



## Haffman

Chouan said:


> And also never happened. Yet another myth that passes as History.


I was waiting for someone to say that. I am aware that it was a war myth. But it does conjure up a rather clear image of the futility of forms of armed resistance where the forces are clearly mismatched.

If you prefer, you could think of the artillerymen against the Martians on Horsell Common in _War of the Worlds._


----------



## Haffman

Chouan said:


> And the Royal Navy and Merchant Navy. If we hadn't won the Battle of the Atlantic the war would have been lost.


I am sure there are several other important factors I did not list.

My _point_ was that it is one thing to make speeches about 'fighting them on the beaches' and another thing entirely to actually do it when the Panzers are rolling, especially using a home militia (with or without American supplied weapons). Perhaps we would have made a different stand from Czechoslovakia, Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, France etc. etc. Perhaps we British are made of stronger stuff. I think we can fairly say that Churchill was. But it was certainly a relief that we didn't have to do it, in the event.


----------



## Haffman

CuffDaddy said:


> But if you've ever shot a service rifle of WWII vintage (say, maybe, an Enfield) versus something approximating a modern service rifle (like, for instance, an AR) with modern sighting technology on the latter, you'd know that the ease with which accuracy can be obtained, particularly while moving or while trying to shoot while only briefly exposed, has greatly increased.


You might almost argue that the 'kill rates' of certain civilian spree killers bears adequate testimony that what you say is true.


----------



## Haffman

CuffDaddy said:


> When a right is recognized almost universally around the world, isn't that a pretty good indicator that it might be a "basic" human right? Or at least that a majority of people have that view?


Depends what kind of regimes the majority of the world are living in i.e. civilised or barbaric :wink2:


----------



## Haffman

CuffDaddy said:


> I consider it a basic right mostly because imagining a regime that does not honor that right fills me with revulsion. Imagine a government that tells you that if a man attacks you, you must submit to his attacks or face criminal liability himself. He may be committing a crime, but if he wishes to feed you slowly into a wood-chipper, feet-first, you cannot strike him in resistance without committing assault. A state that so ties-down its citizenry and forces them to submit to torture by private actors is itself responsible for torture. In denying you the right to strike out against your would-be murderer, it deprives you of a basic human right. No?


Is this a straw man? The UK has some of the strongest gun controls in the world, and yet what you write above does not apply legally even here.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Haffman said:


> You might almost argue that the 'kill rates' of certain civilian spree killers bears adequate testimony that what you say is true.


No doubt.

If I'm trying to move and shoot quickly, it matters a lot more to me that I have something the weight of a modern assault rifle with a red-dot or other optic sight on it than that I have a large magazine. If you've ever tried to run with a Garand or an Enfield, then take a quick shot, then run some more... it's hard, and would not be fun if the results mattered.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Haffman said:


> Is this a straw man? The UK has some of the strongest gun controls in the world, and yet what you write above does not apply legally even here.


This is the challenge of a multi-party thread. In that post, I was responding purely to Bjorn's contention that the right to self-defense is not a "basic"/universal/inherent human right. So I posited a regime that did not recognize such a right, and what it would necessarily mean. It's pretty awful - as awful as the things we usually think of as gross abuses of human rights. To me, that is good evidence that self-defense IS a human right, and deprivation of it IS a deprivation of a basic human right.

Most of the other contributors to this thread, including yourself (IIRC - forgive me if I mischaracterize) take it for granted that self-defense is a right. Once that's conceded, then we can turn to whether, either in the absolute or in a particular context, "arms" generally or firearms in particular or certain kinds of firearms in _more_ particular, are required to be available as a means of validating/upholding/embodying that right. That's a different level of discussion, and you are correct that a quote taken from the other discussion would be somewhat irrelevant.

Make sense?


----------



## Liberty Ship

Haffman said:


> Is this a straw man? The UK has some of the strongest gun controls in the world, and yet what you write above does not apply legally even here.


Australia, however, criminalized the use of firearms for personal protection. Personal protection or protection of family were, as of the early 90's, not considered valid reasons to own a firearm or to get a license to own a firearm. Furthermore, possession and use of a firearm for personal protection was illegal and subject to severe legal sanctions.

Thinking about it, this is similar to the Bernard Goetz incident in the New York Subway years ago. He had been the victim of a mugging, so he started carrying a gun for protection. Illegal in the City of New York. He was mugged again and used the gun in self defense. He was found not guilty for the shooting; it was ruled justifiable. However, he served FIVE YEARS in prison for possession of the firearm. Liberal justice. Les Miserables!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Chouan said:


> Originally Posted by *Haffman*https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=1357458#post1357458From the point of view of history, I agree. From the point of view of the individual who might have needlessly got themselves killed, I'm not so sure.
> 
> It calls to mind images of the Polish cavalry charging at the Panzer tanks in 1939 - heroic yes, but also pointless..





Chouan said:


> And also never happened. Yet another myth that passes as History.


Ah cavalry, one of my favourite and dare I say specialist subjects.

Let me clear this up for everyone once and for all. Even Grbasic and Vuksic two Polish experts on cavalry with several books to their names promote the myth, with the following text in their otherwise wonderful book from 1989 _The History of Cavalry: "_At the beginning of World War II, west of Grudziadz, with heavy losses and no results, Polish lancers charged against German tanks, the cavalry of the new age"

No, they didn't. This would have been a factual impossibility because for starters, the lance was removed from the Polish cavalry in 1937. Secondly by 1939 the horseborne Polish cavalry units (as opposed to the mechanized cavalry units) dismounted their horses and attacked on foot as infantry and light artillery. A practice they had started using as early as the 1920s.

By 1939 only 10% of the Polish army was made up of cavalry in 11 cavalry brigades of 3 or 4 regiments each equipped with artillery, armoured units and infantry battalions.

Two cavalry brigades had recently been converted to motorized and armoured units, but they retained their cavalry traditions. In addition, every infantry division had a cavalry detachment for reconnaissance.

In contrast with its traditional role in armed conflicts of the past (even in the Polish-Bolshevik War), the cavalry was no longer seen as a unit capable of breaking through enemy lines. Instead, it was used as a mobile reserve of the Polish armies and was using mostly infantry tactics: the soldiers dismounted before the battle and fought as a standard (yet fast) infantry. 
*
Despite media reports of the time, particularly in respect of the , no cavalry charges were made by the Polish Cavalry against German tanks.*

Although the cavalrymen retained their , after 1937 the lance was dropped and it was issued to cavalrymen as a weapon of choice only. Instead, the cavalry units were equipped with modern armament, including 75 mm guns, , , 40mm AA guns, anti-tank rifles and other pieces of modern weaponry.

So while Polish cavalry units certainly attacked German tanks west of Grudziadz in 1939 at the Battle of Krojanty they did so as mechanized cavalry and dismounted infantry units with light armour and light artillery, which was something they continued to do throughout WWII. It wasn't unusual.


----------



## Jovan

Seems to be as much a persisting myth as "hatless Jack" singlehandedly causing hat manufacturing to plummet in the '60s!


----------



## Shaver

CuffDaddy said:


> Whether or not the right to self-defense is properly regarded as a basic right (or even a necessary corrollary to another basic right) is one question. Whether such a right necessarily implies or requires the right of gun ownership is a subsidiary question. I'd prefer to take things one at a time.


Sorry if I misunderstood CD, I thought that's what was being said - that gun ownership is a basic right as a method of self defense. As you know, I do not object to gun ownership but find the argument from self defense to be faintly weak.

More generally, great quips on Vats from all who contributed. :icon_smile: I do prefer it when this topic remains good-natured amidst the passion.


----------



## Haffman

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Ah cavalry, one of my favourite and dare I say specialist subjects.
> 
> Let me clear this up for everyone once and for all. Even Grbasic and Vuksic two Polish experts on cavalry with several books to their names promote the myth, with the following text in their otherwise wonderful book from 1989 _The History of Cavalry: "_At the beginning of World War II, west of Grudziadz, with heavy losses and no results, Polish lancers charged against German tanks, the cavalry of the new age"
> 
> No, they didn't. This would have been a factual impossibility because for starters, the lance was removed from the Polish cavalry in 1937. Secondly by 1939 the horseborne Polish cavalry units (as opposed to the mechanized cavalry units) dismounted their horses and attacked on foot as infantry and light artillery. A practice they had started using as early as the 1920s.
> 
> By 1939 only 10% of the Polish army was made up of cavalry in 11 cavalry brigades of 3 or 4 regiments each equipped with artillery, armoured units and infantry battalions.
> 
> Two cavalry brigades had recently been converted to motorized and armoured units, but they retained their cavalry traditions. In addition, every infantry division had a cavalry detachment for reconnaissance.
> 
> In contrast with its traditional role in armed conflicts of the past (even in the Polish-Bolshevik War), the cavalry was no longer seen as a unit capable of breaking through enemy lines. Instead, it was used as a mobile reserve of the Polish armies and was using mostly infantry tactics: the soldiers dismounted before the battle and fought as a standard (yet fast) infantry.
> *
> Despite media reports of the time, particularly in respect of the , no cavalry charges were made by the Polish Cavalry against German tanks.*
> 
> Although the cavalrymen retained their , after 1937 the lance was dropped and it was issued to cavalrymen as a weapon of choice only. Instead, the cavalry units were equipped with modern armament, including 75 mm guns, , , 40mm AA guns, anti-tank rifles and other pieces of modern weaponry.
> 
> So while Polish cavalry units certainly attacked German tanks west of Grudziadz in 1939 at the Battle of Krojanty they did so as mechanized cavalry and dismounted infantry units with light armour and light artillery, which was something they continued to do throughout WWII. It wasn't unusual.


In my original version of the post that got me into this mess I used the word 'apocryphal' - I see now I should have left it in!

OK, what about the Spanish against gatling guns in the Spanish-American war or the Zulus against the British at the Battle of Rorke's Drift...would that be better?!


----------



## Shaver

Haffman said:


> In my original version of the post that got me into this mess I used the word 'apocryphal' - I see now I should have left it in!
> 
> OK, what about the Spanish against gatling guns in the Spanish-American war or the Zulus against the British at the Battle of Rorke's Drift...would that be better?!


Or the Iraqi's against the Americans?


----------



## Haffman

Liberty Ship said:


> Australia, however, criminalized the use of firearms for personal protection. Personal protection or protection of family were, as of the early 90's, not considered valid reasons to own a firearm or to get a license to own a firearm. Furthermore, possession and use of a firearm for personal protection was illegal and subject to severe legal sanctions.
> 
> Thinking about it, this is similar to the Bernard Goetz incident in the New York Subway years ago. He had been the victim of a mugging, so he started carrying a gun for protection. Illegal in the City of New York. He was mugged again and used the gun in self defense. He was found not guilty for the shooting; it was ruled justifiable. However, he served FIVE YEARS in prison for possession of the firearm. Liberal justice. Les Miserables!


There is a clear distinction to be drawn between whether or not it is illegal for a civilian to defend themselves against attack * and whether a civilian has a 'right' to legally 'bear arms' in any kind of military sense**.

*I'm not sure I am comfortable describing this in such emotive terms as a 'right'

**I accept we have a wide variety of opinions on what 'military sense' means in this context


----------



## Haffman

Shaver said:


> Or the Iraqi's against the Americans?


Quite. Was it cowardly of the Iraqis to abandon their tanks on the MSR to Baghdad or should they have stuck around to be annihilated ?


----------



## CuffDaddy

Shaver said:


> Sorry if I misunderstood CD, I thought that's what was being said - that gun ownership is a basic right as a method of self defense.


Like I said, that's one level of disagreement, although I would phrase it differently. But Bjorn (and perhaps others) questioned the inalienability of the right to self-defense more broadly. Few, if any other, seem to question that underpinning, but I was trying to run it to ground with him.

Once one accepts the right to self-defense, the logical chain followed by proponents of gun rights is that:

1. For the right to be meaningful, is must be practicable - i.e., something people can actually do.
2. The right without access to tools will deny the right to any person who is weaker. As it will to any person whose attacker is armed with a superior tool.
3. Most tools do not equalize that imbalance, so the right remains withheld from those who are weaker.
4. Guns are almost uniquely able to confer the right to self-defense on people equally, with only the profoundly disabled incapable of holding an attacker in peril.
5. Ergo, guns are necessarily required to be available if we wish to offer a meaningful right of self-defense to everyone.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Haffman said:


> There is a clear distinction to be drawn between whether or not it is illegal for a civilian to defend themselves against attack * and whether a civilian has a 'right' to legally 'bear arms' in any kind of military sense**.


Those may be two separate issues, but the fomer begs/contains the question of whether one must be free to bear some sort of arms in order to make the right to self-defense meaningful. I would contend that it does. See my prior posts about the importance (to me) of my wife (and daughter, once she is of age to make the most serious of decisions) maintaining the right to effectively defend themselves against stronger, craftier, more aggressive, and utterly immoral attackers (99.99999% likely to be male).


----------



## CuffDaddy

Haffman said:


> Quite. Was it cowardly of the Iraqis to abandon their tanks on the MSR to Baghdad or should they have stuck around to be annihilated ?


Nope. Assuming that resistance was their goal, continuing the fight with small arms and explosives was quite rational. The availablity of small arms made material differences in the course of that conflict/occupation, and even changed the end result.


----------



## eagle2250

^^LOL. (ref. Haffman post #900)

Cowardly, perhaps...but it just isn't smart to stand bravely by your tank in the face of a flight of A-10 Warthogs...undeniable proof that you can design and build an airframe around a great big, high rate of fire "assault weapon! I could really keep the bad guys away from the house with one of those bad boys.


----------



## Bjorn

CuffDaddy said:


> You're still jumping ahead. One thing at a time. Are you now conceding that self-defense is either itself a basic right or a necessary corrollary of such?


No, I most certainly do not! 

Self defense is, legally, simply that no crime is committed if actions are taken in self defense. That does NOT amount to a human right.

If you re-read my post, I do NOT consider it a 'necessary corollary', quite the opposite in fact...

I think you are jumping ahead, going swiftly from self defense being legal to it being a "right" to a right of bearing arms being a fact and a human right in itself. There are several steps missing in that, from a perspective of legal theory or philosophy, or even from a practical legal standpoint.


----------



## Haffman

CuffDaddy said:


> Those may be two separate issues, but the fomer begs/contains the question of whether one must be free to bear some sort of arms in order to make the right to self-defense meaningful. I would contend that it does. See my prior posts about the importance (to me) of my wife (and daughter, once she is of age to make the most serious of decisions) maintaining the right to effectively defend themselves against stronger, craftier, more aggressive, and utterly immoral attackers (99.99999% likely to be male).


But the argument always falls down on the fact that even 'tooled up', someone's wife in the USA is considerably less safe than they are in the 'toothless' UK !


----------



## CuffDaddy

Shaver said:


> More generally, great quips on Vats from all who contributed. :icon_smile: I do prefer it when this topic remains good-natured amidst the passion.


Amen. I have been delighted by the overall tone and enlightening content of this thread despite strongly-held beliefs on both sides. I doubt true consensus would ever emerge given 100 years of this give-and-take, but anyone participating would surely have a hard time not seeing the good intentions of those on the other side. (I've been on both sides of this issue in my lifetime, so I already credit good intentions... but those feelings have been reinforced.)


----------



## Bjorn

eagle2250 said:


> ^^LOL. (ref. Haffman post #900)
> 
> Cowardly, perhaps...but it just isn't smart to stand bravely by your tank in the face of a flight of A-10 Warthogs...undeniable proof that you can design and build an airframe around a great big, high rate of fire "assault weapon! I could really keep the bad guys away from the house with one of those bad boys.


Agreed!

Click the link below to listen to I Wish I Had a Gun Just Like the A-10 by Dos Gringos on Spotify:


----------



## CuffDaddy

Bjorn said:


> No, I most certainly do not!
> 
> Self defense is, legally, simply that no crime is committed if actions are taken in self defense. That does NOT amount to a human right.
> 
> If you re-read my post, I do NOT consider it a 'necessary corollary', quite the opposite in fact...
> 
> I think you are jumping ahead, going swiftly from self defense being legal to it being a "right" to a right of bearing arms being a fact and a human right in itself. There are several steps missing in that, from a perspective of legal theory or philosophy, or even from a practical legal standpoint.


My conversation with you has been focused on the right to self-defense in and of itself. You continue to deny this right, except as a postively-enacted defense to criminal charges or something. I agree (as I have said several times today alone) that this is separate from the question of whether a right to self-defense necessarily calls for a right to arms. I agree that there are several additional logical steps required; a version of those is laid out in https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...e-here-a-gun-enthusiast&p=1357808#post1357808 I'm not making any jump, I'm just engaging in a conversation with you on one level, and other conversations on a different level.

If you're sticking to your guns (HA!) on there being no right of self-defense, how do you respond to my querries in #859 and #860?


----------



## Haffman

CuffDaddy said:


> Nope. Assuming that resistance was their goal, continuing the fight with small arms and explosives was quite rational. The availablity of small arms made material differences in the course of that conflict/occupation, and even changed the end result.


I think our views about the reasons for the failure of the Iraqi adventure differ. I would contend that much stronger reasons were the unwillingness of the Allies to put the necessary manpower and resources in to make Iraq safe (at least as far as civilians were concerned), meaning that factional conflict broke out with the Allies largely as helpless/hopeless bystanders. I dont think the Iraqi soldiers were continuing a 'resistance' war in the name of Saddam - it was more like a civil war between Sunni/Shiite factions wasn't it? That and the fact that many of the Iraqi 'placemen' the Allies were using turned out to be nothing more than pawns of the Iranians.


----------



## Haffman

eagle2250 said:


> ^^LOL. (ref. Haffman post #900)
> 
> Cowardly, perhaps...but it just isn't smart to stand bravely by your tank in the face of a flight of A-10 Warthogs...undeniable proof that you can design and build an airframe around a great big, high rate of fire "assault weapon! *I could really keep the bad guys away from the house with one of those bad boys*.


Well taking CuffDaddy's argument about needing a 'leveller' in an ever more armed and aggressive society, that might well need to be the next step for the USA self-defense movement!! :wink2: The A-10..._ugly but well hung !!_


----------



## CuffDaddy

Haffman said:


> But the argument always falls down on the fact that even 'tooled up', someone's wife in the USA is considerably less safe than they are in the 'toothless' UK !


Didn't we cover this about 200 posts ago? Your logic assumes that there are no other differences between the US and the UK except for guns. It's a bad assumption.

Annecdotally, the only place I've ever lived where "regular" people (i.e., people of my socio-economic status) were frequently victims of street crime (muggings, assault) was Washington D.C. It's also the only place where someone I've known was killed by a stranger (also in a mugging). I think it's no coincidence that DC was also the only place I've lived with a near-total ban on gun ownership, including a ban on handguns. Fewest _legal_ guns, most dangerous/scary place.


----------



## Bjorn

Hitch said:


> You just havent been the same since loosing that official hall monitor's arm band .


You've never had the arm band. Where'd you get the right to ask?

N00b rtard. Just saying...


----------



## CuffDaddy

Haffman said:


> I think our views about the reasons for the failure of the Iraqi adventure differ. I would contend that much stronger reasons were the unwillingness of the Allies to put the necessary manpower and resources in to make Iraq safe (at least as far as civilians were concerned), meaning that factional conflict broke out with the Allies largely as helpless/hopeless bystanders. I dont think the Iraqi soldiers were continuing a 'resistance' war in the name of Saddam - it was more like a civil war between Sunni/Shiite factions wasn't it? That and the fact that many of the Iraqi 'placemen' the Allies were using turned out to be nothing more than pawns of the Iranians.


Of course there were many complicated reasons for the failure. And certainly many reasons for various factions trying to eject foriegn powers. But regardless of their (often bad or parochial) motives, those seeking ejectment were greatly aided by the availability of small arms. A population with small arms is difficult for a foreign power to subjugate.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Haffman said:


> Well taking CuffDaddy's argument about needing a 'leveller' in an ever more armed and aggressive society, that might well need to be the next step for the USA self-defense movement!! :wink2: The A-10..._ugly but well hung !!_


Well, when the gang-bangers start rolling in T-72s, that might be needed. I can only begin to imagine the sound systems and light displays that such a vehicle could support.


----------



## Bjorn

CuffDaddy said:


> Bjorn,
> 
> Whether you view the right to self-defense as a "basic" right or simply a necessary corolary to another more basic right seems immaterial to me.
> 
> I consider it a basic right mostly because imagining a regime that does not honor that right fills me with revulsion. Imagine a government that tells you that if a man attacks you, you must submit to his attacks or face criminal liability himself. He may be committing a crime, but if he wishes to feed you slowly into a wood-chipper, feet-first, you cannot strike him in resistance without committing assault. A state that so ties-down its citizenry and forces them to submit to torture by private actors is itself responsible for torture. In denying you the right to strike out against your would-be murderer, it deprives you of a basic human right. No?


It's not immaterial. It's a matter of gravitas. The right to bear arms has none.

There's no valid connection to the legalities of self defense.

Please find me a regime that does not recognize the validity of self defense. That has a law that does not say that self defense is not a crime.

That actually (imo) has zero to do with he US constitution or English common law. It's based (historically) in the Roman law concept of the right of the pater familias to protect property.


----------



## Haffman

CuffDaddy said:


> Didn't we cover this about 200 posts ago? Your logic assumes that there are no other differences between the US and the UK except for guns. It's a bad assumption.
> 
> Annecdotally, the only place I've ever lived where "regular" people of my socio-economic status were frequently victims of street crime (muggings, assault) was Washington D.C. It's also the only place where someone I've known was killed by a stranger (also in a mugging). I think it's no coincidence that DC was also the only place I've lived with a near-total ban on gun ownership, including a ban on handguns. Fewest _legal_ guns, most dangerous/scary place.


Yes, you're right, we did. Sorry! Although I still don't accept that our societies are so different and that is why we are often lumped together by the rest of the world as 'Anglo-Saxon' societies. (Perhaps there is less awareness of this lumping in America than there is over here because UK is obviously very much a junior player.) We share common language, common educational problems, common social problems, common family problems, common workplace problems, common distribution-of-wealth problems, (increasingly) common ethnicity/exclusion problems and common underclass problems. We differ in guns, religion, social/medical welfare and sport. And apparently in our definition of BBQs :wink2:

The Washington DC example is an interesting one though and makes me think. Was it already a dangerous place when guns were outlawed?


----------



## Shaver

CuffDaddy said:


> Like I said, that's one level of disagreement, although I would phrase it differently. But Bjorn (and perhaps others) questioned the inalienability of the right to self-defense more broadly. Few, if any other, seem to question that underpinning, but I was trying to run it to ground with him.
> 
> Once one accepts the right to self-defense, the logical chain followed by proponents of gun rights is that:
> 
> 1. For the right to be meaningful, is must be practicable - i.e., something people can actually do.
> 2. The right without access to tools will deny the right to any person who is weaker. As it will to any person whose attacker is armed with a superior tool.
> 3. Most tools do not equalize that imbalance, so the right remains withheld from those who are weaker.
> 4. Guns are almost uniquely able to confer the right to self-defense on people equally, with only the profoundly disabled incapable of holding an attacker in peril.
> 5. Ergo, guns are necessarily required to be available if we wish to offer a meaningful right of self-defense to everyone.


Except that just as a knife could be taken from someone who was using it to defend themselves then so could a gun. Weakness is not necessarily a major factor in self defense rather awareness has the ultimate impact. In any defensive situation I would prefer to rely on wits and knowledge than a specific tool, even if the assailant was much stronger than I. Moreover virtually any object to hand can be transformed into a weapon, even a newspaper if you know how.

As I say, I have no objection to gun ownership but am dubious as to the merit of rationale to justify ownership as a right to self-defense.


----------



## Haffman

CuffDaddy said:


> Of course there were many complicated reasons for the failure. And certainly many reasons for various factions trying to eject foriegn powers. But regardless of their (often bad or parochial) motives, those seeking ejectment were greatly aided by the availability of small arms. *A population with small arms is difficult for a foreign power to subjugate*.


Wouldn't the story of the British Empire be rather different if this were true? For example, would the Boers have not been the victors in this case?


----------



## CuffDaddy

Bjorn said:


> It's not immaterial. It's a matter of gravitas. The right to bear arms has none.
> 
> There's no valid connection to the legalities of self defense.
> 
> Please find me a regime that does not recognize the validity of self defense. That has a law that does not say that self defense is not a crime.
> 
> That actually (imo) has zero to do with he US constitution or English common law. It's based (historically) in the Roman law concept of the right of the pater familias to protect property.


Bjorn, you seem to be jumping all over the place. I'm not asking you to concede the right to bear arms, much less that it has "gravitas." I understand your position on that.

I'm trying to talk to you about the more basic right of self-defense. *Do you still contend that there is no right to self-defense? *


----------



## CuffDaddy

Haffman said:


> Wouldn't the story of the British Empire be rather different if this were true? For example, would the Boers have not been the victors in this case?


Compare https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/difficult with https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impossible?show=0&t=1357251020


----------



## Haffman

CuffDaddy said:


> Well, when the gang-bangers start rolling in T-72s, that might be needed. I can only begin to imagine the sound systems and light displays that such a vehicle could support.


This could be the stuff of a new Hollywood Max-Max-esque dystopian blockbuster!


----------



## Bjorn

CuffDaddy said:


> When a right is recognized almost universally around the world, isn't that a pretty good indicator that it might be a "basic" human right? Or at least that a majority of people have that view?


I think we can have a lot more precision than that. There has been a huge amount of discussion and work on defining the basic human rights, resulting in the 1948 declaration of human rights, in which the US took part.

If we start there, at the defined basic human rights, it's easier to move the discussion forward. It also makes us more in tune with current legal debate, and removes a lot of the (extremely) obsolete/historical baggage.

These are not new issues.

That a certain contingent of US gun debaters grab for 18th century philosophers, "founding fathers" etc is simply politics and propaganda. They also seem extremely selective.


----------



## Haffman

CuffDaddy said:


> Compare https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/difficult with https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impossible?show=0&t=1357251020


well if we are going to be truly pedantic perhaps it would have been better to say 'more difficult' or even 'somewhat more difficult' rather than 'difficult' which on it's own implies a level of difficulty that I don't think history supports, for a well organised military occupation against a civilian resistance, armed or not :devil:


----------



## CuffDaddy

Haffman said:


> Was it already a dangerous place when guns were outlawed?


Fairly. The law was enacted to stem the rising tide of crime. It was wholly unsuccessful. Rather than take account of this new data and try something else, they persisted with a failing regulatory regime for decades, until the Supreme Court finally told them it was unconstitutional.

And that's the pattern of gun control in America. Some polity - our nation, a state, a municipality - becomes horrified by crime. That polity decides that, despite already having laws against crime, additional laws against percieved instrumentalities of crime will help things. They try it. It does not work. But few change their minds about the efficacy.

That was the brilliance of our Assault Weapons Ban. It had a 10-year expiration built in. So for 10 years, we had bans on "assualt weapons" and "high-capacity magazines" and other things. Then it ended. You can't see either event on a chart of homicide rates. It didn't do anything.

This was one of my points 200 posts ago. We don't have to try to translate data from other countries to America, and argue about whether there are other factors that make the outcomes different. We have our own data. Plenty of states have their own gun control regimes. The laws vary greatly from state to state. And some cities add another layer on top of that. So we can compare Americans under gun control to Americans not under gun control. We can look at the same population of Americans before gun control and after (and sometimes after expiration or relaxation). Maybe it works in the UK. But it doesn't work here.


----------



## Bjorn

CuffDaddy said:


> Bjorn, you seem to be jumping all over the place. I'm not asking you to concede the right to bear arms, much less that it has "gravitas." I understand your position on that.
> 
> I'm trying to talk to you about the more basic right of self-defense. *Do you still contend that there is no right to self-defense? *


There's no 'basic human right' to self defense. There's simply the legalities of self defense not being a crime.

There's no 'basic' right there.

Life, liberty, etc, sure.

Self defense? No.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Bjorn said:


> It also makes us more in tune with current legal debate...


Not in the US. I promise you.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Bjorn said:


> Self defense? No.


So a government that tells its subjects that any act of violence is now punishable at law, even if it is undertaken in necessary self-defense, is not violating the human rights of its subjects?


----------



## Bjorn

CuffDaddy said:


> Fairly. The law was enacted to stem the rising tide of crime. It was wholly unsuccessful. Rather than take account of this new data and try something else, they persisted with a failing regulatory regime for decades, until the Supreme Court finally told them it was unconstitutional.
> 
> And that's the pattern of gun control in America. Some polity - our nation, a state, a municipality - becomes horrified by crime. That polity decides that, despite already having laws against crime, additional laws against percieved instrumentalities of crime will help things. They try it. It does not work. But few change their minds about the efficacy.
> 
> That was the brilliance of our Assault Weapons Ban. It had a 10-year expiration built in. So for 10 years, we had bans on "assualt weapons" and "high-capacity magazines" and other things. Then it ended. You can't see either event on a chart of homicide rates. It didn't do anything.
> 
> This was one of my points 200 posts ago. We don't have to try to translate data from other countries to America, and argue about whether there are other factors that make the outcomes different. We have our own data. Plenty of states have their own gun control regimes. The laws vary greatly from state to state. And some cities add another layer on top of that. So we can compare Americans under gun control to Americans not under gun control. We can look at the same population of Americans before gun control and after (and sometimes after expiration or relaxation). Maybe it works in the UK. But it doesn't work here.


But you state repeatedly that your government is not efficient. Perhaps, if it was efficient, a ban on guns would be efficient as well.

I think you are confusing efficiency of execution with suitability of a rule. They are not the same.


----------



## Bjorn

CuffDaddy said:


> So a government that tells its subjects that any act of violence is now punishable at law, even if it is undertaken in necessary self-defense, is not violating the human rights of its subjects?


They could be, if in practice that rule violated an actual human right... But not per se.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Bjorn said:


> But you state repeatedly that your government is not efficient. Perhaps, if it was efficient, a ban on guns would be efficient as well.


And if men were angels, we wouldn't need government at all. So what? Our government is what it is.


----------



## Bjorn

CuffDaddy said:


> Not in the US. I promise you.


I said 'current'. I have no national preference.

That may indeed be your problem, a certain fascination for the obsolete


----------



## HistoryDoc

I am both a gun enthusiast and a real, live, US historian and professor. Too many assertions going in too many directions though. Most of these questions and assertions would be more focused if we would all read the opinions in the Heller decision. Of course, this being the Internet and all, I could be a 9 year old Russian.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Bjorn said:


> They could be, if in practice that rule violated an actual human right... But not per se.


Well, let's take the wood-chipper torture-murder example. The person being fed to the chipper is faced with a choice of striking out at their attacker - maybe the vicitm has a 9-iron in hand - and facing lengthy incarceration for assault with a deadly weapon, or dying. Is the creation and enforcement of that legal regime a violation of the victim's human rights?


----------



## Bjorn

CuffDaddy said:


> And if men were angels, we wouldn't need government at all. So what? Our government is what it is.


No. You have perfect control over your government. Just as much as we do.


----------



## Bjorn

HistoryDoc said:


> I am both a gun enthusiast and a real, live, US historian and professor. Too many assertions going in too many directions though. Most of these questions and assertions would be more focused if we would all read the opinions in the Heller decision. Of course, this being the Internet and all, I could be a 9 year old Russian.


Not really. I've read Heller. This is a discussion de lege ferenda, not de lege lata.


----------



## CuffDaddy

HistoryDoc said:


> I am both a gun enthusiast and a real, live, US historian and professor. Too many assertions going in too many directions though. Most of these questions and assertions would be more focused if we would all read the opinions in the Heller decision. Of course, this being the Internet and all, I could be a 9 year old Russian.


But why would the Euros care about Heller, except as a limitation on the power of the US government or states to act?


----------



## Haffman

CuffDaddy said:


> Fairly. The law was enacted to stem the rising tide of crime. It was wholly unsuccessful. Rather than take account of this new data and try something else, they persisted with a failing regulatory regime for decades, until the Supreme Court finally told them it was unconstitutional.
> 
> And that's the pattern of gun control in America. Some polity - our nation, a state, a municipality - becomes horrified by crime. That polity decides that, despite already having laws against crime, additional laws against percieved instrumentalities of crime will help things. They try it. It does not work. But few change their minds about the efficacy.
> 
> That was the brilliance of our Assault Weapons Ban. It had a 10-year expiration built in. So for 10 years, we had bans on "assualt weapons" and "high-capacity magazines" and other things. Then it ended. You can't see either event on a chart of homicide rates. It didn't do anything.
> 
> This was one of my points 200 posts ago. We don't have to try to translate data from other countries to America, and argue about whether there are other factors that make the outcomes different. We have our own data. Plenty of states have their own gun control regimes. The laws vary greatly from state to state. And some cities add another layer on top of that. So we can compare Americans under gun control to Americans not under gun control. We can look at the same population of Americans before gun control and after (and sometimes after expiration or relaxation). Maybe it works in the UK. But it doesn't work here.


Re: Washington DC, I suspected this must be the reason. Thanks for the info.

If your point is that if the state (by this I mean the nation) tries to do something in a way that lacks teeth then it won't be successful, I agree with you.

However, when the UK introduced gun controls following the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres the government did it with a ferocity that was quite shocking to the gun lobby (far more ferocious than the laws against dangerous dogs or more recently fox hunting). As we have discussed, the UK was already not exactly a gun-enthusiasts kind of place. However, it does go to show that when a government _actually sets out to do something properly rather than in some half-a**ed way, _it can be done - and people and their children can be made safer for it.


----------



## Shaver

HistoryDoc said:


> I am both a gun enthusiast and a real, live, US historian and professor. Too many assertions going in too many directions though. Most of these questions and assertions would be more focused if we would all read the opinions in the Heller decision. *Of course, this being the Internet and all, I could be a 9 year old Russian.*


Really? In which case we may go to the same school. My teacher is Miss Gromyko, is yours? :icon_smile:


----------



## Hitch

All the war discussion is directly related to the purposes behind the Second Amendment, but I reckon its value would really shine about the 5th or 6th night of a wide spread power outage.


----------



## HistoryDoc

Might also point out for our non-American friends that we are citizens, not subjects, and the distinction is important to us.


----------



## Bjorn

CuffDaddy said:


> Well, let's take the wood-chipper torture-murder example. The person being fed to the chipper is faced with a choice of striking out at their attacker - maybe the vicitm has a 9-iron in hand - and facing lengthy incarceration for assault with a deadly weapon, or dying. Is the creation and enforcement of that legal regime a violation of the victim's human rights?


Find me that regime. Describe how they've balanced the legislation.

It would most likely be a violation of the right to life, in your example.


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> Really? In which case we may go to the same school. My teacher is Miss Gromyko, is yours? :icon_smile:


Jovan will 'get' you if you dont get more serious Mr


----------



## Hitch

HistoryDoc said:


> Might also point out for our non-American friends that we are citizens, not subjects, and the distinction is important to us.


Worth repeating.


----------



## Haffman

HistoryDoc said:


> I am both a gun enthusiast and a real, live, US historian and professor. Too many assertions going in too many directions though. Most of these questions and assertions would be more focused if we would all read the opinions in the Heller decision. Of course, this being the Internet and all, I could be a 9 year old Russian.


That's great - but can you say something more educational and enlightening than telling us to read the Heller decision? This might help us to focus. I would be interested in your educated opinion....even if you are Boris from St Petersburg


----------



## Bjorn

CuffDaddy said:


> But why would the Euros care about Heller, except as a limitation on the power of the US government or states to act?


We are discussing the US...

Again, that's just praxis on current legislation.


----------



## Shaver

Hitch said:


> Jovan will 'get' you if you dont get more serious Mr


Nah, Jovan is a decent chap and I like him very much.


----------



## Bjorn

Hitch said:


> Worth repeating.


From a legal standpoint, not very.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Haffman said:


> Re: Washington DC, I suspected this must be the reason. Thanks for the info.
> 
> If your point is that if the state (by this I mean the nation) tries to do something in a way that lacks teeth then it won't be successful, I agree with you.
> 
> However, when the UK introduced gun controls following the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres the government did it with a ferocity that was quite shocking to the gun lobby (far more ferocious than the laws against dangerous dogs or more recently fox hunting). As we have discussed, the UK was already not exactly a gun-enthusiasts kind of place. However, it does go to show that when a government _actually sets out to do something properly rather than in some half-a**ed way, _it can be done - and people and their children can be made safer for it.


But the UK was safe before the "ferocity" of the goverment re: gun control. Nothing much changed there, either.

As you may have noticed, there were nearly 3 million gun-purchase background checks in America last *MONTH*. That's not a bad proxy for the number of guns sold by dealers/manufacturers to individuals. There are hundreds of millions of guns in America. Simply satisfying the constitutional requirement to pay people for siezed property would cost billions, perhaps trillions, of dollars. Rounding up all the existing guns is not possible.


----------



## Haffman

HistoryDoc said:


> Might also point out for our non-American friends that we are citizens, not subjects, and the distinction is important to us.


It would be great to comprehend what bearing this has on the current debate. Are you saying that post-Revolutionary France should be expected to have a similar approach to the right to bear arms as America?


----------



## Bjorn

HistoryDoc said:


> Might also point out for our non-American friends that we are citizens, not subjects, and the distinction is important to us.


In Sweden, we are citizens as well. Please find me a country where, currently, people are subjects. Except for North Korea...


----------



## Shaver

Haffman said:


> It would be great to comprehend what bearing this has on the current debate. Are you saying that post-Revolutionary France should be expected to have a similar approach to the right to bear arms as America?


Wasn't it just 'foreigner baiting'?


----------



## Bjorn

Haffman said:


> It would be great to comprehend what bearing this has on the current debate. Are you saying that post-Revolutionary France should be expected to have a similar approach to the right to bear arms as America?


Indeed.


----------



## Haffman

CuffDaddy said:


> As you may have noticed, there were nearly 3 million gun-purchase background checks in America last *MONTH*. .


In all fairness Cuff, if I was living in the USA and privy to this information, I would be pretty scared. The A-10 is not sounding like such a bad idea after all...


----------



## Haffman

Shaver said:


> Wasn't it just 'foreigner baiting'?


Well, for a 'history lecture' from an esteemed academic, it was certainly rather terse and unenlightening.


----------



## Bjorn

Shaver said:


> Wasn't it just 'foreigner baiting'?


That's actually when you get an actual foreigner pinned down, you gut him, and then you hook him and trawl....


----------



## CuffDaddy

Bjorn said:


> Find me that regime. Describe how they've balanced the legislation.
> 
> It would most likely be a violation of the right to life, in your example.


There is no such regime because everyone in the world but you seems to understand that the right to self-defense is so basic as to be essential to ordered liberty. It's a hypothetical. If you think there's some "balancing" that would make such a regime acceptable, _you _lay it out. I cannot concieve of it.

The second part of your statement does make sense, and comports with what I said pages ago.* If you don't want to concede that self-defense is itself a "basic" right, it's a necessary corrollary of others that you do concede are rights. Are you now willing to concede as much?*


----------



## CuffDaddy

Bjorn said:


> We are discussing the US...
> 
> Again, that's just praxis on current legislation.


No, it's "praxis" on the Constitution. Which we are nowhere close to changing. I feel like this was covered about *3* 00 posts ago.


----------



## Bjorn

Haffman said:


> Well, for a 'history lecture' from an esteemed academic, it was certainly rather terse and unenlightening.


It's just something Americans think differentiate American society, but which really does not. Which is a fairly consistent trend in many societies.

It's when you think you've made something up yourself, when in reality you just borrowed it. Usually from the Romans. The French are most proficient at it.


----------



## Haffman

Bjorn said:


> It's just something Americans think differentiate American society, but which really does not. Which is a fairly consistent trend in many societies.
> 
> It's when you think you've made something up yourself, when in reality you just borrowed it. Usually from the Romans. The French are most proficient at it.


:icon_cheers:


----------



## Bjorn

CuffDaddy said:


> There is no such regime because everyone in the world but you seems to understand that the right to self-defense is so basic as to be essential to ordered liberty. It's a hypothetical. If you think there's some "balancing" that would make such a regime acceptable, _you _lay it out. I cannot concieve of it.
> 
> The second part of your statement does make sense, and comports with what I said pages ago.* If you don't want to concede that self-defense is itself a "basic" right, it's a necessary corrollary of others that you do concede are rights. Are you now willing to concede as much?*


Nope. If you reread my posts, it would be obvious. Please state one convention on human rights that state self defense as one of them. I find, quite contrary to your opinion, that there's no evidence of self defense being considered a basic human right. You need not ask again, I will not concede it. Concession is a failure to challenge. I don't just challenge that position, I consider it a nullity.

As we agree it has no bearing on a right to bear arms, I'm prepared to leave at t that.

Since no regime exists that does not recognize the legal function of self defense, as is, I don't see the point of that venue.


----------



## Shaver

Bjorn said:


> It's just something Americans think differentiate American society, but which really does not. Which is a fairly consistent trend in many societies.
> 
> It's when you think you've made something up yourself, when in reality you just borrowed it. Usually from the Romans. The French are most proficient at it.


Bleedin' Frenchies! :devil:


----------



## CuffDaddy

Bjorn said:


> Nope. If you reread my posts, it would be obvious. Please state one convention on human rights that state self defense as one of them. I find, quite contrary to your opinion, that there's no evidence of self defense being considered a basic human right. You need not ask again, I will not concede it. Concession is a failure to challenge. I don't just challenge that position, I consider it a nullity.
> 
> As we agree it has no bearing on a right to bear arms, I'm prepared to leave at t that.


Non-responsive. *Do you agree with me that the right to self-defense is at least a necessary corrollary to other rights you deem basic?*


----------



## Shaver

CuffDaddy said:


> Non-responsive. *Do you agree with me that the right to self-defense is at least a necessary corrollary to other rights you deem basic?*


Morally yes, but not neccesarily from a legal standpoint.

If violence is illegal then self-defense is violence and therefore illegal. Prosecution, however, for acts of violence conducted in self-defense should be limited.


----------



## Bjorn

CuffDaddy said:


> Non-responsive. *Do you agree with me that the right to self-defense is at least a necessary corrollary to other rights you deem basic?*


No, not a "necessary" "corollary". That would be a tautology...

It's a suitable positive legislation. Without it, I could envision basic human rights being violated in different situations. Just like many other legislations...


----------



## Bjorn

Shaver said:


> Morally yes, but not neccesarily from a legal standpoint.
> 
> If violence is illegal then self-defense is violence and therefore illegal. Prosecution, however, for acts of violence conducted in self-defense should be limited.


And the provisions of self defense render that violence legal.


----------



## Shaver

Bjorn said:


> And the provisions of self defense render that violence legal.


but not a human right?


----------



## Bjorn

Shaver said:


> but not a human right?


Nope.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Bjorn said:


> No, not a "necessary" "corollary". That would be a tautology...


I can't tell whether the English definition of "corollary" or "tautology" escapes you, but one of them appears to be causing you confusion. "Necessary corollary" may be slightly redundant, but it is in no way tautological. It is a common phrase in American legal jurisprudence.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Shaver said:


> Morally yes, but not neccesarily from a legal standpoint.
> 
> If violence is illegal then self-defense is violence and therefore illegal. Prosecution, however, for acts of violence conducted in self-defense should be limited.


That's not the way it's typically structured in America. Whether a prosecutor chooses to bring charges or not, self-defense is a defense to those charges. Thus, violence committed in self-defense is privileged, and not illegal.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Bjorn said:


> It's a suitable positive legislation. Without it, I could envision basic human rights being violated in different situations. Just like many other legislations...


Bjorn, we seem to be getting so caught up in semantic distinctions that I can't tell what your actual position is. Let me try one more example to see if we can get to a common ground of understanding (if not, then at least we'll know our disagreement is not rooted in firearms, but at a much deeper level):

You visit a foreign country. While there, you are attacked by a man with a knife. You instinctively resist. The man's hand is broken as you struggle, and he drops the knife. You are both arrested and prosecuted for assault. You are both convicted and incarcerated, as the laws of that country give no protection to or recognition of self-defense. Have your human rights been violated?


----------



## Shaver

CuffDaddy said:


> That's not the way it's typically structured in America. Whether a prosecutor chooses to bring charges or not, self-defense is a defense to those charges. Thus, violence committed in self-defense is privileged, and not illegal.


Out of interest how does your law approach aggresive self-defence i.e. attacking first to gain advantage from an obviously impending assault?

By the way, you are conducting a very impressive multi-front response to several members at once. If ever I'm in trouble in Atlanta I will definitely ask the public defender to get me your number. :icon_smile:


----------



## CuffDaddy

Shaver said:


> Out of interest how does your law approach aggresive self-defence i.e. attacking first to gain advantage from an obviously impending assault?


NOT A LEGAL OPINION: The laws are going to vary from one state to another, but generally the question is whether the person claiming self-defense is in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury. There is often a limitation that if the claim-er has been the aggressor in a confrontation, he cannot claim self-defense. (For instance, I cannot punch you in the face, wait for you to strike back at me, and then defend all my subsequent punches as being self-defense.)


----------



## Shaver

CuffDaddy said:


> NOT A LEGAL OPINION: The laws are going to vary from one state to another, but generally the question is whether the person claiming self-defense is in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury. There is often a limitation that if the claim-er has been the aggressor in a confrontation, he cannot claim self-defense. (For instance, I cannot punch you in the face, wait for you to strike back at me, and then defend all my subsequent punches as being self-defense.)


It's a tricky one and no mistake. Sometimes the element of surprise a potential victim can gain from striking first when an aggresor torments them is crucial to surviving the incident unharmed, or relatively so. However, possession of a firearm would present a greater temptation to 'make the first move' when harassed would it not?


----------



## CuffDaddy

Shaver said:


> However, possession of a firearm would present a greater temptation to 'make the first move' when harassed would it not?


On the contrary, those who carry legally in America have incredibly low rates of criminal activity. Virtually none.* Talk to anyone who carries, and they will tell you that they become much more aware of the need to avoid any possible confrontation. They know that, if they shoot someone, their life will be changed. They will be investigated by the police, and prosecuted if the justification for the shooting is not clear. They will likely be sued by the person shot and/or the family of that person.

The Trayvon Martin case got national attention because it was so aberrational. And even though it is far from clear that the shooter wasn't justified, he is still being held in confinement while awaiting criminal trial.

The real-world incentives are set up to demand that someone with a gun only shoot when there is no other realistic option. Even in states with stand-your-ground laws, there's a good chance of a long and costly and terrifying legal process.


----------



## Liberty Ship

Shaver said:


> Except that just as a knife could be taken from someone who was using it to defend themselves then so could a gun. Weakness is not necessarily a major factor in self defense rather awareness has the ultimate impact. In any defensive situation I would prefer to rely on wits and knowledge than a specific tool, even if the assailant was much stronger than I. Moreover virtually any object to hand can be transformed into a weapon, even a newspaper if you know how.
> 
> As I say, I have no objection to gun ownership but am dubious as to the merit of rationale to justify ownership as a right to self-defense.


The knife and the gun are in no way comparable when it comes to self defense. In a defensive situation it is virtually impossible to take a gun away from a trained individual and use it against him or her. But if that individual is defending with a knife, it can be very easy to turn it against him or her, especially if you are bigger and stronger. For one thing, to defend with a knife you have to be with in grappling range. Also, while a knife is lethal, its use does not "stop an attack" the way a firearm can. A fatally cut or stabbed aggressor can keep coming and inflict great physical harm before he bleeds out.

On the other hand, a proper and timely presentation of a firearm can effectively stop an attack at a safe distance, usually without firing a shot. Yes, it takes training. Like maybe a 4 hour class in avoiding criminal attack and controlling violent confrontations, and firearms and the law. But it's not rocket science. NRA offers these classes.

There is no tool as effective as a firearm for personal protection, especially when it comes to a situation where the elderly, infirm, female, etc., are facing a a disparity of force.


----------



## Shaver

CuffDaddy said:


> On the contrary, those who carry legally in America have incredibly low rates of criminal activity. Virtually none.* Talk to anyone who carries, and they will tell you that they become much more aware of the need to avoid any possible confrontation. They know that, if they shoot someone, their life will be changed. They will be investigated by the police, and prosecuted if the justification for the shooting is not clear. They will likely be sued by the person shot and/or the family of that person.
> 
> The Trayvon Martin case got national attention because it was so aberrational. And even though it is far from clear that the shooter wasn't justified, he is still being held in confinement while awaiting criminal trial.
> 
> The real-world incentives are set up to demand that someone with a gun only shoot when there is no other realistic option. Even in states with stand-your-ground laws, there's a good chance of a long and costly and terrifying legal process.


Don't get me started re Trayvon. White liberal guilt allowed that gang-banger to be presented as a sweet little eight year old boy. Anyway less said, soonest mended... :redface:

Actually, thinking about it, I take your point re guns and avoidance of confrontation. In my own experience you are far less likely to encounter unsolicited aggression in 'rough' pubs than you are in fancy wine bars. This I imagine is because the middle classes are not as familiar with the ultimate conclusion of picking on the wrong guy.....


----------



## Shaver

Liberty Ship said:


> The knife and the gun are in no way comparable when it comes to self defense. In a defensive situation it is virtually impossible to take a gun away from a trained individual and use it against him or her. But if that individual is defending with a knife, it can be very easy to turn it against him or her, especially if you are bigger and stronger. For one thing, to defend with a knife you have to be with in grappling range. Also, while a knife is lethal, its use does not "stop an attack" the way a firearm can. A fatally cut or stabbed aggressor can keep coming and inflict great physical harm before he bleeds out.
> 
> On the other hand, a proper and timely presentation of a firearm can effectively stop an attack at a safe distance, usually without firing a shot. Yes, it takes training. Like maybe a 4 hour class in avoiding criminal attack and controlling violent confrontations, and firearms and the law. But it's not rocket science. NRA offers these classes.
> 
> There is no tool as effective as a firearm for personal protection, especially when it comes to a situation where the elderly, infirm, female, etc., are facing a a disparity of force.


Perhaps. If you are happy killing someone to defend yourself. I'd be content with crippling them personally.

No-one wants an old lady to be victim of violence, clearly, but self-defense can include non-lethal options.


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> Out of interest how does your law approach aggresive self-defence i.e. attacking first to gain advantage from an obviously impending assault?
> 
> By the way, you are conducting a very impressive multi-front response to several members at once. If ever I'm in trouble in Atlanta I will definitely ask the public defender to get me your number. :icon_smile:


Out here the most common line divides the inside and outside of your home. Once an intruder gains entrance he is considered a deadly threat. There is no duty on part of the victim to seek retreat.


----------



## hardline_42

CuffDaddy said:


> On the contrary, those who carry legally in America have incredibly low rates of criminal activity. Virtually none.* Talk to anyone who carries, and they will tell you that they become much more aware of the need to avoid any possible confrontation. They know that, if they shoot someone, their life will be changed. They will be investigated by the police, and prosecuted if the justification for the shooting is not clear. They will likely be sued by the person shot and/or the family of that person.
> 
> The Trayvon Martin case got national attention because it was so aberrational. And even though it is far from clear that the shooter wasn't justified, he is still being held in confinement while awaiting criminal trial.
> 
> The real-world incentives are set up to demand that someone with a gun only shoot when there is no other realistic option. Even in states with stand-your-ground laws, there's a good chance of a long and costly and terrifying legal process.


One of the first things you learn in CCW training courses is what constitutes a justified or "legal" shoot. It is made very clear (at least, to me) when lethal force can be applied to a situation:

*You are justified in using lethal force against another human being if, and only if, there is immediate and unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to an innocent person.*

The requirements are:

IMMEDIATE: You have to be in danger right then and there. You can't shoot someone trying to flee nor can you shoot someone who has merely threatened future harm.

UNAVOIDABLE: Retreating is your first line of defense. Only if you can't run away or retreat without endangering yourself or another can it be considered unavoidable.

DANGER OF DEATH OR GRAVE BODILY HARM: You can't shoot someone for spitting at you or slapping you in the face. On the other hand, rape, stabbing, broken bones and the like all qualify. Remember, though, it says "danger of." You don't need to have been raped, stabbed or had a bone broken to be justified, you just need to be in immediate, unavoidable danger of it happening.


----------



## Hitch

Shaver said:


> Perhaps. If you are happy killing someone to defend yourself. I'd be content with crippling them personally.
> 
> No-one wants an old lady to be victim of violence, clearly, but self-defense can include non-lethal options.


I'll wager every trained law enforcement officer would harbor the same sentiment and hope that producing his weapon would be intimidating enough ;Then follow his training and shoot at center body mass until the threat is neutralized.


----------



## Hitch

hardline_42 said:


> One of the first things you learn in CCW training courses is what constitutes a justified or "legal" shoot. It is made very clear (at least, to me) when lethal force can be applied to a situation:
> 
> *You are justified in using lethal force against another human being if, and only if, there is immediate and unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to an innocent person.*
> 
> The requirements are:
> 
> IMMEDIATE: You have to be in danger right then and there. You can't shoot someone trying to flee nor can you shoot someone who has merely threatened future harm.
> 
> UNAVOIDABLE: Retreating is your first line of defense. Only if you can't run away or retreat without endangering yourself or another can it be considered unavoidable.
> 
> DANGER OF DEATH OR GRAVE BODILY HARM: You can't shoot someone for spitting at you or slapping you in the face. On the other hand, rape, stabbing, broken bones and the like all qualify. Remember, though, it says "danger of." You don't need to have been raped, stabbed or had a bone broken to be justified, you just need to be in immediate, unavoidable danger of it happening.


 Not to split hairs but I think your qualifications are too stringent and should be "reason to believe" there is immediate danger.


----------



## hardline_42

Shaver said:


> Perhaps. If you are happy killing someone to defend yourself. I'd be content with crippling them personally.
> 
> No-one wants an old lady to be victim of violence, clearly, but self-defense can include non-lethal options.


Shaver, I don't think anyone posting on this thread would be happy to kill someone, regardless of the circumstance. The purpose of a firearm used in self-defense is not to kill the aggressor, it is to stop them. That could be achieved through purely psychological means, through physically disabling the body's nervous system, blood loss or any combination of the three. There is no such thing as pulling your punches or "wounding" an attacker for the purpose of self-defense. If you're not fighting for your life you're not justified in using lethal force. As an FYI, the law does not look at "shooting someone in the leg" any differently than shooting to kill, and you'd better have a very good explanation as to why you did so.


----------



## Liberty Ship

Shaver said:


> Perhaps. If you are happy killing someone to defend yourself. I'd be content with crippling them personally.
> 
> No-one wants an old lady to be victim of violence, clearly, but self-defense can include non-lethal options.


Yes, it can include non-lethal options like pepper foam, or my favorite option -- stay out of harm's way! Who wants any part of this mess?????

The gun is there for you for when trouble finds you! And when it does, the gun is there not to cripple, not to kill, but to stop the attack. And, as I said, that most often happens without a shot being fired. In most cases, particularly home defense, an attacker confronted with a trained gun owner has a choice: die or walk away. Unless he is crazy or on drugs (increasingly likely), he or they will walk. But if it comes down to a shot being fired, circumstances won't allow, and the law won't expect, for you to surgically execute a crippling shot. Lethal force is presumed when a firearm is deployed and even hitting someone in the shoulder or leg is potentially fatal. If you have to shoot, you shoot to stop the attack.


----------



## hardline_42

Hitch said:


> Not to split hairs but I think your qualifications are too stringent and should be "reason to believe" there is immediate danger.


Obviously, that goes without saying.


----------



## Shaver

Hardline & LibertyShip, admirable perspectives and I don't neccessarily disagree with you chaps - it's more of an exploring of the theme - but wouldn't a Tazer (or even rubber bullets) achieve the same effect at limited risk of fatality?


----------



## Liberty Ship

Shaver said:


> Hardline & LibertyShip, admirable perspectives and I don't neccessarily disagree with you chaps - it's more of an exploring of the theme - but wouldn't a Tazer (or even rubber bullets) achieve the same effect at limited risk of fatality?


Rubber bullets are lethal when fired line of sight. They are deployed against crowds by bouncing them off the road surface. That results in random hits and injuries that are outside the scope of legitimate self defense. Tasers are an option. But generally they are deployed at a point when a (charging) attacker won't be stopped. Often they don't work against the drug crazed. Police use them as part of the "escalation of force" that they are trained for and is required of them. Civilians are not trained for that nor are they required to engage in it as part of a self defense justification. When police taser someone rather than just shooting them, they are putting themselves at a degree of risk that is not required of a civilian.

And, as a afterthought, lots of police carry tasers. But I don't know of any who go forth armed with taser alone -- they all back it up with a gun!


----------



## hardline_42

Liberty Ship said:


> ...Tasers are an option...


Not for me, I live in NJ. :frown:


----------



## Shaver

Ok, well, allow me to be very honest. I was once mugged at a cash-point (ATM) by a guy with a hammer. I have a scar on the bridge of my nose and lost £20. Had I a gun at the time I would have had no qualm about blowing his head clean off his shoulders. And I wouldn't feel bad about it, either. But I wonder... would it really have been the right thing to do?


----------



## Liberty Ship

So you can't even have hollow points!


----------



## Liberty Ship

Shaver said:


> Ok, well, allow me to be very honest. I was once mugged at a cash-point (ATM) by a guy with a hammer. I have a scar on the bridge of my nose and lost £20. Had I a gun at the time I would have had no qualm about blowing his head clean off his shoulders. And I wouldn't feel bad about it, either. But I wonder... would it really have been the right thing to do?


You got off sort of easy. But using the gun is always your choice. Having the gun gives you the choice. Many women face rape as a secondary "crime of opportunity" during robberies. My advice is that one should part with cash easily and hope they go away. If they want anything more, well, it's time to make a choice.

To elaborate a bit on your question, though, it might not have been the right thing to do depending on the sequence of events. If you are not in jeopardy, you can't just shoot out of anger.


----------



## hardline_42

Liberty Ship said:


> So you can't even have hollow points!


I can have them at my home, shoot them at the range and use them for home defense if necessary. However, if I'm in possession of them while committing a crime, it's mandatory time. Before any of you chime in saying "oh, that sounds reasonable," it means ANY crime. If I run a red light on the way home from the range and the officer notices an unfired hollow point round that accidentally fell into the cuff of my khakis, I'm going away.


----------



## CuffDaddy

God forbid you select ammunition that won't over-penetrate and blow straight through an assailant into an innocent bystander behind! Well-intentioned gun regulation by those who are totally ignorant of firearms is usually... well, about as smart as nuclear power plant regulations that I, a person with no knowledge of the subject, would write.


----------



## Bjorn

CuffDaddy said:


> I can't tell whether the English definition of "corollary" or "tautology" escapes you, but one of them appears to be causing you confusion. "Necessary corollary" may be slightly redundant, but it is in no way tautological. It is a common phrase in American legal jurisprudence.


If you say so. I will bow to your expertise


----------



## Bjorn

CuffDaddy said:


> Bjorn, we seem to be getting so caught up in semantic distinctions that I can't tell what your actual position is. Let me try one more example to see if we can get to a common ground of understanding (if not, then at least we'll know our disagreement is not rooted in firearms, but at a much deeper level):
> 
> You visit a foreign country. While there, you are attacked by a man with a knife. You instinctively resist. The man's hand is broken as you struggle, and he drops the knife. You are both arrested and prosecuted for assault. You are both convicted and incarcerated, as the laws of that country give no protection to or recognition of self-defense. Have your human rights been violated?


Semantics are the very essence of law  Or maybe not...

I'd say not necessarily, actually, if I've had a fair trial and the local country have a stringent system which is appropriate for the setting. I admit a society that could outlaw self defense would have to be pretty damn secure indeed, and I'm not sure how that would look in terms of legislation. Not sure really.

Which human right do you think it violates?

My position would be: neither the right to bear arms nor the rules of self defense are human rights, nor is the first a necessary corollary of the second, nor of any real basic human right. Thus the right to bear arms is simply a positive right given in legislation, and may be freely amended. This is not unimportant since one view frequently expressed is that the right to bear arms is a basic right, inviolate. It is not.

The purpose of human rights can be found in the preamble to the UDHR:
"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,"

Neither there, nor in the rights themselves, can a right to bear arms be found.


----------



## Chouan

These always turn into circular arguments. What has been stated before is being endlessly repeated.
Essentially, to some, or most Americans, in any case, those who are arguing in favour of personal firearms, it seems that guns are necessary because of the need to:
1) Defend one's home and liberty against an oppressive domestic regime.
2) Defend one's person, family and possessions against evil doers.
and, that, in any case, Americans should be able to have guns if they want them, and it is oppression to stop them from doing so. Foreigners, especially europeans, to seemingly most Americans, don't seem to have the same concept of liberty, apparently being content to live under the oppressive regimes that seemingly deny them basic freedoms.
However, the same Americans insist that:
1) The US has the best democracy, more liberty and more freedoms than any other regime, hence the obsession with "citizens" and "subjects", and the endless mantra of "we had a revolution".
2) The US isn't a dangerous place to live in.
There are at least 2 paradoxes here that I can see:
1) The US citizen _*needs*_ personal firearms to protect themself from the best democracy in the world, in their opinion. 
2) The US citizen _*needs*_ personal firearms to protect themself in a society that is no more dangerous than any European country.
Could I suggest, again, that actually Americans who want personal firearms do so because they want them and like them, not because they actually need them, and that they'll grasp any excuse or pretext, no matter how flimsy, to try to justify, probably to themselves as much as to anybody else, that guns are necessary, rather than just being an "adult" toy.
As far as defending personal liberty is concerned, I can't think of any case where armed civilians have overthrown an oppressive regime. Not ever.
As a final point, as a rather overdue response, handguns are indeed designed to kill people, nothing else. Now matter how they are dressed up as "target pistols", that is the basic purpose of a handgun. Saying that they are different is like saying that a foil or an epee or a sabre isn't a practise sword.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Hitch said:


> Not to split hairs but I think your qualifications are too stringent and should be "reason to believe" there is immediate danger.


Indeed. During my Nitat (Northern Ireland) training our "contact cards" were colour coded and the first contact level was not immediate it was "grounds to believe that" and then a list of actions:

...that a person was drawing a firearm, missile preparatory for use 
...that a person was preparing to throw a petrol bomb or grenade
...that a person was preparing to detonate a bomb
...that a person was preparing to use a heavy weapon - mortar, RPG, GPMG etc.

The next level was "contact" i.e. immediate - coming under attack from small arms fire, lethal missiles, heavy weapons, bombs
Unavoidable is the same as immediate - retreat was not an option for NI troops

The top level was "fully engaged" i.e. continuing exchange of fire.

I realise though that these levels are from the perspective of the armed forces and the type of engagement rather than a feared affect on one's self from an assailant, but the point remains the first level will often be "reason to believe" thus allowing one to take precautionary/evasive action. Of course, sometimes people are attacked wihtout the benefit of any warning or having themselves observed any warning signals of an imminent attack.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Chouan said:


> These always turn into circular arguments. What has been stated before is being endlessly repeated.
> Essentially, to some, or most Americans, in any case, those who are arguing in favour of personal firearms, it seems that guns are necessary because of the need to:
> 1) Defend one's home and liberty against an oppressive domestic regime.
> 2) Defend one's person, family and possessions against evil doers.
> and, that, in any case, Americans should be able to have guns if they want them, and it is oppression to stop them from doing so. Foreigners, especially europeans, to seemingly most Americans, don't seem to have the same concept of liberty, apparently being content to live under the oppressive regimes that seemingly deny them basic freedoms.
> However, the same Americans insist that:
> 1) The US has the best democracy, more liberty and more freedoms than any other regime, hence the obsession with "citizens" and "subjects", and the endless mantra of "we had a revolution".
> 2) The US isn't a dangerous place to live in.
> There are at least 2 paradoxes here that I can see:
> 1) The US citizen _*needs*_ personal firearms to protect themself from the best democracy in the world, in their opinion.
> 2) The US citizen _*needs*_ personal firearms to protect themself in a society that is no more dangerous than any European country.
> Could I suggest, again, that actually Americans who want personal firearms do so because they want them and like them, not because they actually need them, and that they'll grasp any excuse or pretext, no matter how flimsy, to try to justify, probably to themselves as much as to anybody else, that guns are necessary, rather than just being an "adult" toy.
> As far as defending personal liberty is concerned, I can't think of any case where armed civilians have overthrown an oppressive regime. Not ever.
> As a final point, as a rather overdue response, handguns are indeed designed to kill people, nothing else. Now matter how they are dressed up as "target pistols", that is the basic purpose of a handgun. Saying that they are different is like saying that a foil or an epee or a sabre isn't a practise sword.


Thank you.

This constant circular discussion is making my head spin.
And to reinforce your points here's a list for our American pro-firearms members:

1. I live in Sweden, one of the most democratic and peaceful countries in the world. I am an Irish citizen
2. I am not afeared of the govt, the armed forces or the police.
3. Only a very tiny,tiny minority of people in Sweden own any firearms that aren't shotguns or hunting rifles
4. The vast majority of people in Sweden don't own guns & don't want anything to do with them
5. We have one of the lowest murder and overall crime rates in the world
6. We are not afraid of violent crime, we do not need to defend ourselves with firearms
7. However we do have plenty of large bears and wolves in our woods
8. We have the best economy in Europe and were largely spared from the recession
9. We have the second best standard of living/quality of life in the world - No. 1 is another Euro country 
10. We have one of the highest educational standards in the world.
11. The Swedish royal family has absolutely no power whatsoever. Swedes are citizens not subjects

And all this without firearms. And that isn't amazing, that's how it is in most European countries, a well functioning unarmed society.

If you as Americans want a firearm because you want a fierarm because the law permits it, then say so, just stop making excuses as to why you NEED one. The only reason you NEED a firearm is the law permits it and so criminals have the same access to firearms and they NEED them for crime, and the law permits them to obtain firearms. Your constitution is screwed up on this point!

If no one is allowed to carry firearms then nobody needs firearms. The constituitonal permission creates the need, it is a catch 22 that is out of date by 200 years!

Citing civil liberties and freedoms and fear of the state is hogwash!


----------



## hardline_42

Chouan said:


> These always turn into circular arguments. What has been stated before is being endlessly repeated.
> Essentially, to some, or most Americans, in any case, those who are arguing in favour of personal firearms, it seems that guns are necessary because of the need to:
> 1) Defend one's home and liberty against an oppressive domestic regime.
> 2) Defend one's person, family and possessions against evil doers.
> and, that, in any case, Americans should be able to have guns if they want them, and it is oppression to stop them from doing so. Foreigners, especially europeans, to seemingly most Americans, don't seem to have the same concept of liberty, apparently being content to live under the oppressive regimes that seemingly deny them basic freedoms.
> However, the same Americans insist that:
> 1) The US has the best democracy, more liberty and more freedoms than any other regime, hence the obsession with "citizens" and "subjects", and the endless mantra of "we had a revolution".
> 2) The US isn't a dangerous place to live in.
> There are at least 2 paradoxes here that I can see:
> 1) The US citizen _*needs*_ personal firearms to protect themself from the best democracy in the world, in their opinion.
> 2) The US citizen _*needs*_ personal firearms to protect themself in a society that is no more dangerous than any European country.
> Could I suggest, again, that actually Americans who want personal firearms do so because they want them and like them, not because they actually need them, and that they'll grasp any excuse or pretext, no matter how flimsy, to try to justify, probably to themselves as much as to anybody else, that guns are necessary, rather than just being an "adult" toy.
> As far as defending personal liberty is concerned, I can't think of any case where armed civilians have overthrown an oppressive regime. Not ever.
> As a final point, as a rather overdue response, handguns are indeed designed to kill people, nothing else. Now matter how they are dressed up as "target pistols", that is the basic purpose of a handgun. Saying that they are different is like saying that a foil or an epee or a sabre isn't a practise sword.





Earl of Ormonde said:


> Thank you.
> 
> This constant circular discussion is making my head spin.
> And to reinforce your points here's a list for our American pro-firearms members:
> 
> 1. I live in Sweden, one of the most democratic and peaceful countries in the world. I am an Irish citizen
> 2. I am not afeared of the govt, the armed forces or the police.
> 3. Only a very tiny,tiny minority of people in Sweden own any firearms that aren't shotguns or hunting rifles
> 4. The vast majority of people in Sweden don't own guns & don't want anything to do with them
> 5. We have one of the lowest murder and overall crime rates in the world
> 6. We are not afraid of violent crime, we do not need to defend ourselves with firearms
> 7. However we do have plenty of large bears and wolves in our woods
> 8. We have the best economy in Europe and were largely spared from the recession
> 9. We have the second best standard of living/quality of life in the world - No. 1 is another Euro country
> 10. We have one of the highest educational standards in the world.
> 11. The Swedish royal family has absolutely no power whatsoever. Swedes are citizens not subjects
> 
> And all this without firearms. And that isn't amazing, that's how it is in most European countries, a well functioning unarmed society.
> 
> If you as Americans want a firearm because you want a fierarm because the law permits it, then say so, just stop making excuses as to why you NEED one. The only reason you NEED a firearm is the law permits it and so criminals have the same access to firearms and they NEED them for crime, and the law permits them to obtain firearms. Your constitution is screwed up on this point!
> 
> If no one is allowed to carry firearms then nobody needs firearms. The constituitonal permission creates the need, it is a catch 22 that is out of date by 200 years!
> 
> Citing civil liberties and freedoms and fear of the state is hogwash!


Well, thank you kindly, dear non-American forum members, for showing us the error of our ways. Much obliged. Let me know when you completely ELIMINATE violent crime from your own countries (in England and Wales, it's currently *3.5 times greater* than the violent crime rate of the U.S.). Until that time, I continue to be my family's and my own first and last lines of defense against potential harm and loss of life, and I will continue to avail myself of the best tools for the job. Cheers.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

hardline_42 said:


> (in England and Wales, it's currently *3.5 times greater* than the violent crime rate of the U.S.).


I've never disputed that. Thr UK has been worse than the US for many years as regards violent crime.

But you will see from my comments that I'm talking from the perspective of Sweden, being a Swedish resident. 
Hell, why do you think I live here and not in the UK?


----------



## hardline_42

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I've never disputed that. Thr UK has been worse than the US for many years as regards violent crime.
> 
> But you will see from my comments that I'm talking from the perspective of Sweden, being a Swedish resident.
> Hell, why do you think I live here and not in the UK?


Good point, E of O. As a fan of Swedish automobiles, cutlery and fish-shaped candies, you have my sincere apologies for the misunderstanding :biggrin2:


----------



## Bjorn

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I've never disputed that. Thr UK has been worse than the US for many years as regards violent crime.
> 
> But you will see from my comments that I'm talking from the perspective of Sweden, being a Swedish resident.
> Hell, why do you think I live here and not in the UK?


Bah! There's an old (1719) Swedish saying: Ryssen kommer. Directly translated (which you would know of course) it's "The Russians are coming".

Probably business class. Driving up the prices on ice cream in the Old Town. Bastards


----------



## Chouan

hardline_42 said:


> Well, thank you kindly, dear non-American forum members, for showing us the error of our ways. Much obliged. Let me know when you completely ELIMINATE violent crime from your own countries (in England and Wales, it's currently *3.5 times greater* than the violent crime rate of the U.S.). Until that time, I continue to be my family's and my own first and last lines of defense against potential harm and loss of life, and I will continue to avail myself of the best tools for the job. Cheers.


Which speaks volumes for the ineffectualness of US crime prevention. All kinds of armed security forces, State police, Federal police, private police, armed private detectives, local armed security people, and you still need personal firearms to protect your family. What an awful country it must be that you feel the need to carry personal firearms. Or, is it a self-perpetuating pretext that allows you to justify the possession of lethal toys?


----------



## CuffDaddy

Chouan said:


> Could I suggest, again, that actually Americans who want personal firearms do so because they want them and like them, not because they actually need them...
> As a final point, as a rather overdue response, handguns are indeed designed to kill people, nothing else. Now matter how they are dressed up as "target pistols", that is the basic purpose of a handgun. Saying that they are different is like saying that a foil or an epee or a sabre isn't a practise sword.


Obviously, I disagree with much of your post, but the first item I quoted has some truth in it. If you read other posts of mine in this thread, you will find that, in addition to the various "need" arguments in favor of firearms (which are not pretextual), I also have spoken at length about the pure enjoyment I get from the use of firearms. This enjoyment is as legitimate as any other enjoyment of some activity. And because I respect the rights of my fellow citizens, it is enjoyment that causes harm to nobody. Yet you and others would deprive me of this significant enjoyment, not because of any harm that I have caused or will cause, but because the instrumentalities would be banned as a proxy for harmful acts that others have committed or will committ in the future. This is manifestly an injustice. It may arguably be an injustice that is worth it for the greater good, but an injustice against me personally it remains.

You are unequivocally wrong regarding handguns. I have explained why. Your response is simply to say "nuh-uh." Persist in that ignorance if you wish, but that's all it is.

Finally, you suggest that Americans make contradictory claims when they think their society the best* while also needing firearms to defend themselves in it. That is only a contradiction if you assume that "best" and "safest" mean the same thing. America is certainly not the safest society in the world. Even setting firearms aside, that remains the case. Compare the traffic fatality rates of the US and the UK. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate) A greater degree of freedom, and the concommitant acceptance of greater risk, is inherent in the common character of America. That may be good or ill, but it is who we are as a people.

* I, personally, do not claim that America is the "best" in any objective sense. It is the country that *I *like best, though there are aspects of other countries from which I wish we would learn. But my tastes are surely influenced by my environment and upbrining, as yours no doubt were as well.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I've never disputed that. Thr UK has been worse than the US for many years as regards violent crime.
> 
> But you will see from my comments that I'm talking from the perspective of Sweden, being a Swedish resident.
> Hell, why do you think I live here and not in the UK?


This is circling back to my exchanges with Haffman. If the only difference between Sweeden and the US were firearms laws, then Swedish data might be useful for predicting the result if America adopted similar firearms laws. But that's hardly the only difference. Sweden's population is different. Sweeden's entire social contract with its citizenry is different. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps if the US adopted the Swedish approach from top to bottom we might get similar results. But to expect that we could adopt one small part - firearms laws - and get similar results is absurd.


----------



## Bjorn

CuffDaddy said:


> This is circling back to my exchanges with Haffman. If the only difference between Sweeden and the US were firearms laws, then Swedish data might be useful for predicting the result if America adopted similar firearms laws. But that's hardly the only difference. Sweden's population is different. Sweeden's entire social contract with its citizenry is different. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps if the US adopted the Swedish approach from top to bottom we might get similar results. But to expect that we could adopt one small part - firearms laws - and get similar results is absurd.


I'm not really sure the social contract is that different. I'm thinking perhaps you're overstating the differences (in general).


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Chouan said:


> Which speaks volumes for the ineffectualness of US crime prevention. All kinds of armed security forces, State police, Federal police, private police, armed private detectives, local armed security people, and you still need personal firearms to protect your family. What an awful country it must be that you feel the need to carry personal firearms. Or, is it a self-perpetuating pretext that allows you to justify the possession of lethal toys?


Exactly the point I made pages ago. Guns beget guns, violence begets violence. Until the US alters its outdated constitution nothing will change. And they won't alter it because the arms industry is far too profitable for all stakeholders. The first step is for the US to realise that aspects of its constitution no longer apply 200 years later.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Chouan said:


> Which speaks volumes for the ineffectualness of US crime prevention. All kinds of armed security forces, State police, Federal police, private police, armed private detectives, local armed security people, and you still need personal firearms to protect your family. What an awful country it must be that you feel the need to carry personal firearms. Or, is it a self-perpetuating pretext that allows you to justify the possession of lethal toys?


Chouan, please read this post (https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...e-here-a-gun-enthusiast&p=1353692#post1353692 ) which recounts a personal experience of mine. Tell me which part I have pretextually fabricated.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Bjorn said:


> I'm not really sure the social contract is that different. I'm thinking perhaps you're overstating the differences (in general).


No, it's pretty different. Americans are generally much more "on their own."


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Actually CD, Sweden and the US are far more similar to each other than the UK and Sweden are.

Both Sweden and the US have huge tracts of land that are unpopulated or almost unpopulated, and other areas that are severely underpopulated, but nowhere or maybe 1 or 2 places that can be called overpopulated by UK standards. The UK doesn't have huge empty unpopulated tracts of land. The UK is an overcrowded island.


The violent crime of the UK has more to do with people getting on each other's nerves due overcrowding, noise, greed, pollution, unemployment and poverty than with the possession or not of firearms.


Many of those problems don't exist in Sweden. Nor, I would guess do they exist in many parts of the US.


Soooo.....similarities?

Many 

Differences........?

We don't have firearms.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

CuffDaddy said:


> Americans are generally much more "on their own."


Sorry, but you don't know Sweden very well then.


----------



## hardline_42

Chouan said:


> Which speaks volumes for the ineffectualness of US crime prevention. All kinds of armed security forces, State police, Federal police, private police, armed private detectives, local armed security people, and you still need personal firearms to protect your family. What an awful country it must be that you feel the need to carry personal firearms. Or, is it a self-perpetuating pretext that allows you to justify the possession of lethal toys?


Did you purposely gloss over the fact that your country has 3.5 times more violent crime than the U.S.? How about the fact that violent crime in the U.S. has dropped by 50% in the last 20 years while gun ownership has increased? Honestly, I don't even know what it is you're arguing. I keep and bear arms because a) there is still violent crime in the U.S., even though it is significantly LESS than in yours (how can you stand to live in such a violent country?) and b) the police have neither the responsibility nor the ability to defend me and mine in the rare case that a violent crime should occur. If those are not reasons enough for you, then we have very different standards of living.


----------



## Bjorn

CuffDaddy said:


> Chouan, please read this post (https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...e-here-a-gun-enthusiast&p=1353692#post1353692 ) which recounts a personal experience of mine. Tell me which part I have pretextually fabricated.


Which post nr is that? Sorry, the linking doesn't seem to work in the tapatalk app


----------



## CuffDaddy

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Sorry, but you don't know Sweden very well then.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model


----------



## Bjorn

hardline_42 said:


> Did you purposely gloss over the fact that your country has 3.5 times more violent crime than the U.S.? How about the fact that violent crime in the U.S. has dropped by 50% in the last 20 years while gun ownership has increased? Honestly, I don't even know what it is you're arguing. I keep and bear arms because a) there is still violent crime in the U.S., even though it is significantly LESS than in yours (how can you stand to live in such a violent country?) and b) the police have neither the responsibility nor the ability to defend me and mine in the rare case that a violent crime should occur. If those are not reasons enough for you, then we have very different standards of living.


But then, do you really have a "police"?

Also, crime is more dependent on poverty and social stresses perhaps than gun ownership, or o you claim that gun ownership lowers crime?


----------



## Bjorn

CuffDaddy said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model


But what, exactly, is different in that that makes our social contracts different? And if ours are different, what makes yours require a right to bear arms?

The differences are not huge between Europe and the US. It's much more different going to Russia than to the US...


----------



## hardline_42

Bjorn said:


> But then, do you really have a "police"?
> 
> Also, crime is more dependent on poverty and social stresses perhaps than gun ownership, or o you claim that gun ownership lowers crime?


It depends on what the definition of "police" is. As I've mentioned before, the police has no legal duty to protect individuals. They exist to enforce the law which, in turn, is powerless to prevent or defend against crime. It can only punish a criminal after the fact. The police act as a deterrent against crime not as a defense.

With regards to your second question, I mentioned the statistic only to show that there is no correlation between the availability of guns and the rate of violent crime, though issuance of concealed carry permits has been shown to reduce crime at state and local levels. There is this mantra repeated by certain members that "guns beget guns, violence begets violence," etc. If that is the case, then I don't understand how there can be more guns and less violent crime. You hit the nail on the head regarding the real factors that are behind it, though.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Bjorn said:


> Which post nr is that? Sorry, the linking doesn't seem to work in the tapatalk app


That's the post where I recount the actual story of my actual wife being accosted by an actual lunatic on the street who later actually attacked another woman with an actual brick. Had my wife been half a step slower, or the lunatic half a step faster, a gun might have been the only thing to save her from assault or much, much worse.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Bjorn said:


> Also, crime is more dependent on poverty and social stresses perhaps than gun ownership, or o you claim that gun ownership lowers crime?


There is some evidence that (legal) gun ownership _does_ lower crime in the American context. One can slice the data other ways and show a contrary effect. In the end, I think it makes relatively little difference. Criminals will committ crime whether there are guns or not.

The question is what creates criminals, and I think you are correctly identifying some of them.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Bjorn said:


> But what, exactly, is different in that that makes our social contracts different? And if ours are different, what makes yours require a right to bear arms?
> 
> The differences are not huge between Europe and the US. It's much more different going to Russia than to the US...


The differences are too numerous to list, but I can give a single example. When a working woman has a child in America, she is entitled to take a 12-week leave of absence from her job. The employer has no legal obligation to pay her during this time, and the government provides no support. In Sweden, Wikipedia claims that this is the arrangement: 
Sweden provides working parents with an entitlement of 16 months paid leave per child at 80 percent pay, the cost being shared between employer and the state.[SUP][5][/SUP] To encourage greater paternal involvement in child-rearing, a minimum of 2 months out of the 16 is required to be used by the "minority" parent, in practice usually the father,

Is the Swedish approach on this matter better? I have my personal opinion ("probably"), but regardless of which system one prefers, there is no question that there is an enormous difference between the two. In Sweden, the governement, both directly and through the compelled cooperation of the employer, helps to significantly bear and subsidize the cost (both in money and time) of initial child rearing. In America, you're on your own. If you have the foresight and fortune to strike a bargain with your employer that grants you more, then that's still your doing. If not, they'll hold your chair for you for 3 months, and you've othewise got to figure out everything.

That's not one-off, that's typical of the approaches of the two countries. In America, you mostly have to fend for yourself.


----------



## Chouan

hardline_42 said:


> Did you purposely gloss over the fact that your country has 3.5 times more violent crime than the U.S.? How about the fact that violent crime in the U.S. has dropped by 50% in the last 20 years while gun ownership has increased? Honestly, I don't even know what it is you're arguing. I keep and bear arms because a) there is still violent crime in the U.S., even though it is significantly LESS than in yours (how can you stand to live in such a violent country?) and b) the police have neither the responsibility nor the ability to defend me and mine in the rare case that a violent crime should occur. If those are not reasons enough for you, then we have very different standards of living.


It depends upon perceptions of crime, especially violent crime. I can go out, or stay at home, where I live without fearing that I will be attacked. Indeed in most parts of Britain I would still not go around fearing that I'll be attacked. In some places I may be more careful than in others, but my life isn't ruled by fear of attack. Consequently I feel no need to own a personal firearm to make me feel safe. I already feel safe. 
If I am attacked at home I know that I am at liberty to defend myself using reasonable force. If that means an old cricket bat or whatever, that's fine. My intruder is unlikely to be armed, certainly not with a firearm. Similarly, an assailant in the street is unlikely to be armed with a firearm. I have the security of a usually unarmed civilian police who police through my consent, in that they are not a branch of the military, or of the government.
Clearly your perceptions of violence and crime in the US are different to mine in the UK. You clearly live in fear of violence, hence your need to carry or possess a firearm for personal protection. I would suggest then that, based on your need for firearm protection that the US is clearly a dangerous place to live in. An armed police force that won't protect you and a fear of attack that is so profound that you need a firearm.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Chouan, I wear a seat belt when I drive. Does that mean I "live in fear" of automobile accidents? Despite the fact that the odds of my being killed in a car accident outweigh my chances of being shot, the answer is "no." It means that I have made an appraisal of the risks presented by the world in which I live, and the risks inherent in being a mortal human being. I have decided to avail myself of a particular tool to deal with those risks. And then, satisfied that I have taken reasonable an appropriate measures to deal with those risks, I go about my business and live a generally happy life.


----------



## hardline_42

Chouan said:


> Clearly your perceptions of violence and crime in the US are different to mine in the UK. You clearly live in fear of violence, hence your need to carry or possess a firearm for personal protection. I would suggest then that, based on your need for firearm protection that the US is clearly a dangerous place to live in. An armed police force that won't protect you and a fear of attack that is so profound that you need a firearm.


You assume that I own firearms because I fear an attack. That is quite a stretch. I have life insurance, but I don't live in constant fear of death. I have health insurance, yet I don't live in constant fear of illness. I wear my seat belt when I drive, but I don't plan on getting in an accident. I have fire extinguishers in my home but I don't live in fear of fire. Why should owning a firearm be any different? If anything, I could say that I live without fear BECAUSE I've taken the necessary precautions against potential dangers.

Regardless of our "perceptions" the bottom line is that I am more likely to be a victim of violent crime in the UK than I am in the US.

*Edit: Looks like C Diddy covered it while I was typing.


----------



## CuffDaddy

hardline_42 said:


> If anything, I could say that I live without fear BECAUSE I've taken the necessary precautions against potential dangers.


Exactly. I know that a late-night invasion of my home - very unlikely, but possible - would be repelled. Between my dogs, the layout of our home (sleeping quarters on second story, single staircase with a blind turn for one coming up the stairs), and me at the top of the stairs with a firearm (and my wife and daughter past/behind me with their own last line of defense), nothing short of a SWAT team is getting to my family. And that lets me sleep easier at night.


----------



## Jovan

Can I just take a moment to say... "C Diddy"...

That made me chuckle.


----------



## hardline_42

Jovan said:


> Can I just take a moment to say... "C Diddy"...
> 
> That made me chuckle.


Don't make me bring back "J-Money."


----------



## CuffDaddy

Yo yo, dat's how we roll in the A T L! ;P


----------



## Jovan

J-Money in the A.B.Q.


----------



## Bjorn

CuffDaddy said:


> The differences are too numerous to list, but I can give a single example. When a working woman has a child in America, she is entitled to take a 12-week leave of absence from her job. The employer has no legal obligation to pay her during this time, and the government provides no support. In Sweden, Wikipedia claims that this is the arrangement:
> Sweden provides working parents with an entitlement of 16 months paid leave per child at 80 percent pay, the cost being shared between employer and the state.[SUP][5][/SUP] To encourage greater paternal involvement in child-rearing, a minimum of 2 months out of the 16 is required to be used by the "minority" parent, in practice usually the father,
> 
> Is the Swedish approach on this matter better? I have my personal opinion ("probably"), but regardless of which system one prefers, there is no question that there is an enormous difference between the two. In Sweden, the governement, both directly and through the compelled cooperation of the employer, helps to significantly bear and subsidize the cost (both in money and time) of initial child rearing. In America, you're on your own. If you have the foresight and fortune to strike a bargain with your employer that grants you more, then that's still your doing. If not, they'll hold your chair for you for 3 months, and you've othewise got to figure out everything.
> 
> That's not one-off, that's typical of the approaches of the two countries. In America, you mostly have to fend for yourself.


Ok papa diddely cuff  I'm thinking what you are describing is a difference in taxation and social security rather than a fundamental difference in rights/freedom though...


----------



## CuffDaddy

Bjorn said:


> Ok papa diddely cuff  I'm thinking what you are describing is a difference in taxation and social security rather than a fundamental difference in rights/freedom though...


? They are two sides of the same coin. In my country, employers have the right to decide whether they will derive more utility from employees by not paying for maternity leave and/or by holding new parents to only 3 months of leave, or, alternatively, by offering a more generous benefit package. And, at least when economic times are not terrible, employees can choose between different employers on that basis if that is material to them.

In much of Europe, governments are limiting the sale of GMO as foodstuffs. In America, there are no similar restrictions. American consumers can choose whether to pay more for non-GMO food, or derive the various benefits of GMOs.

In America, we are much less determined to collectively nerf the world. In exchange for a greater array of choices about how to live our lives, we accept greater risks. That's a difference that cuts across many different policy fields. Guns are just one example.

Why is this relevant? Well, not only does it touch on our national characters, and why so many Americans recoil at the kind of restrictions that Europeans have placed on guns, it also renders comparative data about crime and violence pretty useless. Europe has a more nurturing environment for its citizens. As you previously noted, crime has most of its roots in social issues. Europeans have developed a rather comprehensive array of systems to deal with those social issues, many of which America's system simply accept, or deal with in only half-measures. Implementing gun control without a wholesale revision of most of our social rules to more closely resemble Europe would not produce comparable results to Europe.


----------



## Jovan

Re: GMOs -- we don't exactly have the "choice" yet because producers don't have to label such foods in the United States.


----------



## CuffDaddy

No, but you can look for things that are affirmatively marketed as NON-GMO. Here's Whole Foods' website re: GMOs. https://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/mission-values/environmental-stewardship/genetically-engineered-foods

FWIW, I'm pretty dubious about the whole GMO flap. Everything that is domestically raised was genetically modified by humans. It's just that, prior to the last 20 years or so, those modifications had to be done through inefficient breeding, hybridizing, etc. But we've been eating "frankenfood" since we took off the bear pelts and built our own huts.


----------



## hardline_42

CuffDaddy said:


> No, but you can look for things that are affirmatively marketed as NON-GMO. Here's Whole Foods' website re: GMOs.


I was just going to comment something to this effect. Producers that cater to the non-GMO crowd are quick to point out their products are GMO-free because it's good for business, regardless of the law. If you're the type of person that prefers GMO-free products, you probably already know where you can get them. The average person buying the average product at the average supermarket is probably not too concerned with GMOs.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Right. Now, there's a very legitimate point of view that more people would be concerned about GMOs if they knew about them, and saw how much of the food they consume contained it. So maybe they should be labeled. "More disclosure" often seems like a good answer to me. But even in the absence of a disclosure requirement, one can still make a choice today, which would not be the case in the event of a ban.


----------



## hardline_42

CuffDaddy said:


> In America, we are much less determined to collectively nerf the world.


Didn't want to let this gem get by unnoticed. Nerf the world. I love it. Unfortunately, it doesn't apply to all of America. I can't legally buy raw milk where I live. In the early 90's, my state banned undercooked eggs in an effort to crack down on salmonella poisoning. The town of Ocean City recently banned the sale and possession of laser pointers to prevent people from signaling aircraft. I think I'm in America, but everywhere I turn I see orange and blue foam!


----------



## CuffDaddy

Oh, don't get me wrong, the world-nerfing impulse is here. It manifests itself differently in different regions. Finally, finally, just last year, my state decided that I could be trusted to buy alcohol on Sundays, _provided_ a majority of those who live in my city agreed (which they did, by about 5 to 1). Misdirected paternalism abounds.

But the system is much more given over to that impulse in Europe. It has some benefits. One might rationally prefer that arrangement. But one might rationally prefer the opposite, as well.


----------



## Jovan

CuffDaddy, I respect you and think you're usually a pretty informed guy. So it came as a surprise to me that you don't know the real stigma about GMO food. It isn't "ew, frankenfood", it's the health risks.

https://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/pusztai.html


----------



## CuffDaddy

Oh, I know all about the stigma. The scant science evidence in support of a "problem" is unpersuassive to me, at least at this point.

Now, talk to me about hormones in milk and meat, and I'll nod my head.


----------



## Shaver

CuffDaddy said:


> Oh, I know all about the stigma. The scant science evidence in support of a "problem" is unpersuassive to me, at least at this point.
> 
> Now, talk to me about hormones in milk and meat, and I'll nod my head.


Monsanto are more of a problem, a more immediate threat, a more dangerous menace, than all the guns in America.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Shaver said:


> Monsanto are more of a problem, a more immediate threat, a more dangerous menace, than all the guns in America.


Perhaps. There are many reasons to be concerned about agri-business. Do you speak specifically of GMOs?


----------



## Jovan

More the fact that Monsanto have a scary amount of power. One of the little gems about them is, since they own the patent to the seeds (not the genetic engineering process, the FREAKING SEEDS THEMSELVES), if you re-seed they can sue you. That's just bonkers. But they do it on purpose. It makes farmers throw away perfectly good seeds from their last crop and buy new ones. All for the big buck.


----------



## Shaver

CuffDaddy said:


> Perhaps. There are many reasons to be concerned about agri-business. Do you speak specifically of GMOs?


I speak of their business practices as well as their products. They are globalists of the worst cast and *nothing* they could do would surprise me given the proven allegations against them.

A company responsible for Agent Orange and DDT who brand themselves as environmentally friendly? Pah!


----------



## CuffDaddy

Jovan said:


> More the fact that Monsanto have a scary amount of power. One of the little gems about them is, since they own the patent to the seeds (not the genetic engineering process, the FREAKING SEEDS THEMSELVES), if you re-seed they can sue you. That's just bonkers. But they do it on purpose. It makes farmers throw away perfectly good seeds from their last crop and buy new ones. All for the big buck.


I understand the concern there, for sure.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

CuffDaddy said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model


Ok, I se what you mean now - the relationship between citizens and a protective society. Yes, Sweden has often been called a nanny state. I thought you meant "on their own" as a personal characteristic or desire to be alone, which is very Swedish.

Anyway, the safety net of the nanny state allows people to be even more on their own if they want to.


----------



## tocqueville

The price of 'liberty.'

https://blogs.forward.com/forward-t...f-noah-pozners-killing/#.UOcWW5u9HGw.facebook


----------



## Haffman

hardline_42 said:


> *Did you purposely gloss over the fact that your country has 3.5 times more violent crime than the U.S.? * How about the fact that violent crime in the U.S. has dropped by 50% in the last 20 years while gun ownership has increased? Honestly, I don't even know what it is you're arguing. I keep and bear arms because a) there is still violent crime in the U.S., even though it is significantly LESS than in yours (how can you stand to live in such a violent country?) and b) the police have neither the responsibility nor the ability to defend me and mine in the rare case that a violent crime should occur. If those are not reasons enough for you, then we have very different standards of living.


Hardline could you link to your data, I would (genuinely) like to see it. I googled for it and found a report saying the UK had 75% more violent crime (still an interesting finding) but not 350%


----------



## Shaver

Haffman said:


> Hardline could you link to your data, I would (genuinely) like to see it. I googled for it and found a report saying the UK had 75% more violent crime (still an interesting finding) but not 350%


75% more violent crime_ per capita_. However as it is the same folk getting involved in the violent crime over and over again* then in real terms it's 350%. :icon_smile_wink:

* cf Dr Ofer Zur et al https://www.zurinstitute.com/victimhood.html


----------



## hardline_42

Haffman said:


> Hardline could you link to your data, I would (genuinely) like to see it. I googled for it and found a report saying the UK had 75% more violent crime (still an interesting finding) but not 350%


For the U.S. numbers, here are the FBI crime stats for 1992-2011. The last line, 4th column, shows a violent crime rate of 386.3 per 100,000 inhabitants for 2011.

For England & Wales, the link to the Home Office crime stats is here. Table 1 in the Data Tables spreadsheet shows the total number of violent crime offenses to be 762,515 between July '11 and June '12. The total population of England and Wales according to the latest census is 56 million. That would make the violent crime rate 762,515 per 56,000,000 or 1361.6 per 100,000

U.S. Violent Crime Rate: *386.3 per 100,000*
U.K. Violent Crime Rate: *1361.6 per 100,000*

*1361.6 / 386.3 = 3.525*


----------



## Haffman

hardline_42 said:


> For the U.S. numbers, here are the FBI crime stats for 1992-2011. The last line, 4th column, shows a violent crime rate of 386.3 per 100,000 inhabitants for 2011.
> 
> For England & Wales, the link to the Home Office crime stats is here. Table 1 in the Data Tables spreadsheet shows the total number of violent crime offenses to be 762,515 between July '11 and June '12. The total population of England and Wales according to the latest census is 56 million. That would make the violent crime rate 762,515 per 56,000,000 or 1361.6 per 100,000
> 
> U.S. Violent Crime Rate: *386.3 per 100,000*
> U.K. Violent Crime Rate: *1361.6 per 100,000*
> 
> *1361.6 / 386.3 = 3.525*


Thanks Hardline, I'll need to study this data when I'm not on my iPhone!


----------



## Bjorn

CuffDaddy said:


> ? They are two sides of the same coin. In my country, employers have the right to decide whether they will derive more utility from employees by not paying for maternity leave and/or by holding new parents to only 3 months of leave, or, alternatively, by offering a more generous benefit package. And, at least when economic times are not terrible, employees can choose between different employers on that basis if that is material to them.
> 
> In much of Europe, governments are limiting the sale of GMO as foodstuffs. In America, there are no similar restrictions. American consumers can choose whether to pay more for non-GMO food, or derive the various benefits of GMOs.
> 
> In America, we are much less determined to collectively nerf the world. In exchange for a greater array of choices about how to live our lives, we accept greater risks. That's a difference that cuts across many different policy fields. Guns are just one example.
> 
> Why is this relevant? Well, not only does it touch on our national characters, and why so many Americans recoil at the kind of restrictions that Europeans have placed on guns, it also renders comparative data about crime and violence pretty useless. Europe has a more nurturing environment for its citizens. As you previously noted, crime has most of its roots in social issues. Europeans have developed a rather comprehensive array of systems to deal with those social issues, many of which America's system simply accept, or deal with in only half-measures. Implementing gun control without a wholesale revision of most of our social rules to more closely resemble Europe would not produce comparable results to Europe.


That seems a reasonable assumption. I'm not sure you have any real choice in the matter, though.

Social systems make economical sense. They are fairly inevitable in an increasingly ordered society. Society orders itself unless there are times of strife. Its the only way to deal with basic problems like poverty. Finding a balanced approach seems key. We are deregulating certain sectors and have lowered taxes some.

In view of your last two presidential elections and your changing demographic (occupy wall street for example) it seems you'll be heading in the opposite direction. It'll be a fair distance before we meet. Take comfort, perhaps, in that life really isn't that different anyway.


----------



## CuffDaddy

FWIW, Bjorn, I voted for Obama both times. I agree that a few steps in your direction on various issues wouldn't be a bad thing.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Hardline, England and Wales is NOT the entire UK, so dividing UK stats amongst the lower population of just England & Wales is incorrect. The UK population stats cover, 1. England & Wales 2. Scotland and 3. Northern Ireland.

The population of the UK at the March 2011 census was 63,181,775.


----------



## Haffman

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Hardline, England and Wales is NOT the entire UK, so dividing UK stats amongst the lower population of just England & Wales is incorrect. The UK population stats cover, 1. England & Wales 2. Scotland and 3. Northern Ireland.
> 
> The population of the UK at the March 2011 census was 63,181,775.


True but if Hardline's figures are right there is still a _massive_ difference


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Haffman said:


> True but if Hardline's figures are right there is still a _massive_ difference


Oh absolutely, but we need to compare like with like, the entire population of the US with the UK's ditto.


----------



## hardline_42

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Hardline, England and Wales is NOT the entire UK, so dividing UK stats amongst the lower population of just England & Wales is incorrect. The UK population stats cover, 1. England & Wales 2. Scotland and 3. Northern Ireland.
> 
> The population of the UK at the March 2011 census was 63,181,775.


Scotland and Northern Ireland keep their own separate stats. I'm sure it won't surprise you that their violent crime rate is even higher than England and Wales. I'll be out on the road for a bit but I'll happily put those number together later if you like. Here are the sources:

Scotland: https://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2012/06/1698/7

NI: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...iwVyoEl56OZHDKx-ZSNsA&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.dmQ


----------



## Shaver

Haffman said:


> True but if Hardline's figures are right there is still a _massive_ difference


Congratulations on your 1000th Post! :icon_cheers:


----------



## Haffman

Shaver said:


> Congratulations on your 1000th Post! :icon_cheers:


Thank you, kind sir. It has been a long time getting here. I shall have a pipe or two to celebrate and ponder everything I've learned!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

hardline_42 said:


> Scotland and Northern Ireland keep their own separate stats. I'm sure it won't surprise you that their violent crime rate is even higher than England and Wales. I'll be out on the road for a bit but I'll happily put those number together later if you like. Here are the sources:
> 
> Scotland: https://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2012/06/1698/7
> 
> NI: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDwQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.psni.police.uk%2Fpolice_recorded_crime_in_northern_ireland_1998-99_to_2011-12.pdf&ei=8VPnUKuYKY-60QGWq4DgAw&usg=AFQjCNFOVBmJEKrX6B8sCC7Vi6MJsqahBQ&sig2=QiwVyoEl56OZHDKx-ZSNsA&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.dmQ


Oh right, I assumed there would be an overall stats list, but clearly not. Thanks.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Haffman said:


> Thank you, kind sir. It has been a long time getting here. I shall have a pipe or two to celebrate and ponder everything I've learned!


Bleedin' newcomer!


----------



## Haffman

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Bleedin' newcomer!


I hope for the sake of my bank balance my next 1000 posts are not associated with as many random shoe purchases as my first... :wink2:


----------



## Jovan

Congrats, Haffman.  Membership here is indeed dangerous for one's bank balance...


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Someone explain this word "nerf" for me please.


----------



## Haffman

Jovan said:


> Congrats, Haffman.  Membership here is indeed dangerous for one's bank balance...


Cheers Jovan :smile:


----------



## CuffDaddy

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Someone explain this word "nerf" for me please.


Nerf is a brand of children's toys that are made of soft foam. You can get hit in the face with one thrown hard and you won't be injured. Of course, few adults use them, preferring real golf balls and real baseball bats and real darts and so on, despite an increased risk of injury or worse .

As I used it, I meant it as a metaphor for trying to take all the risk out of life.


----------



## CuffDaddy

To Chouan, and others who deny the utility of firearms, which part of THIS story (which now leads my local paper's website - just happened to run across it as I checked for the latest local) is "pretext":



Guns can take lives. They can also save lives. Here, it was the lives of a mother and her children. The intruder had a crowbar. Anything but a gun and the mother and children are likely raped, dead, etc.


----------



## Haffman

CuffDaddy said:


> To Chouan, and others who deny the utility of firearms, which part of THIS story (which now leads my local paper's website - just happened to run across it as I checked for the latest local) is "pretext":
> 
> Guns can take lives. They can also save lives. Here, it was the lives of a mother and her children. The intruder had a crowbar. Anything but a gun and the mother and children are likely raped, dead, etc.


6 shots fired, 5 to the head/neck, thats some civilian justice ! The hood is lucky to be alive. I think she is ready to upgrade to a Magnum now!

As usual Cuff, I am not sure having read this story if I am supposed to feel that Americans are safer or less safe. Or that civilians access to firearms is a price worth paying for all these massacres of children and young prople that seem to be happening on a more than annual basis, when something like a dog might also do the job of 'home defence'. (*)

But yes, she certainly defended her family and lives were potentially saved. Do you think there would have been any less acclaim if the five shots to the head had blown his head off?

(*) - always assuming some gun controls so guns are not so readily available, as previously discussed the realism of this assumption has been called into question


----------



## Bjorn

CuffDaddy said:


> FWIW, Bjorn, I voted for Obama both times. I agree that a few steps in your direction on various issues wouldn't be a bad thing.


I have the same view regarding Sweden, that a few steps in your direction would not be a bad thing. Or perhaps there will be new directions in the future.


----------



## Shaver

Haffman said:


> 6 shots fired, 5 to the head/neck, thats some civilian justice ! The hood is lucky to be alive. I think she is ready to upgrade to a Magnum now!
> 
> As usual Cuff, I am not sure having read this story if I am supposed to feel that Americans are safer or less safe. Or that civilians access to firearms is a price worth paying for all these massacres of children and young prople that seem to be happening on a more than annual basis, when something like a dog might also do the job of 'home defence'. (*)
> 
> But yes, she certainly defended her family and lives were potentially saved. Do you think there would have been any less acclaim if the five shots to the head had blown his head off?
> 
> (*) - always assuming some gun controls so guns are not so readily available, as previously discussed the realism of this assumption has been called into question


Initially, why in God's name would you ring your husband at work panicking because someone rang your doorbell? And why would he tell you to hide as he called 911? These people are clearly involved in something very dodgy.

Anyway, as far as I'm concerened once an intruder is in your home then _*any*_ punishment you fancy dishing out is fair play.


----------



## eagle2250

Haffman said:


> I hope for the sake of my bank balance my next 1000 posts are not associated with as many random shoe purchases as my first... :wink2:


Allow me to add a hearty well done on your first 1000 posts...and every one offering an interesting and substantive point made, IMHO. However, LOL, if you think buying shoes can be hazardous to your bank balance, you ought to try buying an AR-15 in a purchasing environment being driven by the seemingly boundless hysteria of the 'gun-control crowd.' It appears likely that I could pick up six to eight new pair of Alden's for what such a purchase could eventually cost me!


----------



## CuffDaddy

Haffman said:


> Do you think there would have been any less acclaim if the five shots to the head had blown his head off?


Probably a little more. In my part of the country, the dominant sentiment is that the man who goes looking to do harm and blunders into a buzzsaw has earned his reward. The woman appears to have been well within her rights, and society is doubtless better off without the invader roaming the streets. He will cost more to keep in a prison medical ward than in a morgue, though.

You are astute to note that the woman landed 5 shots to the head (a feat very few law enforcement officers would manage under stress), yet the invader lived. Imagine, as is becoming more common, that there had been 2, 3, or 4 invaders. The need for a "high-capacity" magazine and the availability of a quick reload starts to look more real (however unlikely for any particular individual) and less like a fantasy. And the stopping power of a carbine, as opposed to a handgun, also begins to seem more desirable.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Haffman said:


> (*) - always assuming some gun controls so guns are not so readily available, as previously discussed the realism of this assumption has been called into question


Marijuana has been illegal for about a century here. Yet every high schooler who wants a nickel bag of funk can get one. Prohibition of substances that are ubiquitous and in high demand doesn't work. Weed or guns, the result will be the same: failure.


----------



## Haffman

CuffDaddy said:


> Probably a little more. In my part of the country, the dominant sentiment is that the man who goes looking to do harm and blunders into a buzzsaw has earned his reward. The woman appears to have been well within her rights, and society is doubtless better off without the invader roaming the streets. He will cost more to keep in a prison medical ward than in a morgue, though.


Perhaps the police can be given a new 'shoot to kill' policy ? It could help deter crime and also make inroads in the national debt, in the manner you imply.


----------



## Haffman

CuffDaddy said:


> You are astute to note that the woman landed 5 shots to the head (a feat very few law enforcement officers would manage under stress), yet the invader lived. Imagine, as is becoming more common, that there had been 2, 3, or 4 invaders. The need for a "high-capacity" magazine and the availability of a quick reload starts to look more real (however unlikely for any particular individual) and less like a fantasy. And the stopping power of a carbine, as opposed to a handgun, also begins to seem more desirable.


I can see your point. The woman was rather fortunate that she only had one perp to deal with and he was not armed with a handgun. It is disconcerting that she hit him five times with the .38 and he was not immobilized. What if there had been several armed with firearms ? What if her gun had jammed ?

I would suggest a higher calibre primary weapon, with a high-capacity magazine, at least one secondary weapon in a quick release harness, and either an under/over grenade launcher on the primary weapon or one of those 'pirate pistol' grenade launchers as used by the US Navy SEALs.

A utility-knife / KA-bar might also be useful if the sh** really hits the fan ! :wink2:


----------



## Haffman

eagle2250 said:


> Allow me to add a hearty well done on your first 1000 posts...and every one offering an interesting and substantive point made, IMHO. However, LOL, if you think buying shoes can be hazardous to your bank balance, you ought to try buying an AR-15 in a purchasing environment being driven by the seemingly boundless hysteria of the 'gun-control crowd.' It appears likely that I could pick up six to eight new pair of Alden's for what such a purchase could eventually cost me!


Many thanks Eagle, it has been a pleasure to participate in this excellent forum :smile:. I can certainly see your point on the AR-15, after my disconcerting conversations with CuffDaddy and the realisation (via Hardline) that I indeed live in a very dangerous country, I think I would need a second mortgage to get 'tooled up' in such a way as to guarantee peace of mind!!

At least with your AR-15 you can shoot a few stray horses and make yourself some Aldens?! Worth thinking about! :wink2:


----------



## Haffman

Shaver said:


> Initially, why in God's name would you ring your husband at work panicking because someone rang your doorbell? And why would he tell you to hide as he called 911? These people are clearly involved in something very dodgy.


The police should have checked to see what was in the basement ! :wink2:


----------



## hardline_42

Haffman said:


> I would suggest a higher calibre primary weapon, with a high-capacity magazine, at least one secondary weapon in a quick release harness, and either an under/over grenade launcher on the primary weapon or one of those 'pirate pistol' grenade launchers as used by the US Navy SEALs.


:biggrin2:

As you have cleverly observed, it's easy to get out of hand. For many, a pistol in the nightstand is enough. For others, only a .308 FN-FAL in every closet on the route to a lead-lined panic room will do.


----------



## Haffman

hardline_42 said:


> :biggrin2:
> 
> As you have cleverly observed, it's easy to get out of hand. For many, a pistol in the nightstand is enough. For others, only a .308 FN-FAL in every closet on the route to a lead-lined panic room will do.


Given my own liking for true life war stories a la _Bravo Two Zero_ I rather fear I might end up in the second category if I was that way inclined...I am sure it can get addictive!


----------



## CuffDaddy

Haffman said:


> I can see your point. The woman was rather fortunate that she only had one perp to deal with and he was not armed with a handgun. It is disconcerting that she hit him five times with the .38 and he was not immobilized. What if there had been several armed with firearms ? What if her gun had jammed ?
> 
> I would suggest a higher calibre primary weapon, with a high-capacity magazine, at least one secondary weapon in a quick release harness, and either an under/over grenade launcher on the primary weapon or one of those 'pirate pistol' grenade launchers as used by the US Navy SEALs.
> 
> A utility-knife / KA-bar might also be useful if the sh** really hits the fan ! :wink2:


Don't be ridiculous. Nobody uses a grenade launcher in their own house.


----------



## Haffman

CuffDaddy said:


> Don't be ridiculous. Nobody uses a grenade launcher in their own house.


You can put flashbangs in them rather than high explosive ? Course you would need a respirator and black ops assault kit as well...


----------



## Shaver

CuffDaddy said:


> Don't be ridiculous. Nobody uses a grenade launcher in their own house.


Have you not seen Scarface (Pacino version)?


----------



## Shaver

Haffman said:


> The police should have checked to see what was in the basement ! :wink2:


Damn straight! This lot have something to hide. I wouldn't be surprised if that guy wasn't there to collect on a drug debt they owed him. Calling 911 when someone rings your doorbell is not the act of an upright citizen.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Not necessarily. Lots of people have peepholes in their door and will not open the door for someone they don't know. A legitimate visitor - such as a salesman, deliveryman, or door-to-door political canvaser - will knock once or twice, then leave. But a burglar who is trying to identify unoccupied houses to ransack will knock more and more aggressively. Answering the door once that happens is obviously a wrong move. Calling the cops is the right move, as is retreating to a safe place in the house.

There's nothing in the story that looks like suspicious behavior to me at all. I know many people (white-collar professionals or stay-at-home moms) who would do exactly the same thing.


----------



## Jovan

Shaver said:


> Have you not seen Scarface (Pacino version)?


I hate to be "that guy" but this bit and many others like it in movies is complete rubbish. 40mm grenades like that have an arming distance of at least 25 yards IIRC.


----------



## Shaver

CuffDaddy said:


> Not necessarily. Lots of people have peepholes in their door and will not open the door for someone they don't know. A legitimate visitor - such as a salesman, deliveryman, or door-to-door political canvaser - will knock once or twice, then leave. But a burglar who is trying to identify unoccupied houses to ransack will knock more and more aggressively. Answering the door once that happens is obviously a wrong move. Calling the cops is the right move, as is retreating to a safe place in the house.
> 
> There's nothing in the story that looks like suspicious behavior to me at all. I know many people (white-collar professionals or stay-at-home moms) who would do exactly the same thing.


Wow! This seems like very nervous behaviour to me. If not totally paranoid.

Next time someone that I don't know knocks on my door will I hide and ring the police? Hmmm let me see....... No. Of course not.

Anyway, the chances that the English police would respond to a 999 call to the effect of 'someone I don't know knocked on my door and I'm very scared' are, shall we say, limited.

I'm pro-gun but the thought of a gun being in the hands of someone who is as terrified of everyday life as that is worrying.


----------



## CuffDaddy

I don't think she called anybody based on a knock at the door. She called when he became persistent and wouldn't quit knocking.


----------



## Shaver

CuffDaddy said:


> I don't think she called anybody based on a knock at the door. She called when he became persistent and wouldn't quit knocking.


Sometimes the fine fellows delivering my latest internet purchase will do exactly that if I don't answer the door first time. Quick! Call the police!

I'm sorry CD, but this is appalling alarmist behaviour. It smacks to me of some kind of phobia. Someone who is as easily spooked as that should be kept well away from firearms.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Hard to second-guess her instincts here, Shaver. People often get a feeling that something is "wrong," but ignore it. She was wise not to ignore it.


----------



## Haffman

Shaver said:


> Sometimes the fine fellows delivering my latest internet purchase will do exactly that if I don't answer the door first time. Quick! Call the police!
> 
> I'm sorry CD, but this is appalling alarmist behaviour. It smacks to me of some kind of phobia. Someone who is as easily spooked as that should be kept well away from firearms.


It _is _a bit of a strange story. Dodgy guy comes to the door and rings the bell. He then bangs on it for long enough for woman inside to (a) call to her kids (b) have a conversation with husband on phone (c) call 911 (d)get into a hiding place

Then dodgy guy crowbars into the house and supermom is there waiting for him, putting down 6 rounds with sharpshooter accuracy and 5 hits to the face and neck...

I guess it just takes all sorts?! :icon_scratch:


----------



## CuffDaddy

So your analysis is that it's a crazy, f***ed up world with people to match? Agreed.


----------



## Shaver

CuffDaddy said:


> So your analysis is that it's a crazy, f***ed up world with people to match? Agreed.


Agreed, of course. But let's try not to arm the crazy f****ed up people if we can avoid it. Certainly not the type of people who panic at the sound of a doorbell........ :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Chouan

hardline_42 said:


> Scotland and Northern Ireland keep their own separate stats. I'm sure it won't surprise you that their violent crime rate is even higher than England and Wales. I'll be out on the road for a bit but I'll happily put those number together later if you like. Here are the sources:
> 
> Scotland: https://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2012/06/1698/7
> 
> NI: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...iwVyoEl56OZHDKx-ZSNsA&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.dmQ


One of the problems with statistics is that the context and the background aren't clear. A few years ago the definition of violent crime in British crime figures changed. For example, a street altercation, involving shouting, but no physical contact, is now recorded as a violent crime, whereas 15 years ago it wasn't. Consequently violent crime could be argued as not having increased significantly at all.


----------



## Chouan

CuffDaddy said:


> You are unequivocally wrong regarding handguns. I have explained why. Your response is simply to say "nuh-uh." Persist in that ignorance if you wish, but that's all it is.


Explain to me how I'm wrong, please. 
An analogy. A foil is a sports implement. However, it is a training version of a small sword, in the same way that an epee and a sabre are training versions of a rapier and a cavalry sabre. Swords are designed for killing people in the same way that handguns are designed for killing people. Using a target pistol, or a foil, which are sporting implements, does not mean that hanguns and swords aren't designed to kill people.


----------



## hardline_42

Chouan said:


> One of the problems with statistics is that the context and the background aren't clear. A few years ago the definition of violent crime in British crime figures changed. For example, a street altercation, involving shouting, but no physical contact, is now recorded as a violent crime, whereas 15 years ago it wasn't. Consequently violent crime could be argued as not having increased significantly at all.


Yes, I know it's difficult (impossible, really) to make a true "apples to apples" comparison with so many variables. I did look carefully at the numbers I cited and their sources and took note of the differences between violent offenses with "injury to persons" and those without. However, I never meant to imply that crime had increased in the UK. I believe that, as in the US, it has also decreased in the last few years.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Chouan said:


> One of the problems with statistics is that the context and the background aren't clear. A few years ago the definition of violent crime in British crime figures changed. For example, a street altercation, involving shouting, but no physical contact, is now recorded as a violent crime, whereas 15 years ago it wasn't. Consequently violent crime could be argued as not having increased significantly at all.


Exactly! In my police days (83-96) a shouting match with no assualt or other physical contact was dealt with as a civil dispute OR if only one shouter, that shouter could be arrested for BoP (Breach of the Peace) or for a Section 5 offence - (causing harassment, alarm or distress) if he was still doing it when police arrived. A crime report was never made for these offences as they were not considered criminal (that is to say,drunkenness and fighting were never considered as criminal offences per se, rather just as public order offences, especially where no physical force was used.)

Violent crime in my day was murder, manslaughter, GBH, ABH, rape, aggravated burglary, robbery with menaces.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Chouan said:


> Explain to me how I'm wrong, please.
> An analogy. A foil is a sports implement. However, it is a training version of a small sword, in the same way that an epee and a sabre are training versions of a rapier and a cavalry sabre. Swords are designed for killing people in the same way that handguns are designed for killing people. Using a target pistol, or a foil, which are sporting implements, does not mean that hanguns and swords aren't designed to kill people.


Chouan, your own analogy is pretty apt, but makes my point, not yours. I own a few swords. One is a ceremonial officers' sword that belonged to my grandfather. It generally has the form of a cavalry sabre, and might be used for combat, but it would be a poor choice for it. It's too lightly built to stand up to the rigors of combat, and a single clash with another sword might ruin it. I also have a fencing foil. It is rectangular in section, and has a button tip, completely blunt. One could not penetrate a stuffed animal with it. The former was designed for ceremonial wear. The latter was designed to safely poke one's sporting companion/adversary. Both _echo_ things that were designed to kill, but neither was designed to kill. If one wanted to kill another human, not only would there by better weapons to use, there are better _non_-weapons to use.

The same is true of many handguns. The .22 target pistol is absolutely not designed to kill. Could it be pressed into service in that manner? Yes, as can the letter opener in my desk, or even a ball-point pen. (The wounds tracks of either of those two, if used with purpose and strength, are going to be worse than most .22lr wound tracks.) Can a large-frame, single-action .454 casull revolver with scope be used to kill a human? Sure, but it's an astonishingly poor choice, much worse than, say, a double-barrelled skeet gun, which could also be used against a person.

When you say "X is designed to kill humans," it seems to me that is literally a statement regarding the designer's intent. That's obviously false for a great many handguns. It could also be a metaphorical appraisal that killing humans is the most optimal use of the tool, that no other use suits it better. Also patently false. (See prior paragraph for explanation.)

The only way in which your statement could be remotely true is if the characteristics of one handgun can be imputed to all othes. You seem to argue that because some handguns were intended to shoot people, they are all imbued with that same "intent." But that's preposterous. That's like arguing that, because some cars are race cars, all cars are designed to win races.


----------



## hardline_42

Chouan said:


> One of the problems with statistics is that the context and the background aren't clear. A few years ago the definition of violent crime in British crime figures changed. For example, a street altercation, involving shouting, but no physical contact, is now recorded as a violent crime, whereas 15 years ago it wasn't. Consequently violent crime could be argued as not having increased significantly at all.


I decided to look further into this, since I do think it's only fair to provide as precise a comparison as possible. Again, looking at the Home Office stats (England and Wales), the total number of crimes labeled "Violence against the person - with injury" is *338,445* for 2011/12. Keep in mind that this does _NOT _include things like:

_"Child abduction"_ (532 cases) 
_"Assault without injury on a constable"_ (15,873 cases)
_"Assault without injury"_ (202,513 cases; just this crime alone has a huge impact on the numbers)
_"Racially or religiously aggravated assault without injury"_ (4,070 cases)

I'll leave it to individual members to add these numbers (and those of other similar crimes) if they think it appropriate. Using only the "violence [...] with injury" numbers, that would make the violent crime rate 338,445 per 56,000,000 or 604.4 per 100,000

U.S. Violent Crime Rate: *386.3 per 100,000*
U.K. Violence Against the Person - With Injury Rate: *604.4 per 100,000*

*604.4 / 386.3 = 1.565*

Even with a somewhat favorable comparison, the rate in England and Wales (again, Scotland and NI have similar to slightly higher numbers) is one-and-a-half times that of the US.


----------



## Shaver

hardline_42 said:


> I decided to look further into this, since I do think it's only fair to provide as precise a comparison as possible. Again, looking at the Home Office stats (England and Wales), the total number of crimes labeled "Violence against the person - with injury" is *338,445* for 2011/12. Keep in mind that this does _NOT _include things like:
> 
> _"Child abduction"_ (532 cases)
> _"Assault without injury on a constable"_ (15,873 cases)
> _"Assault without injury"_ (202,513 cases; just this crime alone has a huge impact on the numbers)
> _"Racially or religiously aggravated assault without injury"_ (4,070 cases)
> 
> I'll leave it to individual members to add these numbers (and those of other similar crimes) if they think it appropriate. Using only the "violence [...] with injury" numbers, that would make the violent crime rate 338,445 per 56,000,000 or 604.4 per 100,000
> 
> U.S. Violent Crime Rate: *386.3 per 100,000*
> U.K. Violence Against the Person - With Injury Rate: *604.4 per 100,000*
> 
> *604.4 / 386.3 = 1.565*
> 
> Even with a somewhat favorable comparison, the rate in England and Wales (again, Scotland and NI have similar to slightly higher numbers) is one-and-a-half times that of the US.


What can I say - we're a rough and tumble breed, we English.

Bear in mind that we have high levels of teenage drunkenness, though. I imagine that if you removed the hair pullings and face slappings dished out by plastered young girls from these statistics then they would be transformed.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Shaver said:


> Bear in mind that we have high levels of teenage drunkenness, though. I imagine that if you removed the hair pullings and face slappings dished out by plastered young girls from these statistics then they would be transformed.


You think we don't have that as well?


----------



## Shaver

CuffDaddy said:


> You think we don't have that as well?


I had believed that the UK led the way in teenage drunkenness, and associated violent crime, by some considerable distance (certainly in Europe). It is a severe problem over here and I have never, personally, seen anything remotely similar in scale in any other city in the world.


----------



## hardline_42

Shaver said:


> What can I say - we're a rough and tumble breed, we English.
> 
> Bear in mind that we have high levels of teenage drunkenness, though. I imagine that if you removed the hair pullings and face slappings dished out by plastered young girls from these statistics then they would be transformed.


Well, the U.S. numbers include robbery and sexual offenses in its violent crime stats (even those that occur without injury) while the U.K. does not. You can add 15,427 cases and 16,124 cases respectively to your numbers. We can go back and forth but, at some point, we'll have to agree on a set of numbers.


----------



## Shaver

I would be very surprised if teenage inebriation does not skew them considerably, however. Drug addiction, too, for that matter. I am given to understand that up to 85% of certain crimes are drug related. Our criminals are all off their bonces, one way or another. 

I don't mind agreeing, though, I have no real axe to grind with regards to the stat's.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Shaver, I'm given to understand that the UK has the worst teen underage drinking rate in the EU, but that the US is past the UK, at least in terms of "binge drinking." Since the drinking age in the US is generally 21, teens here tend to have sporadic access to alcohol, and rarely (if ever) under benevolent adult eyes. When they obtain access to alcohol, though, they guzzle it prodigiously, and the effects are as predictable as anywhere else.


----------



## Mike Petrik

CuffDaddy said:


> Shaver, I'm given to understand that the UK has the worst teen underage drinking rate in the EU, but that the US is past the UK, at least in terms of "binge drinking." Since the drinking age in the US is generally 21, teens here tend to have sporadic access to alcohol, and rarely (if ever) under benevolent adult eyes. When they obtain access to alcohol, though, they guzzle it prodigiously, and the effects are as predictable as anywhere else.


US's age 21 rule is not working well. It seems to be a remnant of our puritanical impulse as manifested by groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving which often seem to be against drinking at all. When I was a young man in IL the rule was 19 for beer and wine and 21 for hard liquor. I think that worked better. I speculate that 19 was chosen over 18 only because high schools include many 18 year-olds. I suspect that many states would relax the age 21 rule if Congress didn't make it a condition to federal highway funding.


----------



## CuffDaddy

I may have previously observed in this thread that prohibitions on already-ubiquitous substances or items don't seem to work well, at least in America. We can raise the cost of things to some degree, and we can remove things from "the public square," but we don't seem to be able to make a thing go away from society. Despite the long record of evidence, outlawing items that stand as proxies for ACTIONS that we find unacceptable seems to be too alluring for most to resist.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Sweden has an odd situation regarding alcohol. I'll compare it age for age with the UK so you can see how odd it is.


5 years of age - Minimum age that you can give alcohol to in the UK (usual medical or religious reasons), any younger is an offence.
No minimum age in Sweden.

14 years of age - allowed to drink shandy, perry, other low alcohol drinks in a bar or restaurant accompanied by parent - UK

18 years of age to actually be present in a bar unaccompanied (bar is defined as the area of a pub selling alcohol) - UK
No minimum age in Sweden, children of all ages can sit in bars as long as they are with parents.

18 years of age to purchase alcohol on (pub) or off licence (shop) - UK
18 years of age to purchase alcohol on (pub) or off licence (shop) - Sweden

Consequently 18 years of age to purchase and drink alcohol in a pub - UK
Not so in Sweden, although the legal age is 18, the vast majority of bars all over Sweden have either 21 or 23 years of age limit to purchase alcohol. The traditional reason for this is to keep out the rowdy 18,19 y.o. students.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Earl of Ormonde said:


> 5 years of age - Minimum age that you can give alcohol to in the UK (usual medical or religious reasons), any younger is an offence.
> No minimum age in Sweden.
> 
> 14 years of age - allowed to drink shandy, perry, other low alcohol drinks in a bar or restaurant accompanied by parent - UK


This, right here, is the crux of the issue. In the US, adolescents are not allowed to be taught how to responsibly consume alcohol. At 21, they go from a legal regime requiring them not to have touched a drop (with the exception of communion wine for those who take communion - a minority, I suspect) to suddenly being able to buy the strongest distilled spirits allowed. They cannot legally have learned an appreciation for fine wine, nor even for good beer. It's insane.


----------



## Shaver

CuffDaddy said:


> Shaver, I'm given to understand that the UK has the worst teen underage drinking rate in the EU, but that the US is past the UK, at least in terms of "binge drinking." Since the drinking age in the US is generally 21, teens here tend to have sporadic access to alcohol, and rarely (if ever) under benevolent adult eyes. When they obtain access to alcohol, though, they guzzle it prodigiously, and the effects are as predictable as anywhere else.


Unfortunately the level which medically constitutes 'binge' drinking is ridiculously low (being 5 standard drinks i.e. if I have any more than two large single malts in a single sitting then I'm a binge drinker!) so the stats are lacking value. I gauge young people binge drinking by the resultant Fri/Sat night city centre no-go zone of vomit and fisticuffs, which I have never experienced anywhere else as dramatically as here in the UK.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Shaver said:


> Fri/Sat night city centre no-go zone of vomit and fisticuffs, which I have never experienced anywhere else as dramatically as here in the UK.


See, what you need is about 2% of the population to be carrying a firearm. The puking won't stop, but the fights between strangers will go down quite a bit.


----------



## Shaver

CuffDaddy said:


> See, what you need is about 2% of the population to be carrying a firearm. The puking won't stop, but the fights between strangers will go down quite a bit.


I could pick them off at my leisure with an armalite parasniper the moment things turned ugly. :redface:


----------



## Haffman

Shaver said:


> I had believed that the UK led the way in teenage drunkenness, and associated violent crime, by some considerable distance (certainly in Europe). It is a severe problem over here and I have never, personally, seen anything remotely similar in scale in any other city in the world.


There is an air of aggression and menace around British pubs (in the towns and cities) that I also have not encountered anywhere else in the world. Accidentally knock into someone's drink or tread on their shoe at your peril. I thought maybe I was just becoming a miserable curmudgeonly old git, but I think there is something in it after all.


----------



## Shaver

Haffman said:


> There is an air of aggression and menace around British pubs (in the towns and cities) that I also have not encountered anywhere else in the world. Accidentally knock into someone's drink or tread on their shoe at your peril. I thought maybe I was just becoming a miserable curmudgeonly old git, but I think there is something in it after all.


It's true.

Drunkeness across the world can be good-natured when boisterous but there is a palpably grim desperation in British city centres which is un-nerving.


----------



## hardline_42

Shaver said:


> I could pick them off at my leisure with an armalite parasniper the moment things turned ugly. :redface:


Point is, you wouldn't have to because the fear of running into that 2% will help keep some of those ragamuffins from overstepping their bounds. Besides, everyone knows the Tacticorp Insurgimax CQB is a much better choice than the AR-1.


----------



## Shaver

hardline_42 said:


> Point is, you wouldn't have to because the fear of running into that 2% will help keep some of those ragamuffins from overstepping their bounds. Besides, everyone knows the Tacticorp Insurgimax CQB is a much better choice than the AR-1.


Nah, If you are too drunk to stand up straight you are not giving due diligence to concealed carry....

I realise that is an imaginary rifle but what is the CQB supposed to stand for, if anything?


----------



## Haffman

Shaver said:


> It's true.
> 
> Drunkeness across the world can be good-natured when boisterous but there is a palpably grim desperation in British city centres which is un-nerving.


I can say with equally grim certitude that I don't mind never entering a metropolitan bar in the UK again


----------



## Shaver

Haffman said:


> I can say with equally grim certitude that I don't mind never entering a metropolitan bar in the UK again


I'm with you there. And that's what money is for - to insulate us from that type of behaviour.

See you at the bar of 'A.N.Other fancy restaurant' momentarily. Mine's a large Scotch. :icon_smile:


----------



## Jovan

Shaver said:


> Nah, If you are too drunk to stand up straight you are not giving due diligence to concealed carry....
> 
> I realise that is an imaginary rifle but what is the CQB supposed to stand for, if anything?


Close Quarters Battle. Typically that refers to carbines with a barrel length of around 10 inches -- approaching large submachine gun territory there. It is debatable whether rounds like the 5.56mm NATO are even effective when the barrel is that short.


----------



## Haffman

Shaver said:


> I'm with you there. And that's what money is for - to insulate us from that type of behaviour.
> 
> See you at the bar of 'A.N.Other fancy restaurant' momentarily. Mine's a large Scotch. :icon_smile:


Sounds good. We can sit there bemoaning the youth of today and their general tardiness and lack of pleats. I recommend a gastropub which is close to me, _The Two Gits_, we can go there :smile:


----------



## hardline_42

Shaver said:


> ...what is the CQB supposed to stand for, if anything?


Close Quarters Battle. I added it to sound more evil.


----------



## Shaver

Haffman said:


> Sounds good. We can sit there bemoaning the youth of today and their general tardiness and lack of pleats. I recommend a gastropub which is close to me, _The Two Gits_, we can go there :smile:


I know it well, I'll in the snug.


----------



## Chouan

CuffDaddy said:


> Chouan, your own analogy is pretty apt, but makes my point, not yours. I own a few swords. One is a ceremonial officers' sword that belonged to my grandfather. It generally has the form of a cavalry sabre, and might be used for combat, but it would be a poor choice for it. It's too lightly built to stand up to the rigors of combat, and a single clash with another sword might ruin it. I also have a fencing foil. It is rectangular in section, and has a button tip, completely blunt. One could not penetrate a stuffed animal with it. The former was designed for ceremonial wear. The latter was designed to safely poke one's sporting companion/adversary. Both _echo_ things that were designed to kill, but neither was designed to kill. If one wanted to kill another human, not only would there by better weapons to use, there are better _non_-weapons to use.
> 
> The same is true of many handguns. The .22 target pistol is absolutely not designed to kill. Could it be pressed into service in that manner? Yes, as can the letter opener in my desk, or even a ball-point pen. (The wounds tracks of either of those two, if used with purpose and strength, are going to be worse than most .22lr wound tracks.) Can a large-frame, single-action .454 casull revolver with scope be used to kill a human? Sure, but it's an astonishingly poor choice, much worse than, say, a double-barrelled skeet gun, which could also be used against a person.
> 
> When you say "X is designed to kill humans," it seems to me that is literally a statement regarding the designer's intent. That's obviously false for a great many handguns. It could also be a metaphorical appraisal that killing humans is the most optimal use of the tool, that no other use suits it better. Also patently false. (See prior paragraph for explanation.)
> 
> The only way in which your statement could be remotely true is if the characteristics of one handgun can be imputed to all othes. You seem to argue that because some handguns were intended to shoot people, they are all imbued with that same "intent." But that's preposterous. That's like arguing that, because some cars are race cars, all cars are designed to win races.


Again you're missing what is, to me, a very obvious point. 
When handguns were invented they were designed to kill or maim people, not birds or animals, just people. They've been referred to repeatedly here as "equalisers". to allow a relatively weak person bring down a strong person. As handgun design became more sophisticated, in the 20th century, shooting with handguns as a sport led to the development of sporting handguns. I'm not suggesting that sporting handguns are designed to kill, but they were, originally, designed as practise weapons for people who used real, serious, handguns. Foils likewise for gentleman's smallswords. Light and delicate, but still deadly, the smallsword I mean.
If you have a handgun for personal protection, I would be inclined to believe that it wouldn't be a .22 target pistol. Thus if you have a more effective handgun then it is likely to be designed to kill people, not to kill ducks or deer. If you wished to carry a firearm for personal protection when nipping down to the shops, as seems to be a necessity in the US, based on the posts here, then, again, I doubt you'd be carrying a double-barrelled skeet gun, but most likely a firearm that would be easy to carry, a handgun, designed to kill people.


----------



## Chouan

Shaver said:


> I'm with you there. And that's what money is for - to insulate us from that type of behaviour.
> 
> See you at the bar of 'A.N.Other fancy restaurant' momentarily. Mine's a large Scotch. :icon_smile:


Surely you'll stay longer than that? Otherwise you won't have time for your drink!


----------



## hardline_42

I don't understand what the big deal is with the "designed to kill people" argument. Is that not a valid use? Sometimes, stuff needs killing.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Except it is more commonly called CQC, (close quarters combat),at least amongst soldiers who have practiced it, myself included.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

hardline_42 said:


> I don't understand what the big deal is with the "designed to kill *people*" argument. Is that not a valid use? Sometimes, *stuff* needs killing.


Afraid to say, sometimes *people* need killing?


----------



## CuffDaddy

Chuoan, if you're now acknowledging that different types of handguns have different purposes and different uses, then we've reached agreement. Although most combat handguns are designed more with an eye towards incapacitation, rather than killing, per se. But death is a very consistent incapacitator.


----------



## hardline_42

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Afraid to say, sometimes *people* need killing?


Nope. My use of the word "stuff" was intentional for the purpose of bringing "people" down on to the same level as anything else that might constitute a threat to life and limb.


----------



## Bjorn

hardline_42 said:


> I don't understand what the big deal is with the "designed to kill people" argument. Is that not a valid use? Sometimes, stuff needs killing.


Do they really?


----------



## Shaver

Chouan said:


> Surely you'll stay longer than that? Otherwise you won't have time for your drink!


Have you considered applying to be a moderator, at all? :icon_smile_wink:

.
.
..


----------



## CuffDaddy

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Except it is more commonly called CQC, (close quarters combat),at least amongst soldiers who have practiced it, myself included.


CQB seems to be becoming more dominant in the American idiom. Certainly our military uses the CQB terminology at least some of the time (see, e.g., ).


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Imagine this dystopic hypothesis.

1. Every person aged 18 and over MUST carry a semi-auto handgun at all times in ALL countries in accordance with Sec. 357 of the Planetary Safety Ordinance of 2076. 
2. Homicide by handgun is not classed as murder or manslaughter but as "recourse to a civil law solution"


THEN, let's see how quickly the violent crime figures drop.


Also, another positive knock on effect, the world population will decrease pretty rapidly thus reducing pollution and other negative impact on the planet. And increasing food and water supply for those still alive.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Bjorn said:


> Do they really?


Yes. Someone on a shooting rampage needs to be immediately incapacitated, and killing them is the most reliable method of doing so.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

hardline_42 said:


> Nope. My use of the word "stuff" was intentional for the purpose of bringing "people" down on to the same level as anything else that might constitute a threat to life and limb.


Good call!


----------



## CuffDaddy

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Imagine this dystopic hypothesis.
> 
> 1. Every person aged 18 and over MUST carry a semi-auto handgun at all times in ALL countries in accordance with Sec. 357 of the Planetary Safety Ordinance of 2076.
> 2. Homicide by handgun is not classed as murder or manslaughter but as "recourse to a civil law solution"
> 
> THEN, let's see how quickly the violent crime figures drop.
> 
> Also, another positive knock on effect, the world population will decrease pretty rapidly thus reducing pollution and other negative impact on the planet. And increasing food and water supply for those still alive.


1 might have salutary effects, or it might be a net negative. 2 would just legalize a particular mode of murder. Are you trying to suggest some linkage between the two?


----------



## Bjorn

CuffDaddy said:


> Yes. Someone on a shooting rampage needs to be immediately incapacitated, and killing them is the most reliable method of doing so.


Someone with a gun then, you mean?

That's sort of like the supply creating the demand. Seems rather circular...


----------



## Bjorn

CuffDaddy said:


> CQB seems to be becoming more dominant in the American idiom. Certainly our military uses the CQB terminology at least some of the time (see, e.g., ).


Isn't CQC a mode of unarmed combat?


----------



## Hitch

Wont it be a great day when all that is not mandated is prohibited.


----------



## Jovan

Bjorn said:


> Isn't CQC a mode of unarmed combat?


That's what I thought... that's the only context I've heard it in, actually.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Bjorn said:


> Isn't CQC a mode of unarmed combat?


No, absolutely not. In the British armed forces CQC is exactly the same as CQB, armed combat at very close-quarters, often hand-to-hand with knives, pistols, other firearms etc. It is most certainly NOT unarmed.

Unarmed combat is called unarmed combat.

Two very different things, in my day we trained in both.

For example, bayonet drill - attacking sandbags is CQC.


----------



## Bjorn

Earl of Ormonde said:


> No, absolutely not. In the British armed forces CQC is exactly the same as CQB, armed combat at very close-quarters, often hand-to-hand with knives, pistols, other firearms etc. It is most certainly NOT unarmed.
> 
> Unarmed combat is called unarmed combat.
> 
> Two very different things, in my day we trained in both.
> 
> For example, bayonet drill - attacking sandbags is CQC.


I see. I thought it was something like Krav Maga...


----------



## Liberty Ship

Instructive videos:


----------



## Chouan

Shaver said:


> Have you considered applying to be a moderator, at all? :icon_smile_wink:.
> .
> ..


But you haven't corrected your initial error. Oh dear, is this what a modern education does for people?


----------



## Shaver

Chouan said:


> But you haven't corrected your initial error. Oh dear, is this what a modern education does for people?


I considered you to be capable of a marginally more subtle wind-up than this latest effort.

Disappointing.


----------



## CuffDaddy

For anyone still interested in the story about the woman shooting the intruder while her husband called 911, the 911 tape can be heard here:


----------



## Shaver

^ I wonder had she merely answered the door, like a normal person, if the guy wouldn't have simply made an excuse and left? It could be that the approach taken was irrresponsible and actually inviting disaster, once the guy was in the house and a weapon was fired this situation could have turned out much more badly for the mother and children.


----------



## CuffDaddy

or he might have attacked her on the spot . People are entitled not to answer the door for any reason, or for no reason at all. I'm confused as to why you seem so determined to blame the victim here .


----------



## Shaver

CuffDaddy said:


> or he might have attacked her on the spot . People are entitled not to answer the door for any reason, or for no reason at all. I'm confused as to why you seem so determined to blame the victim here .


99.9999999999999 (you get the picture!) per cent of the time a knock at the door is not to be taken as a signal of impending doom. I realise that we are speculating here to the if's and but's and cannnot be certain what may or may not have taken place had a different route been followed. However, at the risk of repeating myself, it's phobic to be afraid of answering the door. Don't run and arm yourself, don't hide in a closet, don't ring your husband, don't ring the police. _Just answer the bloody door! _Answerit with a gun in your hand if you must, but answer it.

I approve of guns and I disapprove of unauthorised entry to a domicile. I also disapprove of being scared of one's own shadow.

Sincere apologies if I am giving the impression that I am blaming the victim. Far from it, well done and a pity she didn't kill him outright.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Well, for whatever reason, this time the woman was scared. She paid attention to her instincts. Too often, victims of violent crime don't listen to the little voice in their head. She listened. The voice was right. It likely saved her life and the lives of her children.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
True dat! Gavin DeBecker wrote a book a few years back entitled, "The Gift of Fear," which details the phenomenon to which CuffDaddy refers. Many people could avoid their personal victimization if they would simply listen to their gut! DeBecker subsequently wrote two additional books on this subject, "Fear Less" and Protecting The Gift." All three of his books make for a very worthwhile read!


----------



## CuffDaddy

I almost mentioned _The Gift of Fear _in my post, eagle'! I probably should have, since I wasn't really doing anything but sharing its most basic insight. My only quarrel with the book is that I wish he had chosen a word other than "fear." To me, fear suggests a mindless response, and that the thing provoking it can only be responded to with a spasm of involuntary action. Fear is the mind-killer, after all. (Now which book(s) am I shamelessly referencing?)


----------



## CuffDaddy

For those who are still interested in the practicalities of gun control in the US, and some of the (non-2nd amdt) limits that our constitution places on effective policing of gun control laws, here's an article about a recent court decision. https://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2...at_for_stop_and_frisk_and_a_huge_win_for.html

Setting aside any "right to bear arms," and setting aside even the takings clause's general prohibition against seizing property (guns) without compensation, and ex post facto concerns, there remain the limits on police authority that make it impossible to get guns out of criminals' hands. Only the law-abiding would turn in guns or cease acquiring them. Only the criminals, and the tiny fraction of the population that is law enforcement, would remain armed.


----------



## Shaver

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> True dat! Gavin DeBecker wrote a book a few years back entitled, "The Gift of Fear," which details the phenomenon to which CuffDaddy refers. Many people could avoid their personal victimization if they would simply listen to their gut! DeBecker subsequently wrote two additional books on this subject, "Fear Less" and Protecting The Gift." All three of his books make for a very worthwhile read!


Hmm some of the 'pre-incident indicators' by which one is expected to gauge impending violence are simply descriptions of good manners and friendliness. For example 'Charm and Niceness' is supposedly a warning sign. This is nonsense, surely?

A nervous disposition and the associated low self-esteem exhibits a set of characteristics that those given toward violent acts or, more commonly, manipulation can sense almost instantly and use to identify their prey.

Stay brave.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Most of the literature on sociopaths talk about the "charm" these people exhibit. They've got no self-doubt, and the lack of such can make them very charismatic. Some people react to that with immediate distaste, but others find it charming and compelling. If you are in the latter group, finding yourself affirmatively charmed is a good sign you're looking into Kaa's eyes. 

As for the rest, you may be confusing DeBecker's recommended internal analysis with his recommended actions. He doesn't recommend panicing, and he affirmatively recommends against acting submissive or nervous. Keep in mind that a lot of what he writes is pitched towards women, who are disproportionately targeted for personal, violent crime because they are disproportionately unable to resist (unless you give them a gun and a willingness to use it if circumstances demand it). 

But that confusion is part of why I wish he had chosen a different word than "fear." He wants people - especially women - to pay attention to the feeling that something ain't right, and then have the courage to act decisively in response (notwithstanding social norms demanding that they continue engaging in conversation).


----------



## HistoryDoc

Bjorn said:


> Not really. I've read Heller. This is a discussion de lege ferenda, not de lege lata.


That's fine, but laws operate on the individual via the nation-state. In the United States our law is based on the Constitution. If you want to discuss the law as it should be, rather than how it is, you should begin any discussion of gun control with the reality that the second amendment exists. If you want to infringe upon that right, you need to advocate for the repeal of the second amendment. Repeal of the second amendment is unlikely.


----------



## HistoryDoc

CuffDaddy said:


> But why would the Euros care about Heller, except as a limitation on the power of the US government or states to act?


Many of my European friends have a hard time understanding how the American political (or legal) system works.


----------



## HistoryDoc

Bjorn said:


> From a legal standpoint, not very.


I disagree. Unlike many nation-states, the United States is an ideological nation-state made up of citizens. We are held together by common ideals. The Declaration of Independence created the nation. Our current constitution was created in order to make it possible to live under those ideals. We are not subjects and thus the law operates on all of us equally, as individuals. Our rights are natural rights--recognized by government, rather than created by government. This has important legal, political, military, diplomatic, economic, social, and historical implications. Indeed it is difficult for me to think of an example of something in America that isn't influenced by this understanding of how rights operate. I would never claim to be an expert on how Swedes understand the concept of individual liberty, but I have quite a few friends in Europe and they all struggle to understand the American concept of individual liberty.


----------



## HistoryDoc

Bjorn said:


> In Sweden, we are citizens as well. Please find me a country where, currently, people are subjects. Except for North Korea...


There are still a handful of British subjects, believe it or not. I assume this is not a serious question though. There are far fewer "free" peoples than there are "subject" peoples. But if you are indeed serious, do a google search for lists of free countries. There are plenty of UN, US, and think tank sources that rank the various free countries and repressive regimes.


----------



## HistoryDoc

Shaver said:


> Wasn't it just 'foreigner baiting'?


No. France has reconstituted its government several times since then. We still operate under the same constitution.


----------



## HistoryDoc

Haffman said:


> Well, for a 'history lecture' from an esteemed academic, it was certainly rather terse and unenlightening.


That wasn't a lecture. I was merely trying get anyone interested in having a fruitful discussion on the same page.


----------



## HistoryDoc

Bjorn said:


> It's just something Americans think differentiate American society, but which really does not. Which is a fairly consistent trend in many societies.
> 
> It's when you think you've made something up yourself, when in reality you just borrowed it. Usually from the Romans. The French are most proficient at it.


Well then, please enlighten us on how Swedes understand the concept of "rights" and we'll see if it is the same. Do you have a Bill of Rights that grants you the right to bear arms as a check on the authority of government? Are these rights considered to be God given and operative under a constitution that has been in place for more than two centuries? Which government has that combination of understandings about the nature of man and his political associations? Which era in Roman history did we steal that from?


----------



## HistoryDoc

Bjorn said:


> Nope.


None of this matters, since Americans understand our rights to be universal and they are codified in our constitution. The second amendment was not really about self defense against an individual attacker. Self defense against an individual attacker was considered too obvious to be specifically listed in the bill of rights. This was something that our founders would have considered to be covered by the 9th amendment.


----------



## HistoryDoc

hardline_42 said:


> One of the first things you learn in CCW training courses is what constitutes a justified or "legal" shoot. It is made very clear (at least, to me) when lethal force can be applied to a situation:
> 
> *You are justified in using lethal force against another human being if, and only if, there is immediate and unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to an innocent person.*
> 
> The requirements are:
> 
> IMMEDIATE: You have to be in danger right then and there. You can't shoot someone trying to flee nor can you shoot someone who has merely threatened future harm.
> 
> UNAVOIDABLE: Retreating is your first line of defense. Only if you can't run away or retreat without endangering yourself or another can it be considered unavoidable.
> 
> DANGER OF DEATH OR GRAVE BODILY HARM: You can't shoot someone for spitting at you or slapping you in the face. On the other hand, rape, stabbing, broken bones and the like all qualify. Remember, though, it says "danger of." You don't need to have been raped, stabbed or had a bone broken to be justified, you just need to be in immediate, unavoidable danger of it happening.


This is how it appears in the California Jury Instructions (Calcrim):

The defendant is not guilty of (murder/ [or] manslaughter/
attempted murder/ [or] attempted voluntary manslaughter) if (he/
she) was justified in (killing/attempting to kill) someone in (selfdefense/
[or] defense of another). The defendant acted in lawful
(self-defense/ [or] defense of another) if:
1. The defendant reasonably believed that (he/she/ [or]
someone else/ [or] <insert name or description
of third party>) was in imminent danger of being killed or
suffering great bodily injury [or was in imminent danger of
being (raped/maimed/robbed/ <insert other
forcible and atrocious crime>)];
2. The defendant reasonably believed that the immediate use
of deadly force was necessary to defend against that
danger;
AND
3. The defendant used no more force than was reasonably
necessary to defend against that danger.
Belief in future harm is not sufficient, no matter how great or how
likely the harm is believed to be. The defendant must have
believed there was imminent danger of death or great bodily
injury to (himself/herself/ [or] someone else). Defendant's belief
must have been reasonable and (he/she) must have acted only
because of that belief. The defendant is only entitled to use that
amount of force that a reasonable person would believe is
necessary in the same situation. If the defendant used more force
than was reasonable, the [attempted] killing was not justified.
When deciding whether the defendant's beliefs were reasonable,
consider all the circumstances as they were known to and
appeared to the defendant and consider what a reasonable person
in a similar situation with similar knowledge would have believed.
If the defendant's beliefs were reasonable, the danger does not
need to have actually existed.
[The defendant's belief that (he/she/ [or] someone else) was
threatened may be reasonable even if (he/she) relied on
information that was not true. However, the defendant must
actually and reasonably have believed that the information was
true.]
[If you find that <insert name of decedent/victim>
threatened or harmed the defendant [or others] in the past, you
may consider that information in deciding whether the defendant's
conduct and beliefs were reasonable.]
[If you find that the defendant knew that <insert
name of decedent/victim> had threatened or harmed others in the
past, you may consider that information in deciding whether the
defendant's conduct and beliefs were reasonable.]
[Someone who has been threatened or harmed by a person in the
past, is justified in acting more quickly or taking greater self defense
measures against that person.]
[If you find that the defendant received a threat from someone else
that (he/she) reasonably associated with <insert name
of decedent/victim>, you may consider that threat in deciding
whether the defendant was justified in acting in (self-defense/ [or]
defense of another).]
[A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to
stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if
reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of
(death/great bodily injury/ <insert forcible and
atrocious crime>) has passed. This is so even if safety could have
been achieved by retreating.]
[Great bodily injury means significant or substantial physical
injury. It is an injury that is greater than minor or moderate
harm.]
The People have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt
that the [attempted] killing was not justified. If the People have
not met this burden, you must find the defendant not guilty of
(murder/ [or] manslaughter/ attempted murder/ [or] attempted
voluntary manslaughter).


----------



## Shaver

CuffDaddy said:


> Most of the literature on sociopaths talk about the "charm" these people exhibit. They've got no self-doubt, and the lack of such can make them very charismatic. Some people react to that with immediate distaste, but others find it charming and compelling. If you are in the latter group, finding yourself affirmatively charmed is a good sign you're looking into Kaa's eyes.
> 
> As for the rest, you may be confusing DeBecker's recommended internal analysis with his recommended actions. He doesn't recommend panicing, and he affirmatively recommends against acting submissive or nervous. Keep in mind that a lot of what he writes is pitched towards women, who are disproportionately targeted for personal, violent crime because they are disproportionately unable to resist (unless you give them a gun and a willingness to use it if circumstances demand it).
> 
> But that confusion is part of why I wish he had chosen a different word than "fear." He wants people - especially women - to pay attention to the feeling that something ain't right, and then have the courage to act decisively in response (notwithstanding social norms demanding that they continue engaging in conversation).


Much of the literature does indeed speak of the charm of sociopaths. However this 'charm' is commonly misunderstood to be a high level of confidence, a lack of self-doubt, and moreover that it is an effect that can be readily observed by someone other than an expert. Most, non-specialist, people confuse the Dunning-Kruger effect with that of pathological narcissism, which is the actual basis for sociopathy.

Those exhibiting the D-K effect are merely incompetent, often cheerful, buffoons and they are highly unlikely to resort to violence (at least no more than any 'normal' person in a similar situation). True sociopaths, though, are indeed charming in extremis but so well adapated to the smooth use of this skill that you will never notice it being applied. The charm will vary from situation to situation but a broad description would be that it is a chameleon like ability to convince others that the sociopath is 'one of them' - a reassuring reflection of interests, personality, intellect and morality. Whilst the sociopath lacks empathy they are able to flawlessly counterfeit the outward appearance of the sensation so that a battery of tests is required to reveal their true nature. The majority of sociopaths will not resort to violence as it is quite simply more trouble than it is worth to them, that is to say that their skills for the most part are sufficient to achieve their aims without recourse to such blunt tactics. That said when the sociopath's self-image is excessively challenged there is potential for the retribution to be severe.

At any rate looking out for excessive charm will not allow you to identify a sociopath. Evolutionary forces have refined the sociopath's abilities so that they are indistinguishable from, and even seem to be amongst the best of, 'normal' people.


----------



## Belfaborac

Shaver said:


> At any rate looking out for excessive charm will not allow you to identify a sociopath.


Quite so. I, for instance, am indeed excessively charming, but also a thoroughly decent and awfully nice chap with high morals and not a sociopath at all.

QED


----------



## Shaver

Belfaborac said:


> Quite so. I, for instance, am indeed excessively charming, but also a thoroughly decent and awfully nice chap with high morals and not a sociopath at all.
> 
> QED


Me too.

And anyone who says differently is likely to find themselves in a very sticky situation. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

HistoryDoc said:


> There are far fewer "free" peoples than there are "subject" peoples.


eeerrr...NO!


----------



## Chouan

Belfaborac said:


> Quite so. I, for instance, am indeed excessively charming, but also a thoroughly decent and awfully nice chap with high morals and not a sociopath at all.
> 
> QED


So am I except that I'm not excessively charming. Or am I a sociopath? I can't remember.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

I'm very charming. 
BUT I'm never going to get a gun and start shooting people!


----------



## Chouan

On a serious note, during the course of my last interview, I was asked for three words that would describe me. I was confused for a moment, and then replied, "handsome, charming and intelligent". I got the job.


----------



## Bjorn

HistoryDoc said:


> I disagree. Unlike many nation-states, the United States is an ideological nation-state made up of citizens. We are held together by common ideals. The Declaration of Independence created the nation. Our current constitution was created in order to make it possible to live under those ideals. We are not subjects and thus the law operates on all of us equally, as individuals. Our rights are natural rights--recognized by government, rather than created by government. This has important legal, political, military, diplomatic, economic, social, and historical implications. Indeed it is difficult for me to think of an example of something in America that isn't influenced by this understanding of how rights operate. I would never claim to be an expert on how Swedes understand the concept of individual liberty, but I have quite a few friends in Europe and they all struggle to understand the American concept of individual liberty.


I don't think I accept that difference from a legal or philosophical perspective. I think that your description of the differences is simply incorrect. As for rights being natural or positive, that's a legal philosophical discussion that is conducted in most countries, and you don't really get to select if they are natural or not in America. They either are or they aren't, in all countries, and this is subject to debate.

What I struggle with is your basic idea that your fundamentally governed differently. There's no evidence of it.

You should simply strike off "unlike most nation-states"...


----------



## Bjorn

HistoryDoc said:


> No. France has reconstituted its government several times since then. We still operate under the same constitution.


Exhibit 1 of problem A...


----------



## Bjorn

HistoryDoc said:


> Well then, please enlighten us on how Swedes understand the concept of "rights" and we'll see if it is the same. Do you have a Bill of Rights that grants you the right to bear arms as a check on the authority of government? Are these rights considered to be God given and operative under a constitution that has been in place for more than two centuries? Which government has that combination of understandings about the nature of man and his political associations? Which era in Roman history did we steal that from?


As an example, the UDHR is fully incorporated in Swedish law.

The idea of a right to bear arms as a basic human right, or rather, not a basic human right has been discussed above.

As for which particular era you "stole" from, we all borrowed freely from the Romans...

As for your question as to what government... pretty much all western governments have those issues covered in legislation. I would suggest a slightly more comparative approach to history studies. I'm sure you need not look further than Canada.


----------



## Chouan

HistoryDoc said:


> Many of my European friends have a hard time understanding how the American political (or legal) system works.


Even though it is based upon a European model?


----------



## Chouan

HistoryDoc said:


> We are not subjects and thus the law operates on all of us equally, as individuals. Our rights are natural rights--recognized by government, rather than created by government. .


There you go again, banging on about "subjects". Are you suggesting that in the UK, for example, that the law _*doesn't *_operate on us all equally as individuals? I suggest that you look at the British, specifically the English legal system, and it's origins before suggesting, as you appear to be doing, that English law was created by government. In some, perhaps most, European countries the Law is based on the French Civil Code, in turn based on Roman Law, thus recognising the legal concepts that already existed.


----------



## Chouan

HistoryDoc said:


> There are still a handful of British subjects, believe it or not. I assume this is not a serious question though. There are far fewer "free" peoples than there are "subject" peoples. But if you are indeed serious, do a google search for lists of free countries. There are plenty of UN, US, and think tank sources that rank the various free countries and repressive regimes.


About 65000000 at the last count in the UK alone. Rather more than a few, I would have thought. But I think that you're misunderstanding the concept of "subject". I am, for one, quite happy to be a subject of the Crown. I have as much freedom, perhaps more, as any citizen in any other democracy.


----------



## Chouan

HistoryDoc said:


> No. France has reconstituted its government several times since then. We still operate under the same constitution.


Only with amendments, which I assume were to amend or correct or add things that weren't in the original constitution. The French have simply amended theirs, updated it and re-issued it rather than add amendements.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Chouan said:


> Even though it is based upon a European model?


Indeed. The American system is quite straightforward and easy to understand. The thing I struggle with is why they actually want it that way. Interesting observation. This thread is now the largest thread in the interchange. Of the top five posts, three are about guns, one is Howard's career in Pathmark and the other about DADT in the Military(y'know, gays with guns).


----------



## Shaver

VictorRomeo said:


> Indeed. The American system is quite straightforward and easy to understand. The thing I struggle with is why they actually want it that way. Interesting observation. This thread is now the largest thread in the interchange. Of the top five posts, three are about guns, one is Howard's career in Pathmark and the other about DADT in the Military(y'know, gays with guns).


There was a thread about gays with guns? 

If I get time I may read it, except I imagine that there would be a lot of talk similar to this:

https://www.theonion.com/articles/repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell-paves-way-for-gay-sex,17698/


----------



## VictorRomeo

Shaver said:


> There was a thread about gays with guns?


Not quite - I was attempting a little bit of humour by making a cheap and somewhat tenuous link between DADT and guns....! However The Onion's artice pretty much maps out the way it went if I remember correctly....


----------



## hardline_42

Shaver said:


> There was a thread about gays with guns?
> 
> If I get time I may read it, except I imagine that there would be a lot of talk similar to this:
> 
> https://www.theonion.com/articles/repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell-paves-way-for-gay-sex,17698/


Back on topic:

Gorilla, I mean Gun, Control - https://www.theonion.com/articles/gorilla-sales-skyrocket-after-latest-gorilla-attac,30860/


----------



## DownSouth

I own a .22calibre rifle that I inherited from my father and a small calibre hand gun I got from my father-in-law. Never fired either one. I was trained on the M16 rifle during Army BCT and scored an Expert rating.
I cannot for the life of me understand gun "enthusiasts" (or whatever you want to call them) who a) do not want to register their guns [what are you wanting to hide?] and b) the number of paranoid kooks who think we all need to be armed to "protect" ourselves from our own government. Where in the hell do people get such ideas??? Too much Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity. Talk radio and television has done more to tear down this country than anything in history. Why don't these idiots go out and get a real job doing something constructive? 
[end of rant]


----------



## hardline_42

DownSouth said:


> I own a .22calibre rifle that I inherited from my father and a small calibre hand gun I got from my father-in-law. Never fired either one. I was trained on the M16 rifle during Army BCT and scored an Expert rating.


Oh good! With that kind of setup to your argument, I can only assume that you're totally unbiased and will put forth a polite and logical treatise on gun ownership.



DownSouth said:


> I cannot for the life of me understand gun *"enthusiasts"* (or *whatever you want to call them*) who a) do not want to register their guns [*what are you wanting to hide?*] and b) the number of *paranoid kooks* who think we all need to be armed to *"protect"* ourselves from our own government. Where in the hell do people get such ideas??? * Too much Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity*. Talk radio and television has done more to tear down this country than anything in history. Why don't these idiots go out and get a real job doing something constructive?
> [end of rant]


Nope. Guess not.


----------



## Bjorn

hardline_42 said:


> Oh good! With that kind of setup to your argument, I can only assume that you're totally unbiased and will put forth a polite and logical treatise on gun ownership.
> 
> Nope. Guess not.


Don't know. Can't fault his reasoning there. You don't have to agree to be logical...


----------



## Haffman

Is "expert" the best rating? They all sound pretty good to me...marksman, sharpshooter etc. They all sound impressive although I think you have to be a 'marksman' just to pass the test is that right? (so presumably a marksman is fairly run of the mill....')

I think Lee Harvey Oswald was a 'marksman' - again it sounds from that that he was a crack shot but conspiracy buffs have later used it to claim he actually wasn't very proficient with a rifle


----------



## hardline_42

Bjorn said:


> Don't know. Can't fault his reasoning there. You don't have to agree to be logical...


What reasoning? Re-read the post. He says he doesn't understand gun "enthusiasts" (or whatever you want to call them) with a thinly veiled implication that such a thing shouldn't exist. Then he makes the leap that anyone who doesn't want to register their guns has something to hide. Then there's something about paranoid kooks and talk radio (because even though children can "easily" tell the difference between violent video games and movies and real life, responsible adult gun-owners can't tell the difference between inflammatory, fear-mongering rhetoric and real life).

I realize that my disagreement doesn't make a sound argument illogical. Does your agreement make an unsound one logical?


----------



## hardline_42

Haffman said:


> Is "expert" the best rating? They all sound pretty good to me...marksman, sharpshooter etc. They all sound impressive although I think you have to be a 'marksman' just to pass the test is that right? (so presumably a marksman is fairly run of the mill....')
> 
> I think Lee Harvey Oswald was a 'marksman' - again it sounds from that that he was a crack shot but conspiracy buffs have later used it to claim he actually wasn't very proficient with a rifle


It does take some skill to score expert in the AQT, but it's not limited to military personnel. Here in the States we have something called Project Appleseed, a civilian marksmanship seminar where people of all ages can receive marksmanship training (the old school kind, with iron sights and a sling) and take the AQT. A score of 210 or better (out of 250) earns you the rank of Rifleman. Perfect score is Expert.


----------



## CuffDaddy

DownSouth said:


> I own a .22calibre rifle that I inherited from my father and a small calibre hand gun I got from my father-in-law. Never fired either one.


OK. So it's safe to say that, while you have experience with firearms, you don't enjoy them. That's fine, but understand that it kind of removes you as a spokesperon/representative of people who do (responsibly) use and enjoy guns.



> a) do not want to register their guns [what are you wanting to hide?] and b) the number of paranoid kooks who think we all need to be armed to "protect" ourselves from our own government.


Let's take these in order. As for a), I know of few, if any, gun owners who would be reluctant to register the guns if they knew that was the end of the story. Many gun owners, though, are convinced that gun control efforts will only become more aggressive as time passes, and that registries will be used to confiscate guns any time the law becomes more restrictive.* I think that's unlikely, but the fear is not unfounded - certainly, there are many who would wish to do precisely that. As for my personal view, I would incentivize registration with a constitutionally-irrevocable "grandfather" promise that all registered guns are forever immune to "banning" in the future.

There are also those who take the bright-line rule that, just as a cop cannot detain you without suspicion (regardless of whether you have "something to hide"), the government cannot demand that you notify it that you are exercising a constitutional right. I'm not necessarily sold on that point, but it's a view that's out there.

b) There are two components to this. First, that's precisely the core interest that was enshrined in the constitution. Remember that we started as a country that used guns to resist what was then our government. Second, we don't presently have the kind of government that would justify or neccessitate armed resistance. But we've never had a government that didn't know that armed resistance would be possible. I suspect that you feel quite comfortable with the present administration, but did you never worry during the previous one that some Kafka-esque sequence of events might not lead to your detention as a "suspected terrorist"? What if Rick Perry runs and wins in 2016 and cranks the domestic "war on terror" machinery up, perhaps after another terrorist attack? What if Santorum runs and wins and decides to start incarcerating atheists, agnostics, homosexuals, and anyone who harbors the same? These things are unlikely, but not impossible. Is it implausible that their likelihood is lower because they know that at least some of the targets will be armed?

For what it's worth (which shouldn't be much, since arguments should be judged on their own merits, not the person making them), I detest all right-wing radio. I voted for President Obama twice because the overlap on my views and his was greater than with any other candidate. I also voted for Kerry, Gore, and Clinton. But I don't swallow the orthodoxy of any party whole. The Repulibcan party is, in my view, right on a few things and wrong on a great many more. I think the Democrats are right on more things, and wrong on quite a few, too. I make up my own mind. I sometimes change positions. I supported the first AWB. I later came to change my mind about the efficacy of gun control (or the lack thereof) and the relative injustice of depriving people of the right to do something they like without harming others on the hope that such prohibition will have a prophylactic effect against other (already-illegal) acts that we actually care about.

In short, I may be a nut, but I'm certainly not a right-wing nut. Please understand that there are sane, well-intentioned people on both sides of this issue, notwithstanding the fact that news outlets love to find the most blisteringly ignorant to put in front of their cameras.

* Some are also concerned about incidents similar to the recent one in NY, where the names and adresses of registered gun owners were published by a newspaper. Registries are public records unless there's some other affirmative measure taken to render the information confidential.


----------



## DownSouth

Thanks for your views, mostly with which I agree. I, too, voted for Obama, twice. How about that, two Southerners admitting such! I, too also, do not claim to be a Democrat or a Republican but have agreed the last several years more so with the Dems than the GOP, who Steve Scmidt aptly called "geeks and loons". 
I detest right-wing talk radio also and think it is a destructive force in our country.
However, I cannot disagree more that assault weapons should be in the hands of the general public. These are military weapons with the sole purpose of killing.
And, whereas it is somewhat unfair to deny certain rights to "law abiding" citizens, where does the responsibility fall to sort out the mentally incompetent from the law adbiding populace? And pity on those who have been brainwashed to the point of paranoia that the forces are going to sweep down on us and gather up "ALL" our guns.


----------



## pleasehelp

DownSouth said:


> I cannot for the life of me understand gun "enthusiasts" (or whatever you want to call them) who a) do not want to register their guns [what are you wanting to hide?]
> [end of rant]


All of the guns in my family are registered (to the extent required). I will note that in NYC, the registration process is extremely annoying. I think they try to make it particularly cumbersome to dissuade gun ownership (e.g., handguns are registered at a different location than long guns, it takes several trips to get it all done, the lines are very long, etc.). I am generally a proponent of registration, but I think that it should be streamlined to encourage people to register their guns rather than discourage gun ownership.


----------



## Bjorn

hardline_42 said:


> What reasoning? Re-read the post. He says he doesn't understand gun "enthusiasts" (or whatever you want to call them) with a thinly veiled implication that such a thing shouldn't exist. Then he makes the leap that anyone who doesn't want to register their guns has something to hide. Then there's something about paranoid kooks and talk radio (because even though children can "easily" tell the difference between violent video games and movies and real life, responsible adult gun-owners can't tell the difference between inflammatory, fear-mongering rhetoric and real life).
> 
> I realize that my disagreement doesn't make a sound argument illogical. Does your agreement make an unsound one logical?


Does that need veiling?

Is that a leap? You even have to register your car. And your residence. And for tax purposes.


----------



## DownSouth

Agree w/ pleasehelp.


----------



## DownSouth

hardline_42 said:


> Oh good! With that kind of setup to your argument, I can only assume that you're totally unbiased and will put forth a polite and logical treatise on gun ownersh
> 
> Nope. Guess not.


And your point is what?????????????????


----------



## hardline_42

Bjorn said:


> Does that need veiling?
> 
> Is that a leap? You even have to register your car. And your residence. And for tax purposes.


C'mon Bjorn, it's almost page 50 of this thread.

Yes, there is such a thing as a gun enthusiast and yes it is perfectly legitimate. There are plenty of antique weaponry enthusiasts out there who's hobby isn't denigrated by hand-wringers to the point of making them second class citizens.

Yes, it is a leap. I don't have to register my car to legally keep it and drive it on my property or take it to a racetrack, and that's not even a right guaranteed by the CONUS. Why should I have to register my firearms to keep them at my property and use them at the range? In fact, why should anyone in the U.S. have to register with the government to exercise their individual rights? Should I have to register if I'm a member of a certain religion? Should I have to register if I'm a smoker? A homosexual? A paranoid schizophrenic? In what circumstance would registration make me more free?


----------



## hardline_42

DownSouth said:


> And your point is what?????????????????


There was no point to that particular post. The point of THIS post? Number *2K*, baby!


----------



## Bjorn

hardline_42 said:


> C'mon Bjorn, it's almost page 50 of this thread.
> 
> Yes, there is such a thing as a gun enthusiast and yes it is perfectly legitimate. There are plenty of antique weaponry enthusiasts out there who's hobby isn't denigrated by hand-wringers to the point of making them second class citizens.
> 
> Yes, it is a leap. I don't have to register my car to legally keep it and drive it on my property or take it to a racetrack, and that's not even a right guaranteed by the CONUS. Why should I have to register my firearms to keep them at my property and use them at the range? In fact, why should anyone in the U.S. have to register with the government to exercise their individual rights? Should I have to register if I'm a member of a certain religion? Should I have to register if I'm a smoker? A homosexual? A paranoid schizophrenic? In what circumstance would registration make me more free?


Well, at least they're citizens 

The reason you should have to register them is that they are dangerous. Homosexuals really aren't...


----------



## DownSouth

hardline_42 said:


> There was no point to that particular post. The point of THIS post? Number *2K*, baby!


CONGRATULATIONS!!!!! 2K for hardline42


----------



## hardline_42

Bjorn said:


> The reason you should have to register them is that they are dangerous. Homosexuals really aren't...


You picked the easy one. What about the others? If the government one day deems a certain religion as a "threat", should it's members have to register because their beliefs are dangerous?


----------



## CuffDaddy

DownSouth said:


> However, I cannot disagree more that assault weapons should be in the hands of the general public. These are military weapons with the sole purpose of killing.


Not true. They are an innanimate object. They take on whatever "purpose" the user gives them. An accurate statement is that, in their original incarnations, they were designed to be efficient at incapacitating enemy soldiers by using rounds that were _just _powerful enough to reliably stop an adult male at combat distances.

OK. There are circumstances under which citizens are allowed to use deadly force to stop an adult male. Handguns are not as good at incapacitating assailants. While the overall crime rate in this country is on a broad downward trend (probably thanks to _Roe_ and the end of lead paint and leaded gasoline), the tactics of criminals are evolving. Groups of home-invaders or other violent attackers are representing a higher percentage of robberies and home invasions. See this story from my local paper for a relatively minor example: And some criminals have taken to wearing body armor that can defeat handgun and shotgun projectiles. And some people prefer a 5.56mm round because it actually poses a _loweder_ risk of over-penetration than 9mm, .45, 00 buckshot, or other common non-rifle defensive calibers (the small, light, fast .223 bullets tend to break up rapidly on impact with any barrier, whereas the slower and heavier projectiles of pistols and buckshot will stay intact and penetrate one wall after another).

In scenarios where social order has temporarily broken down (post-Katrina in a few places, and quite probable in others in the event of a days-long power outage and general emergency [more likely than you think]), enough firepower to deal with a genuine crowd of people who have reverted to a Hobbsian mentality may be necessary to defend self and family. That prospect, which I deemed to be more likely after conversations with a number of gov't emergency planning professionals, is what led me to acquire an evil black rifle. The odds are 99.999% that I'll never need to use it, but the odds are not 100%.

So those are some of the reasons that people might legitimately "need" the killing/stopping power of "assault weapons." Let's set those aside for now. Let's talk about other purposes. There are now entire sports built around the use of semi-auto rifles. Google or do a youtube search for "3 gun competition." Manufacturers put out semi-auto rifles that are specifically built for those competitions that are sub-optimal for combat/killing. For instance, a carbon-fiber handguard is attractive for those competitions, because it is light, insulates against barrel heat, and is comfortable to hold. But it's ill-suited to combat, since the tube can shatter into sharp pieces capable of injuring the user. A gun built with that feature is manifestly _not_ designed to kill, nor to have killing as its primary purpose, although it retains that capacity.

Another reason that the AR platform in particular has become so commonly-used and wildly popular in America is that it is a design that can inexpensively be made very, very accurate. The design of the reciever and barrel attachment means that it is easy to "free float" the barrel. Before the panic-buying of the last month, one could get a "floated" barrel AR for $1000 or less; a comparable bolt-action "traditional" rifle would cost much more. The lightweight gas tube above the barrel means that there is little movement by parts of the rifle compared to, say, a Garand or M1 or AK design. Again, this makes accuracy easier to obtain. And, unlike most "traditional" rifles, the trigger is modular. You can buy an inexpensive AR, then add a Timney or Giessele trigger when your shooting is good enough to warrant it; with most bolt-actions, if you don't pay the big bucks for a good trigger up front, you're stuck with what you have.

For guys whose most favorite activity in the world is trying to print cloverleaf groups at 100 yards, or golf ball groups at 300 yards, without spending thousands and thousands, the AR is very difficult to beat. You may think that pursuit, or 3-Gun competitions, are dumb, but I'm sure your hobbies are deemed dumb by others. A pluralistic democracy demands that we each try to respect each others subjective value decisions.

I could go on with other completely legal reasons that sane people who are more than just law-abiding, but affirmatively good people and citizens, might want an AR or other "assault weapon." The point is that there are legitimate reasons to want one. You may ultimately conclude that those legitimate interests are outweighed, but do not pretend that a ban on such firearms is without a real cost in freedom to some people.



> And, whereas it is somewhat unfair to deny certain rights to "law abiding" citizens, where does the responsibility fall to sort out the mentally incompetent from the law adbiding populace?


I know of nobody who wants to see guns (of any type) in the hands of a deranged person intent on harming others. Anything specifically directed to _that_ goal, as opposed to punishing the 99% of gunowners who harm nobody, would be welcome. As would, at least from my perspective, the thing that is most badly needed: a way for a concerned parent, teacher, or friend to seek serious help for a troubled person WITHOUT ruining that person's life. Right now, we give parents of troubled boys the Hobson's choice of ruining their lives by seeking to have them committed, or seeking more ineffectual "counseling" or "ministry."



> And pity on those who have been brainwashed to the point of paranoia that the forces are going to sweep down on us and gather up "ALL" our guns.


I said the same thing in November. It's seeming less paranoid to me all the time. I have lived in a place in America (Washington DC) where they basically did just that. Not coincidentally, it's the only place I've lived where it was routine for people that I knew to be mugged, and the only place where I knew someone who was shot and killed in random street crime.


----------



## CuffDaddy

hardline_42 said:


> You picked the easy one. What about the others? If the government one day deems a certain religion as a "threat", should it's members have to register because their beliefs are dangerous?


Indeed, it would be easy to identify religions, or demographic groups, that have a MUCH higher correlation coefficient with crime than legal gun ownership has. But requiring registrations for those things would rightly be considered anathema.

The bottom line is that the rights of someone who cares about rights you don't use are easy to disregard. It's why a higher percentage of men than women favor things like abortion restrictions. When it's not your liberty, it's easy to dismiss the loss of it.


----------



## Mike Petrik

A couple of relevant quotes:

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?

Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?

After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you'd be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria [Government limo] sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur - what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked.

The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!"

--Alexander Solzhenitsyn, The GULAG Archipelago

"The amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history. It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease. The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation."

--Thomas Cooley, Principles of Constitutional Law (1898)


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Okay, we've gone full circle now several times. Perhaps it's time to move on.

Conclusions:

Some people see a definite need for a defensive firearm for civilians
Some people like going to a firearms range
Some people don't see a need for defensive firearms for civilians
Some people don't like going to the range
Some people think they have a constitutional right to bear arms
Some people think there should be no right to bear arms
Some people think society would be safer without civilian firearms
Some people think society would be more dangerous without civilian firearms 

If I've missed any angle just add it to the list, then let's call it a day!


----------



## Shaver

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Okay, we've gone full circle now several times. Perhaps it's time to move on.
> 
> Conclusions:
> 
> Some people see a definite need for a defensive firearm for civilians
> Some people like going to a firearms range
> Some people don't see a need for defensive firearms for civilians
> Some people don't like going to the range
> Some people think they have a constitutional right to bear arms
> Some people think there should be no right to bear arms
> Some people think society would be safer without civilian firearms
> Some people think society would be more dangerous without civilian firearms
> 
> *If I've missed any angle just add it to the list, then let's call it a day!*


Well...... Lee Harvey Oswald was briefly mentioned earlier.

In England we are sometimes presented with 'facts' by the media which are, presumably, designed to make Americans seem gullible. "Study reveals that 95% of Americans believe Elvis is living on a UFO" that type of thing. Obviously I don't pay any attention, I like Americans. However, I would be curious to understand how the JFK assasination, this central moment in US history and defined by gunfire, is perceived by you chaps. One thing's for certain - there is something fishy to the official tale but is this to conceal conspiracy or merely incompetence? Zapruder frame 313, the defining moment of the greatest hoax perpetrated on the American people?

*VIEWER DISCRETION ADVISED:*
https://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/wound.html


----------



## eagle2250

(Referring to the E of O's post #1200)^^+1, plus...
Some people think a thoughtful distrust of and skepticism regarding the seminal motivations and legislative intentions of our elected leadership is a healthy thing...and
Some people think the intention of our Founding Fathers in the crafting and inclusion of the Second Amendment, as part and parcel of our constitution, was specifically to allow citizens of the United States of America to defend against such abuses of electoral authority, should such abuses occur.


----------



## Haffman

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Okay, we've gone full circle now several times. Perhaps it's time to move on.
> 
> Conclusions:
> 
> Some people see a definite need for a defensive firearm for civilians
> Some people like going to a firearms range
> Some people don't see a need for defensive firearms for civilians
> Some people don't like going to the range
> Some people think they have a constitutional right to bear arms
> Some people think there should be no right to bear arms
> Some people think society would be safer without civilian firearms
> Some people think society would be more dangerous without civilian firearms
> 
> If I've missed any angle just add it to the list, then let's call it a day!


Yes but please allow us to flog this dead horse past 50 pages of posts...we are almost there!


----------



## Joseph Peter

Mr. Shaver, in this Yank's experience, it is probably fair to say that, in general, there is a fair degree of mistrust of our government. It likely has been thus since the founding of the country. Kennedy's situation is merely one instance. The War of 1812, the Spanish American War, the blood bath that was our Civil War, our entry in WWII, the rounding up of Asians during WWII, Viet Nam, Nixon's Watergate drama, 9/11, the Iraq War Part II, the Bush Gore election, the reasons underlying U.S. foreign aid, the US' so-called bail out of banks and auto manufacturers, the recent and current so-called fiscal cliff and debt ceiling controversies, not to mention whether Obama is a U.S citizen, etc. Not expressing any personal opinions on these issues or non-issues but these events and situations, among a long list of others, are events on which there has been and is a fair degree of distrust by the populace and the government.

To put two other instances on the table, there is debate about the reasons, motivations, and perpetrators behind the assassinations of Lincoln and McKinley.

Confounding the messy relationship b/n citizens and government here is the country's geography. You'll likely find different degrees of this phenomenon depending on where you speak with people.


----------



## 16412

Somewhere in Washington State some lady ran down two girls with her car because of her stupid dog. All most killed one of the girls. Cars are so dangerous. All kinds of laws and enforcement and yet every year people are kill because of them. Like guns Cars Should be Band. Not made anymore. Turned into plow shears. If you disagree you need to see a shrink and get permission to cross a street. If you want to go to grandmas for Christmas you got two feet to get there or stay home, but certainly not by Auto. Same as gun owners everybody who rides in a horseless carriage is a murder. All of them!

Logic is math. You can add it up. Words do have math values. Is everybody guilty above of murder or just a few who should be punished, some with the death sentence. A government that does not obey the law is guilty, and foolish goverments take away the peoples freedom.


----------



## Haffman

WA said:


> Somewhere in Washington State some lady ran down two girls with her car because of her stupid dog. All most killed one of the girls. Cars are so dangerous. All kinds of laws and enforcement and yet every year people are kill because of them. Like guns Cars Should be Band. Not made anymore. Turned into plow shears. If you disagree you need to see a shrink and get permission to cross a street. If you want to go to grandmas for Christmas you got two feet to get there or stay home, but certainly not by Auto. Same as gun owners everybody who rides in a horseless carriage is a murder. All of them!
> 
> Logic is math. You can add it up. Words do have math values. Is everybody guilty above of murder or just a few who should be punished, some with the death sentence. A government that does not obey the law is guilty, and foolish goverments take away the peoples freedom.


:icon_scratch:


----------



## Shaver

Haffman said:


> :icon_scratch:


Yeah, I can't see how the dog fits in to the story either...........?


----------



## VictorRomeo

WA said:


> Somewhere in Washington State some lady ran down two girls with her car because of her stupid dog. All most killed one of the girls. Cars are so dangerous. All kinds of laws and enforcement and yet every year people are kill because of them. Like guns Cars Should be Band. Not made anymore. Turned into plow shears. If you disagree you need to see a shrink and get permission to cross a street. If you want to go to grandmas for Christmas you got two feet to get there or stay home, but certainly not by Auto. Same as gun owners everybody who rides in a horseless carriage is a murder. All of them!
> 
> Logic is math. You can add it up. Words do have math values. Is everybody guilty above of murder or just a few who should be punished, some with the death sentence. A government that does not obey the law is guilty, and foolish goverments take away the peoples freedom.


----------



## CuffDaddy

I think anyone reading a thread like this has to accept that there are going to be a large number of posts wherein people simply declaim their personal views, decry those of others, and/or make simplistic and reductive arguments. Enduring those is the price of trying to reach an understanding of the real reasons _why_ others who feel differently than you do so.

Moreover, if one accepts the Rawlsian premise that being an agreement to be persuadable is part of a sustainable pluralistic democracy - and, therefore, part of being a good citizen in such a society - the prolonged-ness of a discussion is not a sign of futility, but of hope.

So I'll keep flogging this horse as long as I can think of an even-remotely new way to swing the whip.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Are we on page 50 yet?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

No? How about now?


----------



## ricardofrancisco

Earl of Ormonde said:


> No? How about now?


Just about. Almost there. I'm a gun enthusiast / hobbyist by the way. I like knives too. I just like to collect though.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

ricardofrancisco said:


> I like knives too.


I have a few knives too, including my old RAF aircrew survival knife. Are we on page 50 yet?


----------



## Liberty Ship

I am surprised at the number of posters here are from Atlanta, Georgia, USA. While I know Atlanta is in Free America (I live there, too), it just strikes me as statistically significant. Perhaps its because we were invaded, occupied, and burnt to the ground! Here, a Southern home owner, Scarlett O'hara, ends a dispute with a Federal government employee over property rights and stops what might have become a rape:


----------



## Shaver

Liberty Ship said:


> I am surprised at the number of posters here are from Atlanta, Georgia, USA. While I know Atlanta is in Free America (I live there, too), it just strikes me as statistically significant. *Perhaps its because we were invaded, occupied, and burnt to the ground!* Here, a Southern home owner, Scarlett O'hara, ends a dispute with a Federal government employee over property rights and stops what might have become a rape:


Was this recently? I don't recall it being on the news.........?


----------



## Liberty Ship

Although most people don't seem to know about it, it had an enduring effect. Not only did the Civil War tend to define a certain attitude in the Southern states, there is one statutory effect that is often over looked. In order to be readmitted to the Union after the Civil War, the states that succeeded were compelled to adopt state constitutions that conformed to the U.S. Constitution. Thus, Georgia, for example, has a strong "2nd Amendment," as do all readmitted states.

Other states, New York, for example, do not have such provisions. Iowa, where a state legislator has recently called for an outright ban on guns, has no "2nd Amendment." New Jersey, California, and Maryland, all of which severely infringe the gun rights, are among the other states with no "2nd Amendment provision." And other natural states whose gun provisions were not dictated by readmission do not have provisions as strong as the readmitted south. This is why you see outrageous violations of the right to keep and bear arms in some of the formerly "Yankee" states while the former Confederacy is solidly in favor of freedom, both by statute and by attitude formed by history. Interesting "unintended consequence," huh?


----------



## eagle2250

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I have a few knives too, including my old RAF aircrew survival knife. Are we on page 50 yet?


Earl: Once again we share common ground...I too for some reason kept the knife from my aircrew survival vest (you know, the one with the blaze orange bolsters, a hooked blade with a razor edge for slashing through tangled parachute risers, and a spring loaded main blade that would open and lock into place with the press of a button!). Although at this point, I'm not sure why...I don't think it would even be legal to carry/use the darn thing. Maybe someday it will be a nice piece of memorabilia for one of the grandsons?


----------



## Liberty Ship

Eagle, that would be a Class B misdemeanor in the state of Indiana.

https://knife-expert.com/in.txt

Ironically, it is also illegal to sell it or give it away, as is simple possession! It's like Robert Louis Stephenson's "Bottle Imp!" You can't keep it, and you can't get rid of it! And if you do give it to someone or pass it on and they accept it, the law has created two criminals who had no criminal intent whatsoever.

While gun control in the USA was originally designed to keep guns out of the hands of Blacks, knife laws originated in New York to keep knives out of the hands of the Irish and Italians. Now, the government assumes that we are all Black Irish Italians! Which for me, would be partially true!


----------



## eagle2250

^^Liberty Ship:

Thanks for the heads up! I actually knew I couldn't carry it, but was under the assumption it could legally be included as part of a personal collection. LOL, though it does seem ironic that when the survival vest was issued to me, if I had been subjected to an unannounced Standboard Evaluation, I would have been written up for not having the knife in my possession and now if I were to get caught carrying the beast, I would be cited for having it with me.  I suppose, should the Administration in D.C. be successful in their efforts to take away our guns and they come to confiscate the contents of my gun safe(s), they will probably take the survival knife when they take the AR-15, etc. that shares space in those safes with the knife! Damn, ya just can't win under a socialist regime


----------



## Liberty Ship

The goal of the socialist regime is the creation of criminals, followed by manipulation of power through favors and guilt.


----------



## Shaver

Liberty Ship said:


> The goal of the socialist regime is the creation of criminals, followed by manipulation of power through favors and guilt.


Is that a goal? Those are more methods than purpose.....


----------



## Liberty Ship

Fair point.

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."


----------



## Shaver

Liberty Ship said:


> Fair point.
> 
> "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."


Ayn Rand's philosophy rather revolts me. More so given that she only followed it herself when it was convenient.

True, though, about governments and criminals. There are far too many laws applied to far too many situations and yet all of those things which remain legal are by far the biggest sins.


----------



## Liberty Ship

We're never gonna make it to page 50, are we? And that recalls, again, Robert Louis Stevenson:

"A strange picture we make on our way to our chimaeras, ceaselessly marching, grudging ourselves the time for rest; indefatigable, adventurous pioneers. It is true that we shall never reach the goal; it is even more than probable that there is no such place; and if we lived for centuries and were endowed with the powers of a god, we should find ourselves not much nearer what we wanted at the end. O toiling hands of mortals! O unwearied feet, travelling ye know not whither! Soon, soon, it seems to you, you must come forth on some conspicuous hilltop, and but a little way further, against the setting sun, descry the spires of El Dorado. Little do ye know your own blessednes; for to travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive, and the true success is to labour."


----------



## Bjorn

CuffDaddy said:


> I think anyone reading a thread like this has to accept that there are going to be a large number of posts wherein people simply declaim their personal views, decry those of others, and/or make simplistic and reductive arguments. Enduring those is the price of trying to reach an understanding of the real reasons _why_ others who feel differently than you do so.
> 
> Moreover, if one accepts the Rawlsian premise that being an agreement to be persuadable is part of a sustainable pluralistic democracy - and, therefore, part of being a good citizen in such a society - the prolonged-ness of a discussion is not a sign of futility, but of hope.
> 
> So I'll keep flogging this horse as long as I can think of an even-remotely new way to swing the whip.


Agreed. 50?!?!?


----------



## Bjorn

Liberty Ship said:


> The goal of the socialist regime is the creation of criminals, followed by manipulation of power through favors and guilt.


Having lived most my life in a 'socialist regime', albeit a moderately themed one, I think that can be easily disputed. Especially considering the one positive thing that 'more socialist' regimes excel at is poverty reduction by transfer. Which significantly lowers crime.

And you can call the current us regime socialist all you want, but that won't make it so.

Frankly, it's like calling Labour communists. Or Miller light a beer.


----------



## Belfaborac

As a citizen of the country your erstwhile Minster of Industry (?) Bjørn Rosengren called "the last soviet state", I can only agree.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Bjorn said:


> Having lived most my life in a 'socialist regime', albeit a moderately themed one, I think that can be easily disputed. Especially considering the one positive thing that 'more socialist' regimes excel at is poverty reduction by transfer. Which significantly lowers crime.


1950 was the year Sweden began recording national crime statistics. In 1950, 195,000 crimes were reported. In 1964, the number was 368,000. Between 1975 and 1990, the number of reported offences rose by 61 percent at a steady rate. In the 90s and the recent years, the number has fluctuated between years, but has generally not been increasing.
Allochthonous people are overrepresented in Sweden's crime statistics. During the period 1997-2001, 25% of the almost 1,520,000 offences were committed by people born overseas, while almost 20% were committed by people with a foreign background who were born in Sweden. Those from North Africa and the Middle East were overrepresented.[SUP][

[/SUP]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Sweden

Looks as though Sweden has been more Socialist since 1990 but suffers from a diversity problem more recently.

I agree with you regarding the beer!!


----------



## CuffDaddy

WouldaShoulda said:


> almost 20% were committed by people with a foreign background who were born in Sweden.


One of the things I like best about being an American is that there is no such thing as a "person with a foreign background born in the U.S." I'm glad I live someplace with no official ethnicity and no official culture. We are, as a society, whatever we decide to be.


----------



## Belfaborac

CuffDaddy said:


> We are, as a society, whatever we decide to be.


Hard to see how that's any different from most other countries on the globe. Following US news from time to time, it's also hard not to get the impression that plenty Americans believe there is indeed such a thing as a person with a foreign background.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Belfaborac, consider France. Absent some change in the official government policy of France, France is the home of the French language. Immigration to Switzerland is very difficult unless one has Swiss ancestry. Israel is officially a homeland for Jewish people.

America doesn't have any groups that it recognizes as the "authentic" Americans. We don't have an official language, although the vast majority of us speak English. If we want to become a Portugese-speaking country, all we have to do is start speaking it. We don't have to change any laws. We have no official culture. We have no ethnically-privileged set of "real" Americans*. The populace is whatever it decides to be.

As for "foreign background," of course we have _people_ with foriegn backgrounds. What we do not have is people _born in the U.S_ who are of a "foreign background." See prior comments re: no official ethnicity. My ancestors all arrived at least 150 years ago. But from America's perspective, I'm no more or less of a "foreign background" than someone who whose parents came from Switzerland or Swaziland 2 years ago and gave birth to them last week.

* We do have some people who _feel_ that some Americans are "real" and others not. Those people fundamentally don't understand the nature of our country, which, ironically, makes them the phoniest Americans.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

CuffDaddy said:


> One of the things I like best about being an American is that there is no such thing as a "person with a foreign background born in the U.S." I'm glad I live someplace with no official ethnicity and no official culture. We are, as a society, whatever we decide to be.


I know.

But there are some people in the US who won't let you fill out a Government form or apply to college without trying to pidgeonhole one's ethnicity!!

BTW~I had to look up "Allochthonous."


----------



## 16412

I get tired of people who think they ought to think for other people. If they were qualified to think for others they wouldn't.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Anyhoo, firearms, good or bad?


----------



## Shaver

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Anyhoo, firearms, good or bad?


Firearms? Oh yes. Yes, of course:

Good.


----------



## Bjorn

WA said:


> I get tired of people who think they ought to think for other people. If they were qualified to think for others they wouldn't.


Now, wouldn't that be rather mean...


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Shaver said:


> Firearms? Oh yes. Yes, of course:
> 
> Good.


Right, that's that solved then! Next subject 

Class A drugs, too expensive nowadays?


----------



## Shaver

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Right, that's that solved then! Next subject
> 
> Class A drugs, too expensive nowadays?


Depends, how much you selling them for?

Ah! the good old days of a quick 'supermarket sweep' around the Met Police 'evidence' room.......... :icon_smile:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Shaver said:


> Depends, how much you selling them for?
> 
> Ah! the good old days of a quick 'supermarket sweep' around the Met Police 'evidence' room.......... :icon_smile:


Fiver a draw to you sunshine!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I have a few knives too, including my old RAF aircrew survival knife.


Type-D RAF survival knife. Black parkerized blade for arctic conditions. It weighs about 3 pounds & that combined with the 1/3" inch blade-back & heavy wooden handle means that it doubled as a hammer. Total length about 12" - blade alone is 7".

https://www.fieldserviceantiquearms...sue-early-type-d-survival-knife-raf-974-p.asp


----------



## eagle2250

Is anyone else struck by the irony that the Administration responsible for the "Fast and Furious gun walking scandal," a fiasco that led not only to the countless deaths of Mexican citizens, but American citizens as well; is about to propose gun control legislation that could compromise every law abiding citizen's constitutional liberties to arms. It seems interesting to note that many of the weapons distributed in the fast and furious gun walking scandal were militarized versions of the sporting arms the President and his cronies are proposing to ban! Have any of the real "Big Shots" in the Obama Administration responsible for the conception and execution of fast and furious really been held accountable, to this point? Such scandalous duplicity should at minimum impeach the credibility, if not indeed, the continued service of this national leadership of ours! These are indeed sad days for our beloved Republic!


----------



## Snow Hill Pond

CuffDaddy said:


> * We do have some people who _feel_ that some Americans are "real" and others not


When I lived in Ann Arbor (MI) or "A2", as the locals call it, I used to see people driving around with a "Native" bumpersticker on their cars. It took me a while to understand that it implied that the folks who were born in "A2" were somehow better than the gownies who chose UM as their college and decided to stick around afterwards. With no horse in the race (I'm neither a gownie or a townie), I thought it was a little amusing...kinda mean-spirited...but amusing. Everyone is trying to be more authentic than the next guy!


----------



## Snow Hill Pond

eagle2250 said:


> Is anyone else struck by the irony that the Administration responsible for the "Fast and Furious gun walking scandal," a fiasco that led not only to the countless deaths of Mexican citizens, but American citizens as well; is about to propose gun control legislation that could compromise every law abiding citizen's constitutional liberties to arms. It seems interesting to note that many of the weapons distributed in the fast and furious gun walking scandal were militarized versions of the sporting arms the President and his cronies are proposing to ban! Have any of the real "Big Shots" in the Obama Administration responsible for the conception and execution of fast and furious really been held accountable, to this point? Such scandalous duplicity should at minimum impeach the credibility, if not indeed, the continued service of this national leadership of ours! These are indeed sad days for our beloved Republic!


The concept of irony (or humility) is something lost upon this President.

You want a good drinking game? Take a shot whenever the President says "I will not rest until..." or "My top priority is..."

You want a bad drinking game? Take a shot whenever the President follows through on any promise made with the above statements.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

My radical idea: The US Govt issues everyone 18 and over with a revolver and six rounds per year for self-defence. No other handgun ammo or handguns are permitted to be owned by civilians. You can also own a shotgun and 50 rounds a year or a hunting rifle and 50 rounds a year. Annually you have to present ammo to a local govt agency & if any has been used you have to account for it. 

Now one of the knock on effects is that the badguys will also only have 6 legal rounds a year too, so will be a bit more careful with wasting lead! Of course villains will always have access to illegal munitions, so.... 

Limts on ammo seem to be the way to go. I was listening to US radio stations and political commentators last night & limited ammo was the hot topic.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond

Earl of Ormonde said:


> My radical idea: The US Govt issues everyone 18 and over with a revolver and six rounds per year for self-defence. No other handgun ammo or handguns are permitted to be owned by civilians. You can also own a shotgun and 50 rounds a year or a hunting rifle and 50 rounds a year. Annually you have to present ammo to a local govt agency & if any has been used you have to account for it.
> 
> Now one of the knock on effects is that the badguys will also only have 6 legal rounds a year too, so will be a bit more careful with wasting lead! Of course villains will always have access to illegal munitions, so....
> 
> Limts on ammo seem to be the way to go. I was listening to US radio stations and political commentators last night & limited ammo was the hot topic.


If you want to get radical, try this: Mandatory gun safety training and target practice training in high school.

This will do two things:


It would eliminate the irrational fear of guns exhibited by people who would otherwise never touch a gun.
It would give every adult the same points-of-reference so that we, as a nation, can have a reasonable conversation about the 2nd amendment and associated gun control legislation.

If you want to get silly, limit ammo. And then watch criminals and savvy law-abiding citizens get around it by making their own bullets. I believe that some high-end hunters and target shooters do this already. Apparently, among other things, commercially available rounds are too variable in the amount of gunpowder in each round to make consistently accurate shots.


----------



## CuffDaddy

I don't call myself "high-end" anything, but I load my own ammunition. 

Limits on ammunition are among the more imbecilic ideas being discussed, but nobody serious is discussing such things.

Earl, even if the idea were remotely workable, it's grossly violative of people's rights. Two rounds of skeet or a single day in a hot dove field and you've burned your year's allotment of shotgun shells. Buy a new scope for your rifle, and about the time you've got it sighted in, you've exhausted your rifle rounds. Better not ever have to use that revolver for anything meaningful, since you sure as hell won't be hitting anything with it.


----------



## eagle2250

Rather than guns, perhaps the greater,more immediate hazard to public safety are vehicles operated by "loaded drivers!" Those "high capacity assault shots" are just murder (pun intended)!Far more people are maimed and/or killed by drunk drivers than by gun's each year. Where's the public and political outrage over the tragedy of the public drunk who choses to drive? Let's ban vehicles(?), booze(?), drunk drivers(?), or perhaps all three. What say you Mr President? Hell, don't let the Constitution stop you...it certainly hasn't in the past!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

CuffDaddy said:


> it's grossly violative of people's rights.


Really? So is being shot dead by an armed criminal! I really think America has to get past this notion that carrying firearms is a right.


----------



## dawgvet

I am a person who believes in both the necessity and utility of firearms. I also use firearms for recreation but my main concern for firearm ownership is to defend me, my family, and my possessions from any and all that would do them harm. I absolutely believe that there is a great responsibility that comes with possessing firearms, just as there is with the right to vote, speak freely, and assemble.

I also can see the futility in the passage of laws to prevent criminally minded people from performing acts of crime. Honest people obey laws. Take the guns away from them and who is left with guns? Criminals and the government. That should help you sleep better at night.

My .45 Ruger helps me sleep better. It is also the first thing my wife checks for when I am away on business (Smith and Wesson are my travel partners).

I enjoy hunting, target shooting, and teaching my children proper use of firearms but I cherish the _*right*_ that so many have died to protect.

Regards,
Jedidiah Green


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Snow Hill Pond said:


> This will do two things:
> 
> 
> It would eliminate the irrational fear of guns exhibited by people who would otherwise never touch a gun.
> It would give every adult the same points-of-reference so that we, as a nation, can have a reasonable conversation about the 2nd amendment and associated gun control legislation.


No, it won't. You can't guarantee that it will achieve either of those for everyone


----------



## CuffDaddy

Earl, there are no guaranties, especially not "for everyone." But SHP is likely right about the aggregate effect.


----------



## dawgvet

Earl of Ormonde said:


> My radical idea: The US Govt issues everyone 18 and over with a revolver and six rounds per year for self-defence. No other handgun ammo or handguns are permitted to be owned by civilians. You can also own a shotgun and 50 rounds a year or a hunting rifle and 50 rounds a year. Annually you have to present ammo to a local govt agency & if any has been used you have to account for it.
> 
> Now one of the knock on effects is that the badguys will also only have 6 legal rounds a year too, so will be a bit more careful with wasting lead! Of course villains will always have access to illegal munitions, so....
> 
> Limts on ammo seem to be the way to go. I was listening to US radio stations and political commentators last night & limited ammo was the hot topic.


I hate to be offensive, but how stupid does one have to be to think the criminals will kindly acquiesce to the law and limit themselves to 6 rounds! We currently have laws against driving over the speed limit so I should suspect to see no drivers over 70 mph on my drive home tonight! This kind of thinking is sadly so out-of-touch with reality that it makes me quiver. 
Why does Fort Knox post armed guards? Why do terrorists not hijack Israeli airline El Al? Armed guards on every flight. Why doesn't the President have the Secret Service agents stop carrying guns? Nobody is going to try anything because we have _*laws*_ against attempted murder, right?

Gentlemen, this is not a GOP vs Dem, conservative vs liberal, or them vs us issue. This is an issue of what actually works and what doesn't. If we can post guards outside bank vaults that don't actually contain much money anymore, why in the world can we not have armed guards at the buildings that house our most precious possessions, our children?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

dawgvet said:


> I hate to be offensive, but how stupid does one have to be to think the criminals will kindly acquiesce to the law and limit themselves to 6 rounds!


Well you clearly didn't read everything I wrote! Did you miss this bit or didn't you get that far? "Of course villains will always have access to illegal munitions, so...."

Now, what do you think I mean by that?


----------



## dawgvet

I think you meant limiting ammunition purchases by law-abiding citizens will be beneficial to preventing crime based on _*your stating *_"limits on ammo seem to be the way to go." This phrase was near the end of your post proving I did read everything you wrote.

In response to your asking what I thought you meant, I believe some clarification of what exactly you did mean would be helpful as you state in one place that "villians will always have access to illegal munitions" and then state in another that this somehow should lead to the conclusion that limiting the supply of ammuntion to honest citizens will somehow make our society safer. Your logic is a bit hard to follow.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Now, what do you think I mean by that?


That your proposal would fail of its essential purpose _ab initio_ ?


----------



## Liberty Ship

Earl of Ormonde said:


> My radical idea: The US Govt issues everyone 18 and over with a revolver and six rounds per year for self-defence. No other handgun ammo or handguns are permitted to be owned by civilians. You can also own a shotgun and 50 rounds a year or a hunting rifle and 50 rounds a year. Annually you have to present ammo to a local govt agency & if any has been used you have to account for it.
> 
> Now one of the knock on effects is that the badguys will also only have 6 legal rounds a year too, so will be a bit more careful with wasting lead! Of course villains will always have access to illegal munitions, so....
> 
> Limts on ammo seem to be the way to go. I was listening to US radio stations and political commentators last night & limited ammo was the hot topic.


But....I probably shoot 10,000 rounds a year! Do you have any other ideas?


----------



## justonemore

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Really? So is being shot dead by an armed criminal! I really think America has to get past this notion that carrying firearms is a right.


But in the U.S. it is a right (as stated by the 2nd amendment). The problem is that it was to insure against a despotic government and given the current U.S. situation, the idea obviously didn't work. In this day and age, should all our friends decide to rise over the U.S. government with their semi-auto "assault rifles" they would find themselves labled as terrorists and shot dead by a superior force carrying fully automatic "military weapons" rather quickly (or perhaps just arrested and jailed with no trial).


----------



## Mel Marcos

justonemore said:


> But in the U.S. it is a right (as stated by the 2nd amendment). The problem is that it was to insure against a despotic government and given the current U.S. situation, the idea obviously didn't work. In this day and age, should all our friends decide to rise over the U.S. government with their semi-auto "assault rifles" they would find themselves labled as terrorists and shot dead by a superior force carrying fully automatic "military weapons" rather quickly (or perhaps just arrested and jailed with no trial).


Or a drone flying a mile above the ringleaders of the rebel forces and will blow them to kingdom come and it will officially be blamed on a gas leak. (I read that on a message board today) Civillians really cannot fight the military if their gol is to wipe us out


----------



## justonemore

Mel Marcos said:


> Or a drone flying a mile above the ringleaders of the rebel forces and will blow them to kingdom come and it will officially be blamed on a gas leak. (I read that on a message board today) Civillians really cannot fight the military if their gol is to wipe us out


A drone I could see. Blaming a gas leak? Why bother making excuses when all you did was kill a bunch of "homegrown terrorists" that no one will care about?


----------



## Chouan

dawgvet said:


> I am a person who believes in both the necessity and utility of firearms. I also use firearms for recreation but my main concern for firearm ownership is to defend me, my family, and my possessions from any and all that would do them harm. I absolutely believe that there is a great responsibility that comes with possessing firearms, just as there is with the right to vote, speak freely, and assemble.
> 
> I also can see the futility in the passage of laws to prevent criminally minded people from performing acts of crime. Honest people obey laws. Take the guns away from them and who is left with guns? Criminals and the government. That should help you sleep better at night.
> 
> My .45 Ruger helps me sleep better. It is also the first thing my wife checks for when I am away on business (Smith and Wesson are my travel partners).
> 
> I enjoy hunting, target shooting, and teaching my children proper use of firearms but I cherish the _*right*_ that so many have died to protect.
> 
> Regards,
> Jedidiah Green


I'd be interested in finding out how many people have died for the right to carry personal firearms that you've mentioned. A curious cause to die for.


----------



## Chouan

justonemore said:


> But in the U.S. it is a right (as stated by the 2nd amendment). The problem is that it was to insure against a despotic government and given the current U.S. situation, the idea obviously didn't work. In this day and age, should all our friends decide to rise over the U.S. government with their semi-auto "assault rifles" they would find themselves labled as terrorists and shot dead by a superior force carrying fully automatic "military weapons" rather quickly (or perhaps just arrested and jailed with no trial).


Are you suggesting that the US has a despotic government? I thought that you had democratic elections only recently. Has something happened to change that situation that hasn't been reported?


----------



## justonemore

Chouan said:


> Are you suggesting that the US has a despotic government? I thought that you had democratic elections only recently. Has something happened to change that situation that hasn't been reported?


Change? Nope. They still have a 2 party political system highly influenced by outside forces ( i.e. Israeli campaign funding). Most if not all u.s. politicians consider themselves as trustees versus delegates (you voted for me not to represent you but because you support my viewpoint). Issues are rarely put to public vote & when they are it's on a state or local level which the federal government overrides as they like (i.e. voter approved drug laws). The "land of the free" has the highest rate of it's population in jails (privately ran, for profit jails) out of any "civilized country". It takes 100'000 signatures for the president to give a response to his subjects on any topic. U.S. global standings are what? In the bottom percentiles for education, healthcare and infrastructure and the highest percentiles for executions and international arms sales. I never voted on such issues as torture, imprisonment without trial, indiscriminate killings of civilians by drones, and loss of citizen's civil rights in form of phone taps, spying on computer records, etc. Call it a democracy if you like but I'm sure there are more appropriate terms for what the U.S. has become.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

YES I do have another idea - Americans just as the Brits did need to find other hobbies than guns!


----------



## justonemore

Earl of Ormonde said:


> YES I do have another idea - Americans just as the Brits did need to find other hobbies than guns!


The Brits solved the problems of violence did they?

Knives anyone? The U.K. has a population of what? 64 million?

"During the year to June 2012 there were approximately 29,613 recorded offences involving knives or other sharp instruments*". https://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/

The U.S. has over 300 million people yet only 1,188 knife/sharp instrument crimes

Excuse me sir, would you mind if I just run a metal detector over your body in the middle off the street? A bit of undressing might be needed. Don't worry, I'm a cop/security/concerned citizen.

We fail to account for the paranoid/schizophrénic attitudes often found in both U.K. and U.S. societies. Most everyone here in Switzerland has hands on experience with military firearms, many keep military firearms in the closet, yet shootings are extremely rare. Is it the military training and respect for firearms? Less video games? A society based on respect? I don't know the answer for certain but it's obvious (from the lack of dead bodies here) that firearms aren't the main cause of the problem. We aren't knifing or assaulting people at such high rates either.

Only 52 pages? This arguement hs been going on in the states for at least 30 years (as far back as I can remember the topic).

* this is down 9% from 2010-2011.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

ALSO, I'd like to point out again, 50 pages later, that the recent school shooting in the US and Columbine and Hungerford and Dunblane were all carried out by men who were until that point NOT criminals and for the most part with LEGALLY held weapons and AMMO. So ammo restrictions and restrictions on sports shooting and gun clubs COULD well have prevented all 4 of those massacres.


How does the old saying go, "there are none so blind as those who will not see" 

"If there are no guns you can't be shot by them"

And just for the record most guns held by criminals are stolen from legal owners, shops and gun clubs. Reduce those & you reduce that supply which is available for criminals to steal and use.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

justonemore said:


> The Brits solved the problems of violence did they?
> 
> Knives anyone?


The thread is about guns. Maybe we can start talking about grenades, bombs, swords, landmines, and clubs as well.


----------



## Shaver

Earl of Ormonde said:


> YES I do have another idea - Americans just as the Brits did need to find other hobbies than guns!


Hmmm.... if you wish to perhaps suggest alternative recreation such as chess or trainspotting to the NRA, please, be my guest.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

CuffDaddy said:


> That your proposal would fail of its essential purpose _ab initio_ ?


Nix. That, there are always going to be criminals that will attempt to get hold of weapons and ammo no matter how hard the State makes it, while other crims simultaneously will just resign themselves to the fact that they can't get hold of weapons & ammo anymore legally or illegally.


----------



## justonemore

Earl of Ormonde said:


> "If there are no guns you can't be shot by them"
> .


If there are no arms and legs you can't be hit or kicked either.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Shaver said:


> Hmmm.... if you wish to perhaps suggest alternative recreation such as chess or trainspotting to the NRA, please, be my guest.


I was thinking more along the lines of archery and fencing both of which I've done.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

justonemore said:


> If there are no arms and legs you can't be hit or kicked either.


True, but arms and legs have many other useful purposes for which they are intended. Firearms don't!


----------



## justonemore

Shaver said:


> Hmmm.... if you wish to perhaps suggest alternative recreation such as chess or trainspotting to the NRA, please, be my guest.


Trainspotting? Isn't that slang for shooting heroin?


----------



## justonemore

Earl of Ormonde said:


> True, but arms and legs have many other useful purposes for which they are intended. Firearms don't!


Hunting, target shooting and self-defense are all valid, useful reasons to have a firearm. I've used one for all 3 purposes.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

justonemore said:


> Excuse me sir, would you mind if I just run a metal detector over your body in the middle off the street? A bit of undressing might be needed. Don't worry, I'm a cop/security/concerned citizen.


Metal detectors aren't needed. A UK police officer can legally physically search any person he suspects of carrying weapons. I've done it myself hundreds of times.


----------



## eagle2250

Mel Marcos said:


> Or a drone flying a mile above the ringleaders of the rebel forces and will blow them to kingdom come and it will officially be blamed on a gas leak. (I read that on a message board today) Civillians really cannot fight the military if their gol is to wipe us out


LOL. Well, it's really not quite that simple. If they blow all us pro-gun dudes up, they will be wiping out the 53% of the American populace who financially support the 47% of the population represented by the "entitlement generation" that Mitt Romney referred to in his campaign rhetoric! Should the "Obamamanians" blow up the very people who actually work for a living and pay the taxes that pay the bills, who's going to pay the bills then? :crazy:


----------



## justonemore

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Metal detectors aren't needed. A UK police officer can legally physically search any person he suspects of carrying weapons. I've done it myself hundreds of times.


I'd prefer the slight chance of being stabbed or shot compared to constantly putting up with some ***** running his hands over my body just because he has a sneaky feeling.

Excuse me sir, your overcoat makes me suspicious. Your suit jacket makes you look like a mafioso. Your pants aren't tailored properly and the bagginess makes me weary. You looked at me wrong. I don't like your attiutude. I don't like your race. I don't like your sex. I don't like your face.

Absolute power corrupts absolute.


----------



## Shaver

justonemore said:


> Trainspotting? Isn't that slang for shooting heroin?


Not to my knowledge, although criminal/outsider slang updates very frequently and varies regionally.

There was a movie called Trainspotting which dealt with the day to day lives of Heroin addicts but the film was named after the book of short stories, which in turn was named after the tale contained within entitled 'Trainspotting at Leith Central Station' which was unrelated to drug use.


----------



## Shaver

justonemore said:


> I'd prefer the slight chance of being stabbed or shot compared to constantly putting up with some ***** running his hands over my body just because he has a sneaky feeling.


I doubt that a man of the Earl's calibre would ever run his hands over another man's body because he had a 'sneaky' feeling. It would be resultant of some other feeling entirely, I imagine. :devil:


----------



## justonemore

Shaver said:


> Not to my knowledge, although criminal/outsider slang updates very frequently and varies regionally.
> 
> There was a movie called Trainspotting which dealt with the day to day lives of Heroin addicts but the film was named after the book of short stories, which in turn was named after the tale contained within entitled 'Trainspotting at Leith Central Station' which was unrelated to drug use.


Ah. I'll just assume I took the reference from the movie


----------



## justonemore

Shaver said:


> I doubt that a man of the Earl's calibre would ever run his hands over another man's body because he had a 'sneaky' feeling. It would be resultant of some other feeling entirely, I imagine. :devil:


 Yes. Yes. Yes. My comments aren't directed at Earl but in general.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Earl of Ormonde said:


> YES I do have another idea - Americans just as the Brits did need to find other hobbies than guns!


The funny thing is that those who pursue shooting as a hobby are hardly ever the source of the mischief. It's a good bet that all the violent/gun crimes committed over the last decade by guys who either shoot in organized competitions and/or who reload their own ammunition and/or who do their own gunsmithing can be counted on two hands. Perhaps one hand. There are a lot of reasons for this, but the real "gun guys" are not the problem. Casual dabblers are where the crimes of passion/impulse come from, mostly, and the criminals who use their guns as tools have about the same interest in them that you seem to have, Earl.


----------



## VictorRomeo

justonemore said:


> Trainspotting? Isn't that slang for shooting heroin?


No but 'shooting up' is as is more pertinant to the theme of this thread.


----------



## Shaver

VictorRomeo said:


> No but 'shooting up' is as is more pertinant to the theme of this thread.


"Happiness is a warm gun. Bang bang. Shoot shoot".

_Naughty_ Beatles.


----------



## justonemore

VictorRomeo said:


> No but 'shooting up' is as is more pertinant to the theme of this thread.


Ok. After a bit of research :

"Train Tracks" : the slang for needle marks up & down an addicts arm

"Train Spotting" : shoooting up heoroin or the like. Called so because a session will leave a dark linear mark (known as a "track") at the site of the affected vein. Hardcore users will tend to have multiple sites of injection and will locate, or "spot" an optimum vein - one with minimal "tracks" and discomfort or infection.


----------



## Shaver

justonemore said:


> Ok. After a bit of research :
> 
> "Train Tracks" : the slang for needle marks up & down an addicts arm
> 
> "Train Spotting" : shoooting up heoroin or the like. Called so because a session will leave a dark linear mark (known as a "track") at the site of the affected vein. Hardcore users will tend to have multiple sites of injection and will locate, or "spot" an optimum vein - one with minimal "tracks" and discomfort or infection.


'Tracks' are referred to as such simply because the user tracks along the length of the vein, as it deteriorates, in order to keep pace with a viable point of access. Any modern slang is a 'tail wagging the dog' situation, though, as these terms are post Trainspotting movie. If the movie was called Birdwatching then people would be saying the injection site marks look like pecks from a beak, or something similar, in order to capture the zeitgeist.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

justonemore said:


> I'd prefer the slight chance of being stabbed or shot compared to constantly putting up with some ***** running his hands over my body just because he has a sneaky feeling.
> 
> Excuse me sir, your overcoat makes me suspicious. Your suit jacket makes you look like a mafioso. Your pants aren't tailored properly and the bagginess makes me weary. You looked at me wrong. I don't like your attiutude. I don't like your race. I don't like your sex. I don't like your face.
> 
> Absolute power corrupts absolute.


You are being extremely offensive and insulting in addition to clearly not having the slighest idea of how British police officers work.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

justonemore said:


> Yes. Yes. Yes. My comments aren't directed at Earl but in general.


They are still ignorant and offensive and insulting to the corps of professional men that I belonged to and that still police the UK. If you don't know anything about British policing as you quite clearly don't then it is better not to say anything at all.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Shaver said:


> I doubt that a man of the Earl's calibre would ever run his hands over another man's body because he had a 'sneaky' feeling. It would be resultant of some other feeling entirely, I imagine. :devil:


Steady!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

CuffDaddy said:


> The funny thing is that those who pursue shooting as a hobby are hardly ever the source of the mischief.


Perhaps not in the US, but the two major massacres in the UK Hungerford and Dunblane were both committed by gun club members with legally owned (private and gun club) weapons. So another major difference there in the discussion really between UK and US views on the subject.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Interesting. Here in the US, organized shooting sports have an incredible record of safety. Based on injuries actually suffered, one is much safer participating in an action pistol shooting match (running with loaded guns!) than in, say, rec league softball, much less academic intra-school football or basketball.

It is simply indisputable that, in America, we have MILLIONS of gun owners who are far MORE responsible and LESS dangerous than the average American. When people talk about taking away this or that right (or privilege or legal permission - I'm not relying on that distinction right now), we should remember that the huge majority of that burden will fall on innocent people who have done and will do nothing to earn that treatment. Maybe one concludes that this significant injustice is worth it in the name of public safety. But it's just disengenuous to pretend that there's no cost, or there's no injustice being done.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Perhaps history and evidence simply indicates that responsible individuals should be able to own guns in the US but not the UK.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Yes indeed Mike, the evidence of recent years (say since the 80s) certainly supports that.


----------



## justonemore

Earl of Ormonde said:


> They are still ignorant and offensive and insulting to the corps of professional men that I bleonged to and that still police the UK. If you don't know anything about British policing as you quite clearly don't then it is better not to say anything at all.


Well I would hope that such a professional corps of men would be accountable to the public they serve. I'm not going to get into it with you Earl because my thoughts on the style of policing worldwide today are bound to quite different from yours. In the 2 months I stayed in the U.K. I had very little interaction with the police. The interactions I did have were positive yet one can't but help notice that your force has had it's share of corruption and scandals.

I do find it absolutely offensive that anyone has the authority to to just come up and frisk me at their discretion. I haven't flown into the U.S. for 5 years now for this reason. It's an absolute abuse of power to treat an entire population as criminals or potential criminals. The use of cameras in London is absolute insanity. If your populace really feels that it's beneficial, then wonderful, but I do have to wonder if these laws were passed by popular vote or forced upon U.K. citizens.

Although I respect those that are there to serve society, I myself would rather see 2 dead police officers versus 1 dead innocent civilian. Yet from what I see, it appears most police seem to believe the opposite to be true. You want to take away firearms from the population in order to protect yourselves. For the most part in any crime you are there 2nd, 3rd, or 4th aren't you? You therefore have no capability of defending the people you are supposed to serve from violence as it happens. Other than searching the obvious suspects in public, what do you suggest we do? Ban knives? Just look at your population and the numbers of stabbings. Can you tell me how easy is it to trace a knife as a murder weapon versus a firearm? They make millions of firearms a year yet trillions of knives. Are knives noisy? Do knives have serial numbers in the U.K.? Do they leave obvious traces on the victim and the criminal? From my understanding, a bullet wound is preferable to a stab wound. The blade doesn't follow a direct high velocity path as a bullet would. A knife blade is bound to be jagged and tear internal organs. A knife also produces higher rates of infections do to less exposure to heat and more probable exposure to other elements. .

I have no clue how anyone can actually believe that handing over all firearms and giving complete power to the police is beneficial. It's called a police state. All you need to do is read the news to know it hasn't worked anywhere in the world (let alone in the U.K. ). Why should it work in the U.S.?

You say the "Brits gave up guns as a hobby"? Wasn't it more the forced passing of laws or did you actually have a public referendum on it?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

You are clearly anti-police, anti-establishment, anti-law and order, and your shocking lack of knowledge and offensive comments about dead police officers only permit me to say that I have no further desire to discuss the issue with someone like you, who is so biased, so misinformed, and so prejudiced about police officers. If you want to see crooked police officers and corruption everywhere in every police officer and every police force then I know you will, because your sort always do!


----------



## Langham

Well said, Ormonde, there are some very questionable assertions in the posting you replied to.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

...And I'm sure the handful of former and current US police officers on the forum will respond to you in a similar vein as regards the offensive tone of your comments, which have departed gravely from the subject in hand.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Langham said:


> Well said, Ormonde,


Thanks.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Yes indeed Mike, the evidence of recent years (say since the 80s) certainly supports that.


Aw, personally I'd go back to the 70s, -- the 1770s.


----------



## justonemore

As a police official from the U.K. you are advising an American based board to emulate a system that doesn't work & is overly intrusive. You tell us Americans to give up our firearms yet all you have to show for it in the U.K. is an stupendously high knife crime rate. As a war time veteran, I served to protect the constitutional rights of myself & my fellow citizens. I'm a little hard pressed to allow such cavelier treatment of my fellow American's rights without some serious justification as to your motives. Are you an American citizen or just a concerned individual? 

No response on public votes versus forced government mandates on U.K. arms control?


----------



## justonemore

We used to have a saying in the U.S. "Rather 10 guilty go free than 1 not guilty be punished. If I understand correctly, 300 million are to be punished for the actions of the unstable? Do gang shootings/stabbings mean we as a whole should be forced to go unarmed?


----------



## Langham

Knife crime is a bit of a red herring - a better comparator would be the respective rates of gun crime in the UK and in the USA (qv several earlier posts making this point).

There was no need for a referendum on the occasions when arms control were introduced in the UK, such measures being within the executive powers of the governments of the time. There is no 'gun lobby' in the UK, but if there had been a significant body of opinion opposed to gun control, the constitutional machinery - in theory - is such that their views would have been represented.

Not all measures to control crime - you mentioned CCTV earlier - are meekly accepted nemine contradicente, as you seem to suppose, there is debate but an acceptance, I would say, that some freedoms we tend to take for granted go hand in hand with obligations and restrictions.


----------



## justonemore

Earl of Ormonde said:


> ...And I'm sure the handful of former and current US police officers on the forum will respond to you in a similar vein as regards the offensive tone of your comments, which have departed gravely from the subject in hand.


The police may rally around you. It's well known that most major police unions in the U.S. support firearm control. Ask any American vet on these forums and you'll most likely find a high support for the constitution & the rights, yes rights, of the American people. Our government (both parties) has gone astray, but we can still support the rights of our countrymen through the document and what it stands for. Does the U.K. not rally around the Queen? I see no difference in rallying around a set of different ideals.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Langham said:


> Knife crime is a bit of a red herring - a better comparator would be the respective rates of gun crime in the UK and in the USA (qv several earlier posts making this point).


Uh, no, the point of the gun-versus-knife crime discussion is that knives are a substitute product for guns. Some portion of demand for the uses of a gun - including criminal uses - can be met by a knife. This is particularly true if a criminal can be sure that his selected target is not armed with a gun.

Some of us are of the view that, even if they could somehow be denied guns, neither economically-motivated violent criminals nor lunatic criminals are likely to become upstanding citizens by removing any one particular tool that they might use for ill purposes. Only a comprehensive removal of all hard, sharp, heavy, or hot objects from society could possibly have this effect - see my prior comments, though, about nerfing the world.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Another way to put it: reduction in violent crime and/or murder is the goal. You have to be some sort of phobist or fetishist to care whether murders are committed with guns or knives or bats or whatever. If control of weapon X simply displaces X-related crime to weapon Y, such that Y-related crime surges in the wake of X-control, then X-control does nothing helpful, and only removes liberty pointlessly.


----------



## justonemore

Thank you Langham. What would be a fairer contrast? U.K. crime to the U.S. as a whole? Against a state with similiar gun control measures? A stricter state (not sure it exists)? Less strict? I think in Texas pretty much anything goes and they have very little crime.


----------



## Langham

justonemore said:


> The police may ralley around you. It's well known that major police unions in the U.S. support firearm control. Ask any American vet on these forums snd you'll most likely find a high support for the constitution & the rights, yes rights, of the American people. Our goverment (both parties) has gone astray but we still support the rights of our countrymen through the document and what it stands for. Does the U.K. not ralley around the Queen? I see no difference in rallying around a set of ideals.


Of course people must support and rally around whatever ideals they believe in, then follow through with convincing and compelling arguments so we all agree. We haven't quite got to that point...


----------



## justonemore

I would just like to 2nd cuffdaddy's posts as a bit more succinct version of what I was trying to say.


----------



## Langham

CuffDaddy said:


> Another way to put it: reduction in violent crime and/or murder is the goal. You have to be some sort of phobist or fetishist to care whether murders are committed with guns or knives or bats or whatever. If control of weapon X simply displaces X-related crime to weapon Y, such that Y-related crime surges in the wake of X-control, then X-control does nothing helpful, and only removes liberty pointlessly.


A nice try - some can argue that a knife is an equivalent weapon to a firearm, but I think there is some evidence to suggest the gun is a more effective means for killing, in which case possibly controlling X might help just a little.


----------



## justonemore

Langham said:


> A nice try - some can argue that a knife is an equivalent weapon to a firearm, but I think there is some evidence to suggest the gun is a more effective means for killing, in which case possibly controlling X might help just a little.


A little is hardly the reason to supress the rights of millions. Constitutional changes should on principle have major proven advantages. If you look into it, the states in the U.S. with the harshest gun control measures suffer the largest rates of crime. Instead of disarming, we should most likely take on policies showing strong firearms rights, these areas are shown to have less crime. Less crime is real justification and the goal isn't it? Why so little violent crime in Switzerland when we store our military weapons (many full auto I believe) and ammo at home? We have very little restrictions and public ranges everywhere.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Langham said:


> A nice try - some can argue that a knife is an equivalent weapon to a firearm, but I think there is some evidence to suggest the gun is a more effective means for killing, in which case possibly controlling X might help just a little.


Right. It might. That's why looking at things like overall murder rates before and after control of item X is instructive.

As we covered at length earlier in this thread, homicide rates in the UK didn't change (at least not to the good) after gun control was introduced. Nor did murder rates do anything remarkable the last time we had an AWB or when it previously expired. Particular forms of weapon control seem to be able to perhaps change the exact flavor of murder that you get, but not the amount. That's not a sufficient reason to take away good people's rights, IMO.


----------



## CuffDaddy

justonemore said:


> If you look into it, the states in the U.S. with the harshest gun control measures suffer tge largest rates of crime.


That, I'm afraid, is NOT actually true, IIRC. It's probably true once you control for education and economic/wealth factors. But without controlling for that, you can find data showing a correlation between rates of gun ownership in a state and rates of violence.

All that said, the only place I've ever lived where people I knew routinely got mugged, and the only place where someone I knew was shot and killed, was a place with near-Brit levels of gun control. Having a single piece of ammunition in DC was a crime at the time. Didn't seem to help.


----------



## CuffDaddy

justonemore said:


> A little is hardly the reason to supress the rights of millions.


I generally agree with this. It's possible to massage numbers one way or the other to show small connections (positive or negative) between guns and crime/violence. But before you deprive a bunch of people who aren't doing anything wrong or harmful of _their_ rights, the causation needs to come screaming out of the numbers in an unequivocal way.

Until then, I mostly feel like the character in Office Space who demanded: "Why should I change? He's the one who sucks!" Well, why should I give up my rights? I'm not the one causing harm!


----------



## eagle2250

justonemore said:


> .......
> 
> Although I respect those that are there to serve society, I myself would rather see 2 dead police officers versus 1 dead innocent civilian. Yet from what I see, it appears most police seem to believe the opposite to be true. You want to take away firearms from the population in order to protect yourselves.
> ....................
> .......


Clearly, my postings in this thread identify ms as one of those "gun collecting" fire breathing supporters of the 2nd Amendment, but as a retired member of one of this Nation's military services and as a retired police officer, I've got to tell you...the above quotation is singularly the most ignorant, ill-informed and insensitive statement I have read in the entire 51 pages of this thread. When the sh*t really hits the fan and most reasonable men and women are running from the threat, it is the police officer and/or the soldier who we see running into the fray, putting their own lives at risk for the benefit of others.

Justonemore, try keeping it on a higher plane! Show just a touch of class.


----------



## CuffDaddy

I think - and hope - that justonemore was _trying_ to express the view that the need for protecting law enforcement has often been used as a justification for the loss of one civil right or another. Many kinds of searches that were illegal (absent a warrant) are now conducted as a prophylactic against risk to officers. Now, if they _happen_ to find some illegal drugs...

justonemore has the view, I take it, that additional protection of LEO's (by enhancing their legal monopoly on force) is an insufficient justification of the loss of rights by civilians. I surely hope that he was not expressing a desire to see _any_ dead people. At least that's how I'm going to read it for now. But I'm sure he'll be along to explain his views more fully.


----------



## justonemore

eagle2250 said:


> Clearly, my postings in this thread identify ms as one of those "gun collecting" fire breathing supporters of the 2nd Amendment, but as a retired member of one of this Nation's military services and as a retired police officer, I've got to tell you...the above quotation is singularly the most ignorant, ill-informed and insensitive statement I have read in the entire 51 pages of this thread. When the sh*t really hits the fan and most reasonable men and women are running from the threat, it is the police officer and/or the soldier who we see running into the fray, putting their own lives at risk for the benefit of others.
> 
> Justonemore, try keeping it on a higher plane! Show just a touch of class.


Most major Police unions support gun control due to the danger inherent to the police. This unarms the citizen and puts them at risk. You do admit that the only person capable of stopping a crime in progress is the victim or a person in the exact immediate vincinity, do you not? By betraying the 2nd admendment and ignoring citizens rights, police unions are insuring the saftey of their members while creating victims of the people they are paid to put themselves into danger for. If gun control saves 2 police officers but creates 3 new civilian victims, the system is broke. That was my point. The whole world can take a high and mighty tone and try to be authoratative, but I will always support civilian rights over police rights. I'm all for individual officers and the daily heroics they perform but the police in general have to remember that they are the public servants and not the master. I served in the Army. I served as a volunteer firefighter. I'm no stranger to danger and death for the benefit of others myself.



CuffDaddy said:


> I think - and hope - that justonemore was _trying_ to express the view that the need for protecting law enforcement has often been used as a justification for the loss of one civil right or another. Many kinds of searches that were illegal (absent a warrant) are now conducted as a prophylactic against risk to officers. Now, if they _happen_ to find some illegal drugs...
> 
> justonemore has the view, I take it, that additional protection of LEO's (by enhancing their legal monopoly on force) is an insufficient justification of the loss of rights by civilians. I surely hope that he was not expressing a desire to see _any_ dead people. At least that's how I'm going to read it for now. But I'm sure he'll be along to explain his views more fully.


You pretty much hit the nail on the head Cuffdaddy:

I do not support violence in any case, against anyone (other than self-defense or defense of my family). This includes slapping, hitting, punching, kicking, knifing, shooting, and running people over with a car (either to injure or kill). My deepest wish would be that everyone could stop all the non-sense and work together to advance international society. I know it's a pipe dream, but it is what it is. Although I wouldn't desire the death of anyone, if I have to see casualties, I will always prefer it be in the correct order.....Military, Police, Politicians....Civilians.....It's what I believe.

My earlier post was to make a stark statement. I believe that civilian rights come before those of the police. It was perhaps too graphic for some people's taste. The harsh reality is that police officers are hired and paid to put themselves into danger for their employer, the civilian. I would guess that most police officers are somewhat aware of this when they sign up for the job. I sure was when I joined the Army. When we got called out to the chalks we weren't asking for constitutional changes to save our skins, our skins were there to insure constitutional rights. The sacrifice of the few for the many. The police unions are asking that 300 million people sacrifice their rights for the few. I'll support the police up to a limit and that limit is the sacrifice of constitutional & civil rights (be it free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, right to arms, etc.)


----------



## Liberty Ship

JPFO, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, is a gun rights organization whose roots are in memories of or personal experiences with the Holocaust. Over the years, they have generated some very enlightening supporting documentation.

Here, we are introduced to the 7 basic types of anti-gun people:

https://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/jp_seven.htm

And here, a psychiatrist examines the bias against self defense and the underpinnings of the anti-gun mentality:

https://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm


----------



## Chouan

justonemore said:


> As a police official from the U.K. you are advising an American based board to emulate a system that doesn't work & is overly intrusive. You tell us Americans to give up our firearms yet all you have to show for it in the U.K. is an stupendously high knife crime rate. As a war time veteran, I served to protect the constitutional rights of myself & my fellow citizens. I'm a little hard pressed to allow such cavelier treatment of my fellow American's rights without some serious justification as to your motives. Are you an American citizen or just a concerned individual?
> 
> No response on public votes versus forced government mandates on U.K. arms control?


Could I point out that this site, although based in the US, is run by an Englishman and is international with an international membership. There is no room for chauvenist and nationalist comments about anybody's right to contribute based on nationality or residence. It is emphatically not an site in which Americans are entitled to privelege.


----------



## justonemore

Chouan said:


> Could I point out that this site, although based in the US, is run by an Englishman and is international with an international membership. There is no room for chauvenist and nationalist comments about anybody's right to contribute based on nationality or residence. It is emphatically not an site in which Americans are entitled to privelege.


I think my point was clearly meant as a defense of American's rights when faced with an outside opinion coming from a place known to be more violent than that of the U.S.. I certainly have every right to question someone's motives when they advocate my country use a system that has clearly failed (I would think a member of a police force who has had a need to "search hundreds" for knives would realize a policy failed somewhere) . If a member from the middle east suggested the U.S. be ruled by Sharia law, I would be just as apt to state that it goes against the U.S. constitution.

It seems the entitled attitudes are coming more from those who ignored the core questions I asked and just expected to be believed because they have some type of authority. It was actually a poster from the U.K. who first told me that as I wasn't familiar enough with U.K police, that I should withhold my thoughts (post 1287). That seems a bit chauvenist and nationalistic as well, does it not? Do I not as a member have the right to express my opinion on such topics as well? As an American, I do not want my society to suffer the same ills as the U.K. It's not nationalistic. The U.K. has more rapes, assaults and knife attacks per capita than the U.S. Who in their right mind would wish something worse for their fellow countrymen? I was not raised to believe random street searches and 24 hour 100% cctv coverage are acceptable in a free country. I'm also not accepting as to government mandates prohibiting my constitutional rights in order to pacify the flavor of the day topic. Perhaps U.K. subjects are used to being ruled but U.S. citizens in theory are supposed to be represented by their government.


----------



## Shaver

Liberty Ship said:


> JPFO, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, is a gun rights organization whose roots are in memories of or personal experiences with the Holocaust. Over the years, they have generated some very enlightening supporting documentation.
> 
> Here, we are introduced to the 7 basic types of anti-gun people:
> 
> https://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/jp_seven.htm
> 
> And here, a psychiatrist examines the bias against self defense and the underpinnings of the anti-gun mentality:
> 
> https://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm


An interesting read. The Dysfunctionally Unworldy, especially, are to be found everywhere talking gibberish about every subject at the tops of their voices. Everyone believes they should have an opinion - no matter how little they know about a subject _or worse_ how little it impacts upon them as individuals.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Funny that as where I am right now neither possessing nor wanting to possess a gun is techinally classified as "normal"!


----------



## Shaver

VictorRomeo said:


> Funny that as where I am right now neither possessing nor wanting to possess a gun is techinally classified as "normal"!


Gosh! Is that all it takes to be considered normal? Well I don't possess a gun (currently) so I am half way there. Thanks VR that's really cheered me up for the day. :icon_smile:


----------



## justonemore

Shaver said:


> An interesting read. The Dysfunctionally Unworldy, especially, are to be found everywhere talking gibberish about every subject at the tops of their voices. Everyone believes they should have an opinion - no matter how little they know about a subject _or worse_ how little it impacts upon them as individuals.


Isn't there an area in Hyde park where all have the right to voice their opinion?

By default, wouldn't a representative have to take into account the opinion of the person/people they claim to represent? Sure, your constituants may not all be elegant intelectuals but stating a level of knowledge is mandatory to voice one's thoughts brings up memories of voter exams which were used to keep the poor & uneducated (mostly black) from having a say on how society evolved.


----------



## justonemore

VictorRomeo said:


> Funny that as where I am right now neither possessing nor wanting to possess a gun is techinally classified as "normal"!


Yes, and where I am right now there's no desire/need to carry a firearm for protection. Unfortunately, other societies have proven more dangerous & many there feel the need to carry a weapon in order to defend themselves be it a pistol in the U.S. or an AK -47 in war torn middle east.


----------



## Shaver

justonemore said:


> Isn't there an area in Hyde park where all have the right to voice their opinion?
> 
> By default, wouldn't a representative have to take into account the opinion of the person/people they claim to represent? Sure, your constituants may not all be elegant intelectuals but stating a level of knowledge is mandatory to voice one's thoughts brings up memories of voter exams which were used to keep the poor & uneducated (mostly black) from having a say on how society evolved.


Ahh I do like to see a guy who is desperate to cause an argument lurking about the forum. Good morning my friend, how are you today?

If a person has no knowledge of a subject, and that subject does not impact upon them anyway, then why on Earth would anyone care to listen to their jumbled 'opinion'?

It's a seperate issue entirely, but I'm game - damn straight I don't want the uneducated running society.


----------



## Mel Marcos

Chouan said:


> Are you suggesting that the US has a despotic government? I thought that you had democratic elections only recently. Has something happened to change that situation that hasn't been reported?


There are some (many?) that deluded themselves into thinking their party of choice would boldly seize the executive branch, the senate as well as reinforce their hold on the house of representatives. Shockingly that particular party lost the presidential election, lost seats in the senate as well as the house. Rather than looking into a mirror and accepting the blame for fielding a weak presidential candidate, and congressmen who were chummy with the kooks on the lunatic end of the right wing and chose to draw lines in the sand and obstruct rather than legislate, they blamed the winning candidate and compared him to former despots, dictators and other unsavoury characters

Or in other words there are a lot of sore losers looking for a cause to rally around. Unfortunately guns (and the poor children that were massacred by them) are a poor choice.


----------



## Mel Marcos

justonemore said:


> A drone I could see. Blaming a gas leak? Why bother making excuses when all you did was kill a bunch of "homegrown terrorists" that no one will care about?


You just can't exterminate them. That is the surest way to lose the PR campaign. Don't believe me? Ask Israel


----------



## VictorRomeo

Shaver said:


> Ahh I do like to see a guy who is desperate to cause an argument lurking about the forum. Good morning my friend, how are you today?
> 
> If a person has no knowledge of a subject, and that subject does not impact upon them anyway, then why on Earth would anyone care to listen to their jumbled 'opinion'?
> 
> It's a seperate issue entirely, but I'm game - damn straight I don't want the uneducated running society.


Maybe we shoud lobby to have The Interchange 'rebranded'!


----------



## Shaver

VictorRomeo said:


> Maybe we shoud lobby to have The Interchange 'rebranded'!


Those boots would need a polish first. :tongue2:


----------



## Snow Hill Pond

*Creepy Allstate Commercial*

Hey has anyone seen the Allstate commerical with the crazy starving artist? Is it just me or does this remind you of the Aurora (CO) shooter James Holmes?

https://www.ispot.tv/ad/7wfh/allstate-the-protector


----------



## justonemore

Shaver said:


> Ahh I do like to see a guy who is desperate to cause an argument lurking about the forum. Good morning my friend, how are you today?
> 
> If a person has no knowledge of a subject, and that subject does not impact upon them anyway, then why on Earth would anyone care to listen to their jumbled 'opinion'?
> 
> It's a seperate issue entirely, but I'm game - damn straight I don't want the uneducated running society.


While I would agree against a society ran by the uneducated, I do have to wonder how much good the rich, ivy league educated elite have done in the U.S. There might be a middle ground somewhere between complete idiots and the entitled elite.

I would also worry that education doesn't equal intellect (Bush 2 comes to mind).

Should we start to define the parameters for global societal leaders? 150 IQ, western based education of no less than 10 years. What other criteria? The Germans are out because they drink too much beer, the Dutch for pot, and the other European countries for whatever. Americans are too menatlly unstable, and Southern Americans don't have a good enough education system. Of course the best University is Oxford and only those who have studied law/political science are qualified from these. Eliminate 5 students for being ugly (looks count in politics) and another 5 for being poor (can't mix the social classes now can we?) How do we choose from the rest of the class? Highest moral standing? Highest intelect? Proper breeding? A friend? A relative? It's the way it's worked up til now correct? It's all about the cutoff point isn't it? Yet have we truly found a vision as to the advancement of society out of any modern politician? Perhaps I'm wrong but it appears that society has advanced much more thanks to private enterprise.

Another question: who wants to follow a know it all unsufferable ***** who's unwilling to listen to his subordinates because they're all idiots in his opinion?


----------



## eagle2250

Snow Hill Pond said:


> Hey has anyone seen the Allstate commerical with the crazy starving artist? Is it just me or does this remind you of the Aurora (CO) shooter James Holmes?
> 
> https://www.ispot.tv/ad/7wfh/allstate-the-protector


+1. You just have to wonder if the subliminal message was intended..."The Protector"? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Shaver

justonemore said:


> While I would agree against a society ran by the uneducated, I do have to wonder how much good the rich, ivy league educated elite have done in the U.S.
> 
> I would also worry that education doesn't equal intellect (Bush 2 comes to mind).


Fine fellow, you have avoided the usual pitfall. Formal education most assuredly does not equal intellect. My decade of work within a University has made that very clear to me - some of the most stupid people I ever met had Ph.D after their names. Academic qualification is normally achieved by the affluent rather than the intelligent. The rich Ivy leaguers of whom you speak have done a great good. Great and good being measured against the achievement of their aims, being to line their pockets at the expense of others.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond

eagle2250 said:


> +1. You just have to wonder if the subliminal message was intended..."The Protector"? :icon_scratch:


Yes, it's very strange. You almost have to think that it was intentional. If so, then I think Allstate stepped over the line a bit.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Mel Marcos said:


> Or in other words there are a lot of sore losers looking for a cause to rally around. Unfortunately guns (and the poor children that were massacred by them) are a poor choice.


There may be some of that dynamic, but please don't kid yourself into thinking that's all that's involved. As I've said several times in this thread, I voted for Obama. Twice. And Kerry. And Gore and Clinton. I'm a feminist, a supporter of gay marriage, a believer in progressive taxation, an even stronger believer in the estate tax, a believer in anthropogenic climate change, etc. But I have guns, including the apparently-bad kinds, and I don't see why I should lose my rights to them (or to others like them in the future) because someone else committed a crime. Nor does the bald assertion that banning this or that particular type of weapon would make a difference bear up to scrutiny. So, in short, the weapon/mag bans currently being discussed would do nothing EXCEPT deprive people of their rights.

Don't be fooled by the wingnuts they cart out in front of the TV cameras. There are a lot of well-educated, entirely reasonable gun owners (did you know that gun ownership is positively correlated with college education in America?).


----------



## eagle2250

^^(in response to member Shaver's post #1332)
Indeed...perhaps, but the idea of a ruling class, be they elected officials or not, would be an anathema to our America's founding fathers. Does anyone think the concept of career politicians, who long ago abandoned any claim to representing the best interests of their electorate(s), would have received any serious consideration in the drafting of our constitution? We all get so very exercised over the perception/suggestion that the government is intruding on the letter and/or intent of the 2nd Amendment, but sit back and seem to simply accept such incursions against our Constitution. Can any of us seriously argue that the Patriot Act did not infringe on our collective civil rights? Why such umbrage over this one, very narrowly scoped issue...guns?


----------



## Snow Hill Pond

CuffDaddy said:


> There may be some of that dynamic, but please don't kid yourself into thinking that's all that's involved. As I've said several times in this thread, I voted for Obama. Twice. And Kerry. And Gore and Clinton. I'm a feminist, a supporter of gay marriage, a believer in progressive taxation, an even stronger believer in the estate tax, a believer in anthropogenic climate change, etc. But I have guns, including the apparently-bad kinds, and I don't see why I should lose my rights to them (or to others like them in the future) because someone else committed a crime. Nor does the bald assertion that banning this or that particular type of weapon would make a difference bear up to scrutiny. So, in short, the weapon/mag bans currently being discussed would do nothing EXCEPT deprive people of their rights.
> 
> Don't be fooled by the wingnuts they cart out in front of the TV cameras. There are a lot of well-educated, entirely reasonable gun owners (did you know that gun ownership is positively correlated with college education in America?).


Very good post.


----------



## justonemore

eagle2250 said:


> ^^(in response to member Shaver's post #1332)
> Indeed...perhaps, but the idea of a ruling class, be they elected officials or not, would be an anathema to our America's founding fathers. Does anyone think the concept of career politicians, who long ago abandoned any claim to representing the best interests of their electorate(s), would have received any serious consideration in the drafting of our constitution? We all get so very exercised over the perception/suggestion that the government is intruding on the letter and/or intent of the 2nd Amendment, but sit back and seem to simply accept such incursions against our Constitution. Can any of us seriously argue that the Patriot Act did not infringe on our collective civil rights? Why such umbrage over this one, very narrowly scoped issue...guns?


Thre are also many people against the pitfalls of the Patriot Act. I believe I mentioned it a bit earlier in this thread. At the moment this forced governmental incursion into civil rights isn't a hot topic. It's done, it's been passed and those against it now have a long, expensive fight to repeal it and get our civil liberties back. It's an uphill battle. Many police agencies spend millions lobbying for more, not less, policing powers as to warrants, intrusions on personal communications (telephone, computer, cell phone etc.) etc. Politicians make their grand stands and push security and safety hoping that a scared populace makes for an obediant populace. As there had never been an outside terrorist attack within U.S. borders. those rules were quickly passed upon a scared unexperienced populace that held hope and looked to a government to protect them from future attacks. It's the same fear and paranoia that the current administration is feeding on to promote further decline of citizens rights on the issue of firearm control. The difference is that gun control isn't a new issue. There are many experienced and knowledgable people who are capable of presenting valid arguements and leading a counter movement whenever it once again becomes a hot button topic.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

justonemore said:


> Isn't there an area in Hyde park where all have the right to voice their opinion?


Not that it's in the slightest bit relevant, but NO.

One can voice one's opinion anywhere in Hyde Patk, in fact anywhere in the UK in a public place, as long as the opinion being voiced doesn't break any laws.


----------



## justonemore

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Not that it's in the slightest bit relevant, but NO.
> 
> One can voice one's opinion anywhere in Hyde Patk, in fact anywhere in the UK in a public place, as long as the opinion being voiced doesn't break any laws.


Thank you for the information. For some reason I have memories of a specific area along the street where people would go to set up information booths, stand on a box and preach their views etc. As I was studying there, perhaps I misunderstood what was happening as I passsed quickly by. I could also swear a London resident had told me that this area was somewhat sacred as to always having the right to speak there. Not that you don't have a right to speak elsewhere in the U.K. but that this was somehow a pinnacle of U.K./England/London free speech. As I did no follow-up research on the matter, I'll happily admit that I may have been misinformed.

I agree that it isn't relevant other than in response to another post on this thread. I suppose that freedom of expression being part of the 1st amendment to the U.S. constitution does give it some paralle when discussing 2nd amendment issues.


----------



## Shaver

eagle2250 said:


> ^^(in response to member Shaver's post #1332)
> Indeed...perhaps, but the idea of a ruling class, be they elected officials or not, would be an anathema to our America's founding fathers. Does anyone think the concept of career politicians, who long ago abandoned any claim to representing the best interests of their electorate(s), would have received any serious consideration in the drafting of our constitution? We all get so very exercised over the perception/suggestion that the government is intruding on the letter and/or intent of the 2nd Amendment, but sit back and seem to simply accept such incursions against our Constitution. Can any of us seriously argue that the Patriot Act did not infringe on our collective civil rights? Why such umbrage over this one, very narrowly scoped issue...guns?


You know that you are in serious bother when a government tables a bill called 'patriot'. Implicitly stating that any opposition is inherently unpatriotic. It's a license to flush civil rights straight down the toilet.


----------



## Mel Marcos

CuffDaddy said:


> There may be some of that dynamic, but please don't kid yourself into thinking that's all that's involved. As I've said several times in this thread, I voted for Obama. Twice. And Kerry. And Gore and Clinton. I'm a feminist, a supporter of gay marriage, a believer in progressive taxation, an even stronger believer in the estate tax, a believer in anthropogenic climate change, etc. But I have guns, including the apparently-bad kinds, and I don't see why I should lose my rights to them (or to others like them in the future) because someone else committed a crime. Nor does the bald assertion that banning this or that particular type of weapon would make a difference bear up to scrutiny. So, in short, the weapon/mag bans currently being discussed would do nothing EXCEPT deprive people of their rights.
> 
> Don't be fooled by the wingnuts they cart out in front of the TV cameras. There are a lot of well-educated, entirely reasonable gun owners (did you know that gun ownership is positively correlated with college education in America?).


Those leading the charge have repeatedly told their lesser informed brethren that Obama plans on doing "a Australia" and outlawing guns and they bought it hook line and sinker. I think Obama had way too much to deal with his first term to even contemplate guns yet the NRA had its members primed for a fight. Have you ever listened to talk radio? With every gun massacre they waited with baited breath because the fascist, communist, black separatist church going muslim, Kenyan born Manchurian Candidate arab usurper in chief's main goal has been to take away guns in order to enforce the new world order for his hidden masters as well as for the UN. I have gotten this all of this nonsense from FM radio. AM radio, which apparently is still in existence (who knew?), is even worse. :biggrin2:

With the latest massacre of twenty 6 & 7 year olds, I cannot believe the NRA's (the spokesman for educated gun owners) response






I'm not a gun person but I have the right to own one if I chose. I however, don't have a right to an automatic gun, a RPG or a 30 round magazine. And I look askance that those who ignore the scores of dead men, women and children in order to obtain these killing objects.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Not that it's in the slightest bit relevant, but NO.
> 
> One can voice one's opinion anywhere in Hyde Patk, in fact anywhere in the UK in a public place, as long as the opinion being voiced doesn't break any laws.


Traditionally, I always thought that Speakers' Corner in Hyde Park - near Marble Arch was where people went to speak and debate in public back in the day. I apprecate one can speak asywhere once no laws are broken, but the Hyde Park Speaker's Corner was most famous to my recollection.


----------



## VictorRomeo

Shaver said:


> You know that you are in serious bother when a government tables a bill called 'patriot'. Implicitly stating that any opposition is inherently unpatriotic. It's a license to flush civil rights straight down the toilet.


Yer with us or agin us...... What a dreadful principle and more often surreptitiously used as a lever by those whose interests need protecting to dupe the masses into protecting them.


----------



## Shaver

justonemore said:


> While I would agree against a society ran by the uneducated, I do have to wonder how much good the rich, ivy league educated elite have done in the U.S. There might be a middle ground somewhere between complete idiots and the entitled elite.
> 
> I would also worry that education doesn't equal intellect (Bush 2 comes to mind).
> 
> Should we start to define the parameters for global societal leaders? 150 IQ, western based education of no less than 10 years. What other criteria? The Germans are out because they drink too much beer, the Dutch for pot, and the other European countries for whatever. Americans are too menatlly unstable, and Southern Americans don't have a good enough education system. Of course the best University is Oxford and only those who have studied law/political science are qualified from these. Eliminate 5 students for being ugly (looks count in politics) and another 5 for being poor (can't mix the social classes now can we?) How do we choose from the rest of the class? Highest moral standing? Highest intelect? Proper breeding? A friend? A relative? It's the way it's worked up til now correct? It's all about the cutoff point isn't it? Yet have we truly found a vision as to the advancement of society out of any modern politician? Perhaps I'm wrong but it appears that society has advanced much more thanks to private enterprise.
> 
> *Another question: who wants to follow a know it all unsufferable ***** who's unwilling to listen to his subordinates because they're all idiots in his opinion?*


No-one, really. And that is why governments prefer it when the populace is unarmed.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Mel Marcos said:


> I'm not a gun person but I have the right to own one if I chose. I however, don't have a right to an automatic gun, a RPG or a 30 round magazine. And I look askance that those who ignore the scores of dead men, women and children in order to obtain these killing objects.


At the moment, you're partially* right on the first two objects (fully-auto weapons and RPG's, which qualify as destructive devices) and, at least in most states, incorrect on the latter. 30 round magazines are STANDARD on the MAJORITY of rifles sold over the past 5 years.** We _may_ be able to enact a positive-law change to the rights structure (or perhaps not, in light of _Heller_'s emphasis on common usage), but at the moment, you DO have the right to a 30-round mag.

I don't want to re-hash this whole thread, since a lot of the ideas have been covered before (starting back around page 12 or so). It really is worth re-reading, if you've not already done so. In the meantime, I will only say that we had a previous ban on high capacity magazines. It made no detectable difference in crime rates or murder rates. And nothing happened to those rates when it expired. We've pulled that lever before. It is not connected to the needles we'd like to move.

Finally, I agree that the NRA ad was in poor taste. But there's a grain of truth in it. I'm in the process of trying to get my daughter into a private school (sadly, our local public elementary school is not great). ALL of them have armed guards (police officers) on the grounds all the time (at least anytime when students are around). This is not new, they've had it this way for years and years. In short, the kids of rich parents generally do have armed guards protecting them. My egalitarian streak - the same thing that often makes me favor Democratic economic policies - recoils at the notion that rich kids should be afforded a greater level of protection than kids whose parents don't shell out $20k/year for elementary school. I wish the NRA had chosen a different way to express that thought, but it seems a valid point to me.

And, yeah, I hate right-wing talk radio. I detest groupthink in general, and it's a particularly wretched source of it. But the groupthink on gun control on the left, while not quite as visciously expressed, seems just as resistant to empirical evidence and deliberate thought.

*Both full-auto and explosive devices can be obtained consistent with a very onerous, time-consuming, and expensive licensing/tax process. It has proven to be a very effective system, as the number of crimes committed with legally-owned full-auto firearms since the restrictions were created in 1934 can be counted on one hand. The same system governs suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and other categories of non-firearm weapons.

** Until the last month, when panic-buying sent demand and prices skyrocketing, one could buy high-quality 30-round AR mags for $14. $17 if you wanted a window in them to see your ammo level. $7 if you were willing to tolerate some possible reliability problems. There are tens or hundreds of millions of those things in circulation. There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to get rid of them. Even if you think they're bad, that horse is out of the barn, down the road, over the hill, etc.


----------



## Mel Marcos

Explain why people are so up in arms over New York state's new 7 round magazine law. I just don't get it. Listening to the internet squawking one might think that guns were permanently outlawed.

sidenote: Did you catch Jon Stwart the other day? Comedy aside, he frequently gets to the heart of the subject matter


----------



## Liberty Ship

Because you might need more than 8 shots and it's a bother carrying several extra mags. It further destroys the lines of your suit.

But, seriously, think about it. If my home is invaded and I call the police, they will arrive with high capacity magazines to confront the threat I have been facing alone. Why do THEY need high capacity magazines? We are facing the same threat, right? 

Of course the legal scholars in New York state just passed a bill that restricts police to 7 round magazines, too.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Mel Marcos said:


> Explain why people are so up in arms over New York state's new 7 round magazine law. I just don't get it. Listening to the internet squawking one might think that guns were permanently outlawed.
> 
> sidenote: Did you catch Jon Stwart the other day? Comedy aside, he frequently gets to the heart of the subject matter


Go back a few pages and read about the woman who emptied her revolver into the home invader who was still mobile enough to get to his car. If there had been a second invader, she and her kids would likely have been dead. Handgun rounds are not very powerful. One may need more than 7. Additionally, virtually every modern pistol has a magazine holding more than 7 rounds, so virtually all modern full-size pistols are now illegal. NY absolutely is trying to take away all guns . They've long had very restrictive laws. They haven't worked. So theyre tightening them further. Guess what? That wont work either, so theyll add more restrictions . Theres no end, if one assumes that guns cause crime.

i like Jon Stewart. I have been disappointed by his ignorance on the subject . he doesnt know what hes talking about on this subject .


----------



## Mike Petrik

CuffDaddy said:


> i like Jon Stewart. I have been disappointed by his ignorance on the subject . he doesnt know what hes talking about on this subject .


We are in agreement on two out of three; of course the only thing I despise more than arrogance is unwarranted arrogance.


----------



## CuffDaddy

the subject on which I find him knowledgeable is media. When he does media criticism, I think he's brilliant. But he's no more qualified to propose or evaluate gun regulations than I would be to propose nuclear regulatory commission regs. Because I dont know a damn thing about nuclear reactors, and he doesn't know a damn thing about guns.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

VictorRomeo said:


> Traditionally, I always thought that Speakers' Corner in Hyde Park - near Marble Arch was where people went to speak and debate in public back in the day. I apprecate one can speak asywhere once no laws are broken, but the Hyde Park Speaker's Corner was most famous to my recollection.


My "No", was not to the existence and use of Speakers' Corner rather to the suggestion that it is the only place in the UK that one may stand and airs one's opinion. Tower Hill is just as famous and even older.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

justonemore said:


> Thank you for the information. For some reason I have memories of a specific area along the street where people would go to set up information booths, stand on a box and preach their views etc. As I was studying there, perhaps I misunderstood what was happening as I passsed quickly by. I could also swear a London resident had told me that this area was somewhat sacred as to always having the right to speak there. Not that you don't have a right to speak elsewhere in the U.K. but that this was somehow a pinnacle of U.K./England/London free speech. As I did no follow-up research on the matter, I'll happily admit that I may have been misinformed.


My "No" was to your suggesiton that it was the only place in the UK for people to stand in public and air their views, not to the existence and use of Speakers' corner


----------



## justonemore

Earl of Ormonde said:


> My "No" was to your suggesiton that it was the only place in the UK for people to stand in public and air their views, not to the existence and use of Speakers' corner


I believe you might have misread a lateral discussion I had with Shaver concerning Freedom of Speech. The question concerned listening to those we disagree with or find unknowledgable/ignorant/idiotic. I mentioned speaker's corner more as a bastion of U.K. free speech versus stating the right existed no place else in the country.


----------



## Liberty Ship

Adolf Obama Learns About 2nd Amendment Advocates on the Internet (apologies to Glock; sort of an inside joke...)


----------



## Shaver

GAU 19B Gatling, 50 caliber and 1300 rounds per minute. Phwoar! :icon_smile:

Firepower as pure poetry 




.
.
.
.

.
.


----------



## gaseousclay

Sober said:


> As a European gun owner, I'm in favour of a sensible level of gun control. We could discuss the meaning of the term "sensible" but some of the previous comments seem to aim at outright bans, not controls.


I agree that there has to be some level of gun control, but with the caveat that it doesn't impede one's desire to legally obtain a firearm. I know a lot of you would argue that NICS accomplishes just that, but I think this should be expanded to cover individual sellers at gun shows, ie. non-FFL holding gun owners. I still think it's reckless that Billy Bob can sell a gun no questions asked to whomever he pleases. How does he know he's not selling a gun to a complete nut job?



> Furthermore, I find offensive the derogatory remarks about some people's "hobbies". With the current controls the chances that the legal owner of a firearm uses it for a hideous act are minimal. Zero risk doesn't exist, of course, but treating millions of law-abiding citizens as potential criminals because one of them can go crazy is utterly disproportionate. If the same criterion ("to save lifes") was applied ten times less strictly to other not absolutely essential human activities that may entail a risk we could hardly step out of our homes.


I also agree with this statement. I work with many anti-gun zealots and there's a disconnect with these people when talking about law abiding gun owners and criminals with guns - they seem to paint the two with the same brush strokes and it does a disservice to the millions of us who obey the law.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
As you read what follows, please recall I'm one of those in favor of gun ownership. However, how do we explain the the two forty something and fifty something morons who, a couple of weeks ago, used pistols they were legally permitted to carry concealed to gun one another down along a highway in central Michigan? Up to that point, they were two "law abiding gun owners," but if they had they had not been "legally carrying" those pistols, what started as a simple incident of road rage would have remained just that! Instead, we have two dead victims of their own stupidity. Sometimes we are our own worst enemies.


----------



## Tilton

I own guns and I thoroughly enjoy shooting them. I hunt often and shoot clays once a month or so. I wouldn't be opposed to having to file a 4473 through a third party when buying a gun at a gun show because I'm not a criminal. However, I have also bought several guns through said loophole just for convenience - there is another man with my exact same name out there somewhere who is a criminal so it always takes me a full 3 days to pass a background check.


----------



## gaseousclay

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> As you read what follows, please recall I'm one of those in favor of gun ownership. However, how do we explain the the two forty something and fifty something morons who, a couple of weeks ago, used pistols they were legally permitted to carry concealed to gun one another down along a highway in central Michigan? Up to that point, they were two "law abiding gun owners," but if they had they had not been "legally carrying" those pistols, what started as a simple incident of road rage would have remained just that! Instead, we have two dead victims of their own stupidity. Sometimes we are our own worst enemies.


agreed. I read about this story last week and it made me think of the Wayne LaPierre quote, "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to arm a good guy with a gun," or something to that effect. In this case, who was the good guy? Gun owners are their own worst enemy indeed, especially when we look at the current ammo shortage and the whole OC Starbucks debate.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Tilton said:


> I own guns and I thoroughly enjoy shooting them. I hunt often and shoot clays once a month or so. I wouldn't be opposed to having to file a 4473 through a third party when buying a gun at a gun show because I'm not a criminal. However, I have also bought several guns through said loophole just for convenience - there is another man with my exact same name out there somewhere who is a criminal so it always takes me a full 3 days to pass a background check.


In many states, such as the one where I live, one can obtain a concealed carry permit and use that as an instant-pass background check; just show the valid permit, and the FFL doesn't have to go through the whole rigamarole. Could you get such a permit where you live? Permits don't FORCE anyone to carry, and lots of people here simply get them so that they can legally purchase more conveniently.


----------



## CuffDaddy

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> As you read what follows, please recall I'm one of those in favor of gun ownership. However, how do we explain the the two forty something and fifty something morons who, a couple of weeks ago, used pistols they were legally permitted to carry concealed to gun one another down along a highway in central Michigan? Up to that point, they were two "law abiding gun owners," but if they had they had not been "legally carrying" those pistols, what started as a simple incident of road rage would have remained just that! Instead, we have two dead victims of their own stupidity. Sometimes we are our own worst enemies.


Too true. Still, if one considers the huge number of people who legally carry, the level of violence from them is a LOT lower than from the general populace. One time I did some math and figured that, _worse_ case scenario, a CC permit holder was about five times LESS likely to shoot you (or anyone else) than a member of the population selected at random (including 6 year old girls, octogenarians, etc.; and also including, of course, drug dealers and pimps and the like).

Still, as someone who is somewhat pro-gun, it infuriates me when a gun owner does something stupid, since it makes us all look bad.


----------



## CuffDaddy

gaseousclay said:


> the whole OC Starbucks debate.


Yeah, the OC-in-urban-areas guys drive me nuts. I know they're trying to make a political statement. It's about as effective a way of advocating for gun rights as dressing in biker gear and pants with the @$$-cheeks cut out was effective as a way of advocating for gay rights. It bothers people, and just makes the larger group look bad. My view: If you want to strap a piece of steel to your hip and walk around bold as day, get a badge, go shoot a USPSA/IPSC/3-gun match, or go hike in bear country. Otherwise, be discreet. Don't go around scaring nice ladies and children in order to make a political point.


----------



## gaseousclay

CuffDaddy said:


> Yeah, the OC-in-urban-areas guys drive me nuts. I know they're trying to make a political statement. It's about as effective a way of advocating for gun rights as dressing in biker gear and pants with the @$$-cheeks cut out was effective as a way of advocating for gay rights. It bothers people, and just makes the larger group look bad. My view: If you want to strap a piece of steel to your hip and walk around bold as day, get a badge, go shoot a USPSA/IPSC/3-gun match, or go hike in bear country. Otherwise, be discreet. Don't go around scaring nice ladies and children in order to make a political point.


yep. I can understand if someone lives in a state where OC is legal and acceptable, but in most urban environments it's show-boating imo. I don't understand why anyone would want to draw attention to themselves like that anyway. It definitely makes all gun owners look bad. I'm especially irritated by ColionNoir's response via youtube. For a lawyer he makes absolutely no sense


----------



## CuffDaddy

NOT LEGAL ADVICE

In my state, the permit is actually a weapons permit. You can carry concealed or open with a permit. You can carry a pistol, a collapsible baton, a broadsword, etc. You can carry openly or discreetly. So it's legal where I live. It's just a d!ck move calculated specifically to bother people who are uncomfortable with guns.

I mean, I understand the thinking at some level. Lots of people are horrified by the idea that it's legal to carry guns in most states (via shall-issue permits in most cases). They think it is inherently dangerous to society. They are either unaware of, or unable to process, the fact that legally carrying has exploded (ha!) in frequency over the last two decades and no negative effects show up in the overall numbers. For those who cannot process it, they incorrectly assume that there just aren't that many people carrying guns. They don't realized that virtually EVERY time they go to the grocery store, there's almost certainly a civilian there with a gun. If they knew that, they might re-adjust their risk assessment and conclude/realize that the huge majority of people are entirely safe and trustworthy when it comes to being allowed to carry a gun. Gun goes in the holster before the person leaves their house or car, gun stays there. Open carrying has the potential to provide that realization.

Except that the emotional response is so immediate and strong that it swamps any logical thought. Overcoming cognitive dissonance on the part of those pre-disposed to believe that guns cause violence is the big obstacle for gun-rights advocates anyway. Anything that sets up an emotionally antagonistic response is the very _opposite_ of the necessary precondition to the kind of calm, detached reasoning that is necessary to bring people around. So, in my view, OCing is extremely counterproductive.


----------



## Tilton

I have my CHL in Virginia. When I graduated college, I had a job that required a lot of travel in the state and often to some rough areas, so I carried every day. To my knowledge, it does not allow me to forego the state police background check. It does allow first-time hunting license buyers to purchase a hunting license without proof of having taken a hunting safety course (which is required in VA). 

Also notable about VA is that no license is required to open carry at this time. 

My comment about 4473s is a bit different from a background check. When you buy a gun from an FFL - Dick's Sporting Goods or Joe's Guns, doesn't matter - you fill out the 4473, which is a federal form. That form is NOT entered into a computer database, it is required to be stored in hard-copy on premises for (I think) 5 years. I worked at a local gun dealer and at Dick's while in college, selling guns, for which I had to qualify to be a dealer under each organizations FFL. Both operated the same. What the 4473 does is tracks who originally bought a gun - if they find a gun involved in a shooting, they can run the SN and find out from the mfg that it was originally shipped to Gander Mountain in Boone, NC, or whatever, and then they physically go to that location, find the 4473, and get in contact with the original purchaser. At both stores, I saw this happen a handful of times. There is no background check involved in a 4473 - if you buy a gun in Kentucky, where background checks are not required (or weren't, at least), you still must file a 4473. I will admit that those two stores were far and away catering to the hunting crowd. 

I still have a few handguns, but I haven't shot them in at least two years. They're all pretty nice so the thought regularly crosses my mind to sell them and upgrade my optics or get another shotgun, but I never follow through.


----------



## gaseousclay

CuffDaddy said:


> NOT LEGAL ADVICE
> 
> In my state, the permit is actually a weapons permit. You can carry concealed or open with a permit. You can carry a pistol, a collapsible baton, a broadsword, etc. You can carry openly or discreetly. So it's legal where I live. It's just a d!ck move calculated specifically to bother people who are uncomfortable with guns.
> 
> I mean, I understand the thinking at some level. Lots of people are horrified by the idea that it's legal to carry guns in most states (via shall-issue permits in most cases). They think it is inherently dangerous to society. They are either unaware of, or unable to process, the fact that legally carrying has exploded (ha!) in frequency over the last two decades and no negative effects show up in the overall numbers. For those who cannot process it, they incorrectly assume that there just aren't that many people carrying guns. They don't realized that virtually EVERY time they go to the grocery store, there's almost certainly a civilian there with a gun. If they knew that, they might re-adjust their risk assessment and conclude/realize that the huge majority of people are entirely safe and trustworthy when it comes to being allowed to carry a gun. Gun goes in the holster before the person leaves their house or car, gun stays there. Open carrying has the potential to provide that realization.
> 
> Except that the emotional response is so immediate and strong that it swamps any logical thought. Overcoming cognitive dissonance on the part of those pre-disposed to believe that guns cause violence is the big obstacle for gun-rights advocates anyway. Anything that sets up an emotionally antagonistic response is the very _opposite_ of the necessary precondition to the kind of calm, detached reasoning that is necessary to bring people around. So, in my view, OCing is extremely counterproductive.


I agree that OCing is counterproductive. When I said I was ok with OC I was thinking primarily of rural settings where doing such a thing isn't considered taboo. For example, I'm sure it's not uncommon in rural parts of AZ or TX to OC at your local mom & pop store, but in urban areas I can see why non-gun owners & some gun owners would frown upon it. To me OCing is akin to show-boating, like when a football player scores a touch down. It's unnecessary and it's bad form.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CuffDaddy

Understood and agreed.


----------



## Shaver

Barrett M107. Long range sniper Heaven.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Shaver, it seems the .50BMG rifle is being supplanted in some roles by .338 Lapua's. They don't have the same anti-material uses, but they have superb long-range accuracy... better, even, than the .50. And they'll fit in relatively-normal sized rifles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.338_Lapua_Magnum


----------



## Tilton

Two notes: my lady's father has a .338 Lapua. Holy cow! It is fun. Also, a friend in college worked at a Gander Mountain during the summer. He said anyone would be amazed at just how many Barrett .50cals were sold out of that store. They sold only the base model (without the recoil suppression system) for, if I recall, $4,800. Apparently they moved one out the door just about once a week.


----------



## Shaver

CuffDaddy said:


> Shaver, it seems the .50BMG rifle is being supplanted in some roles by .338 Lapua's. They don't have the same anti-material uses, but they have superb long-range accuracy... better, even, than the .50. And they'll fit in relatively-normal sized rifles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.338_Lapua_Magnum


Wow! A 2,475m confirmed kill with this ammunition, very impressive. Thats 20 standard football pitches, incredible!

.
.
.

.


----------



## Shaver

*Smith & Wesson Model 500 - the world's most powerful handgun. Only to be used in self -defense. This will 'defend' an opponent's head clean off his shoulders. *:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## CuffDaddy

LOL! Ridiculous, of course, for use against humans, but just the thing if you're determined to go big/dangerous game hunting with a handgun.


----------



## RogerP

I probably don't qualify as a gun enthusiast, but my annual wingshooting trip is coming up in a few weeks and I can't wait. I can already taste the pheasant parmigiana.


----------



## Howard

Shaver said:


> *Smith & Wesson Model 500 - the world's most powerful handgun. Only to be used in self -defense. This will 'defend' an opponent's head clean off his shoulders. *:icon_smile_wink:


What? Are you gonna shoot me?


----------



## Tiger

Please, Howard, don't buy a gun. You can, however, have unlimited helpings of RogerP's pheasant parmigiana...


----------



## Howard

Tiger said:


> Please, Howard, don't buy a gun. You can, however, have unlimited helpings of RogerP's pheasant parmigiana...


I never said I was going to buy a gun, I'm not that type of person, I'm pleasant to be around.


----------



## Tilton

Realistically, the SW 500 is probably targeted at big game bow hunters or fisherman or others who cannot practically carry a shotgun or rifle on a regular basis but who can easily find themselves face-to-face with a grizzly or polar bear in the bear's habitat. Similar to the Ruger Super Redhawk Alaskan in 454 Casull - only a step up from there.


----------



## Shaver

Swiss made Luger circa 1900. A design classic.


----------



## phyrpowr

Shaver said:


> Swiss made Luger circa 1900. A design classic.


Always felt they just looked unbalanced with the skinny barrel. You might appreciate the aesthetics of the old High Standard .22 target pistols, Victor and Supermatic designs


----------



## Shaver

phyrpowr said:


> Always felt they just looked unbalanced with the skinny barrel. You might appreciate the aesthetics of the old High Standard .22 target pistols, Victor and Supermatic designs


Funnily enough, it is exactly that unusual proportion which appeals.

Similarly the S&W snubnose 38 special:


----------



## Langham

Shaver said:


> Swiss made Luger circa 1900. A design classic.


As used recently in the Al-Hilli shooting in the Swiss Alps. I always admired the look of the Luger, but I believe they have a tendency to jam.


----------



## Shaver

*Beretta rx4 storm
*


----------



## MaxBuck

I'm not at all a gun enthusiast, but those of you who are should not pass up a visit to the (Gene) Autry National Center when visiting Los Angeles. The exhibit of Colt firearms is extremely impressive even to someone like me.


----------



## Shaver

"Brand-new issue, more accurate and efficient.
Smith & Wesson, ten millimeter.
Model 1076, all stainless steel.
lt's a beautiful weapon, Coop, and it's all yours".


----------



## Shaver

Read the muthaf**in' tag bitch - Salute the flag bitch
My Glock came from Smyrna, Georgia
My AR-15 from California


----------



## Howard

I never believed in violence at all so I'm not a gun enthusiast.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

I am a zealot for moderation. Not many of us around.

Cheers, 

BSR


----------



## eagle2250

I am and for as long as I can remember have been a firearms enthusiast, but a responsible one. I started hunting at age 12. Firearms were tools of my Trade(s) for 42 years. I do enjoy a reasonably sized collection of firearms, all secured in locked, fire rated gun safes, secured to the structure in which they are housed and further protected by alarm systems. I suspect I might pick up a few more before I kick the bucket and my collection gets disbursed to my designated heirs. 

The problem we face is not guns. It is our inability to identify and properly care for those beset with certain mental illnesses and with the brainwashing of our up and coming generations addicted to video games such as Black Ops, Call of Duty, etc. By the time they hit their teen years most kids have seen more death and destruction than most combat soldiers see in their entire careers. Trust me, I do not say this lightly! :teacha:


----------



## Anubis

eagle2250 said:


> The problem we face is not guns. It is our inability to identify and properly care for those beset with certain mental illnesses and with the brainwashing of our up and coming generations addicted to video games such as Black Ops, Call of Duty, etc. By the time they hit their teen years most kids have seen more death and destruction than most combat soldiers see in their entire careers. Trust me, I do not say this lightly! :teacha:


Which mental illnesses are these?


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

Anubis said:


> Which mental illnesses are these?


I would gladly pay $1000 per year for a firearm license if the $ were directed toward men's mental health.

But society does not give a rip about the mental suffering of men.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## 16412

The world has changed. School shootings, nobody would dare to do that when I was a boy most everywhere across the US. The standards and enforcement for children that prevented these shootings are gone. The punishment of even thinking of doing a school shooting was so terrible nobody would ever want to think of it. It is not instilled in children's minds anymore that, "You do not think beyond certain things!" until this is thoroughly established again school shootings will continue to happen. So many "illnesses" can be prevented. The shrinks that are destroying this country their voices should be brought to an end. They have no right to destroy this country with their lies. People's lives are far more important. What worked in the past is far better than the rot thinking of today. Todays upper education is about persuasive reasoning that doesn't include truth. It is clear that the persuasion is killing children. They clearly have the wrong answers.


----------



## drlivingston

I had a Facebook conversation with a doctor friend of mine today. He advocates for the complete banning of firearms in the hands of civilians. I told him that the issue is not the weapons, but the irresponsible owners of the weapons. He scoffed at my answer. I reminded him of an argument that he got into last year with another friend of ours. His sister owns pit bull dogs and the city that she lived in passed a ban on certain breeds of dogs, pit bulls being one of them. He said, and I quote, "The problem is not the dogs. It's the irresponsible ownership of the dogs." I copied and pasted that to his gun-banning post. It felt like a Trey Gowdy moment for me.


----------



## Anubis

Amongst those who argue that stricter gun control is not the answer are those who think that guns in the hands of people with mental illness is the problem, and those who think that irresponsible gun ownership is the problem.

What I cannot see is any evidence of how those who support these arguments would propose a solution. For example, given that anyone can suffer from mental illness at any time, how would you screen for this, and thus prevent the unwell from having access to weapons? How would you identify the irresponsible before they access weapons?


----------



## SG_67

Anubis said:


> Amongst those who argue that stricter gun control is not the answer are those who think that guns in the hands of people with mental illness is the problem, and those who think that irresponsible gun ownership is the problem.
> 
> What I cannot see is any evidence of how those who support these arguments would propose a solution. For example, given that anyone can suffer from mental illness at any time, how would you screen for this, and thus prevent the unwell from having access to weapons? How would you identify the irresponsible before they access weapons?


There is no solution. We live in a free society. We have a second amendment right to bear arms. Personally, I don't own any.

Banning guns is not the answer. No more so than banning cars would be a viable solution to prevent drunk driving deaths.


----------



## vpkozel

Anubis said:


> Amongst those who argue that stricter gun control is not the answer are those who think that guns in the hands of people with mental illness is the problem, and those who think that irresponsible gun ownership is the problem.
> 
> What I cannot see is any evidence of how those who support these arguments would propose a solution. For example, given that anyone can suffer from mental illness at any time, how would you screen for this, and thus prevent the unwell from having access to weapons? How would you identify the irresponsible before they access weapons?


Swap responsible gun owner and mental illness for muslim and terrorist and let me know if it changes any of your thoughts.


----------



## eagle2250

^^I disagree with the conclusion
"there is no solution." There may indeed not be a solution that we care to hear, but as members WA and drlivingston touched on in their post # 1392 and 1393, respectively, there are positive steps to be taken. We seem to have abandoned parenting and personal conduct standards of yesteryear that yielded much more favorable results than we are seeing today.. Perhaps parents could set aside their personal electronic assistants/toys and actually interact with their kids rather than spending the bulk of their lives focused on an iphone. Just this past Sunday, the wife and I were out eating lunch and, I kid you not, witnessed a family at another table where the parents were both playing with their iphones, while two of the kids were also playing with phones or perhaps hand held video games of some sort and a baby sat in a booster seat, crushing some sort of cereal (I think) on the table and throwing the resultant debris about the restaurant. 'Touch and Go' parenting just doesn't work. Gemtlemen, the sad truth is that we generally do reap what we sow!


----------



## SG_67

I’m not sure that video games necessarily make psychopaths. 

Leopold and Loeb came before video games. Son of Sam and Ted Bundy didn’t play COD. We will also have psychos in our midst. We always have and we always will. 

There are plenty of people who play video games and first person shooter games who are well adjusted. Just like there are plenty of normal people who in the 1980’s didn’t go crazy by listening to Iron Maiden or Black Sabbath and turn to devil worship and human sacrifice. 

It’s normal behavior to always look for a reason. To try to make sense of something that is otherwise beyond comprehension. 

The fact is that evil exists in this world. Evil acts for the sake of itself and not some cause. It needs very little in the way of impetus or means. When it strikes, we cannot understand it.


----------



## Anubis

I do not think banning guns is the answer either. We've done it here in the UK, and whilst it's prevented thousands of people who previously owned sidearms taking part in a sport they enjoyed, it hasn't prevented firearms falling into the hands of criminals. Has it stopped massacres, which was the reason for the legislation being introduced? Perhaps, but there are still multiple murders of strangers by other means, though these are relatively rare events. 

Eagle2250 has, I think, touched upon one of the reasons for aberrant behaviour these days, whether it involves firearms or not. We see it here too - over-indulged children who seem to have few boundaries. Poor parenting and difficult childhoods are also thought to be significant factors in people with personality disorders. 

Amongst those who commit massacres there often seems to be a pattern of self-centredness, difficulty controlling emotions, blaming others, a lack of self-responsibility and a record of behaviour that is at odds with what is normally acceptable. This would point, to me, toward a personality disorder, but they are notoriously difficult to diagnose, especially when borderline. There may also be co-morbidity with other mental health disorders that can cloud the issue. 

I do sometimes wonder whether some younger people today are less able to cope with life's ups and downs, and have a sense of entitlement that leads to unrealistic expectation. I recently delivered a mental health workshop to some emergency department nurses, and they seemed to back this idea; people going to hospital with non-emergency conditions, because they were incapable of dealing with it as someone of my generation probably would (by buying proprietary medicine, for example) - and being affronted when it was suggested that they should take responsibility for themselves. "You have to sort it out, and you have to sort it out now! I know what I'm entitled to!".

During my last tour in Afghanistan, many of us who were slightly older remarked upon the way many of our younger colleagues seemed to suffer from lack of access to social media - though we may have been wearing our Spectacles, Rose-Tinted. However, colleagues involved with recruit training tell me that it is not unusual for basic training to be the first time some young people have actually had to come to terms with the fact that there are real consequences to not doing as you are told.


----------



## Anubis

vpkozel said:


> Swap responsible gun owner and mental illness for muslim and terrorist and let me know if it changes any of your thoughts.


I may be being dense, but I am not sure what point you are trying to make.


----------



## Langham

Might it help if school rooms in the States were fitted with locks? It seems to be a bit of a turkey shoot otherwise.


----------



## Bjorn

Anubis said:


> Amongst those who argue that stricter gun control is not the answer are those who think that guns in the hands of people with mental illness is the problem, and those who think that irresponsible gun ownership is the problem.
> 
> What I cannot see is any evidence of how those who support these arguments would propose a solution. For example, given that anyone can suffer from mental illness at any time, how would you screen for this, and thus prevent the unwell from having access to weapons? How would you identify the irresponsible before they access weapons?


I live in Sweden, we have very strict gun control laws.

I shoot bullseye and national. I don't see a problem with the gun control we have. There's a mandatory course and exam, license requirement with vetting and a requirement that you maintain an active interest in the sport you're shooting in (or be an active hunter) to remain licensed.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Anubis

Bjorn said:


> I live in Sweden, we have very strict gun control laws.
> 
> I shoot bullseye and national. I don't see a problem with the gun control we have. There's a mandatory course and exam, license requirement with vetting and a requirement that you maintain an active interest in the sport you're shooting in (or be an active hunter) to remain licensed.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


That sounds sensible to me.


----------



## vpkozel

Anubis said:


> I may be being dense, but I am not sure what point you are trying to make.


What I was trying to say was that this is an incredibly complex problem that many want to address as though it were simple.

Many also want to use these examples to solve a political problem that exists here in the US.

So, I was trying to use a logical parallel that most terrorism is committed in the name of Allah, yet many people are not comfortable addressing that complex problem with simple soultions.

I am on my phone so my apologies if I can't be as precise as I would like to be. I hate typing on this thing lol.


----------



## Anubis

vpkozel said:


> What I was trying to say was that this is an incredibly complex problem that many want to address as though it were simple.
> 
> Many also want to use these examples to solve a political problem that exists here in the US.
> 
> So, I was trying to use a logical parallel that most terrorism is committed in the name of Allah, yet many people are not comfortable addressing that complex problem with simple soultions.
> 
> I am on my phone so my apologies if I can't be as precise as I would like to be. I hate typing on this thing lol.


Thank you for the clarification.


----------



## drlivingston

Bjorn said:


> I live in Sweden, we have very strict gun control laws.
> 
> I shoot bullseye and national. I don't see a problem with the gun control we have. There's a mandatory course and exam, license requirement with vetting and a requirement that you maintain an active interest in the sport you're shooting in (or be an active hunter) to remain licensed.


Alas, the problem is scalability. Sweden has roughly the population of Georgia spread out over a country that is slightly larger than California. Plus, the vast majority of Sweden's population is made up of one ethnic group. However, your immigrant population is rising dramatically. 
It is easy for the US to micro-manage by state. But, we often have state laws that openly defy federal laws. There are states in the US that allow the use of marijuana. Yet, it's use is against federal law in all states. Likewise, it's against federal law for felons to possess firearms. But, many states defy these laws and even allow felons to obtain concealed carry permits for handguns. For what it's worth, Oregon even allows felons who were found guilty of a crimes by reason of insanity to obtain firearms licenses. We are the problem... not the guns.


----------



## Bjorn

drlivingston said:


> Alas, the problem is scalability. Sweden has roughly the population of Georgia spread out over a country that is slightly larger than California. Plus, the vast majority of Sweden's population is made up of one ethnic group. However, your immigrant population is rising dramatically.
> It is easy for the US to micro-manage by state. But, we often have state laws that openly defy federal laws. There are states in the US that allow the use of marijuana. Yet, it's use is against federal law in all states. Likewise, it's against federal law for felons to possess firearms. But, many states defy these laws and even allow felons to obtain concealed carry permits for handguns. For what it's worth, Oregon even allows felons who were found guilty of a crimes by reason of insanity to obtain firearms licenses. We are the problem... not the guns.


However, gun control regulates people, not guns... There's strict gun control in the UK and France and Germany as well. We have a large field of intra-community EU law. For example, our sales tax (VAT) is completely harmonized. There is substantial EU directives in the field of gun ownership, which amount to pretty serious minimum standards. I don't think there's much evidence that federal gun control laws in the US would be impossible.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## drlivingston

Bjorn said:


> I don't think there's much evidence that federal gun control laws in the US would be impossible.


Surely, you jest! :laughing:


----------



## Bjorn

drlivingston said:


> Surely, you jest! :laughing:


From a legal point of view 

Its just a minor amendment of the US constitution away. I think it could scale alright as long as there was a federal minimum
standard. If there's political support for it, now that's another issue entirely.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

Bjorn said:


> From a legal point of view
> 
> Its just a minor amendment of the US constitution away. I think it could scale alright as long as there was a federal minimum
> standard. If there's political support for it, now that's another issue entirely.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Sir, There is no such thing as a "minor ammenmdment" to the US Constitution.

Getting any change to the second amendment through Congress, past the President, through 2/3 of the State Legislatures and then past the innumerable constitutional challenges in court would be impossible.

This is why anyone who really understands the process knows that nothing will or can be done Constitutionally. All the handwringing is just that. Unless the will to call a Constitutional Convention is gathered, which would probably be suicidal for the Republic, the point is moot.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## drlivingston

Bjorn said:


> Its just a minor amendment of the US constitution away.


There is no such thing as a "minor" amendment to the US Constitution. While you and I can agree that something has to change, there are things about the American legal system that defy logic. First and foremost, in this regard, is the power of the NRA. They are one of the most (if not, _*the*_ most) powerful lobbying groups in the country. They are extremely well-funded and politically connected. If you travel anywhere in the rural US, you will see bumper stickers that proudly claim, "You can have my gun. As soon as you pry it from my cold, dead fingers." People in the US are serious about their freedoms to purchase and own firearms. Any infringement on those rights will trigger MAJOR backlash.


----------



## Bjorn

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> Sir, There is no such thing as a "minor ammenmdment" to the US Constitution.
> 
> Getting any change to the second amendment through Congress, past the President, through 2/3 of the State Legislatures and then past the innumerable constitutional challenges in court would be impossible.
> 
> This is why anyone who really understands the process knows that nothing will or can be done Constitutionally. All the handwringing is just that. Unless the will to call a Constitutional Convention is gathered, which would probably be suicidal for the Republic, the point is moot.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


Why would that be suicidal? A convention I mean.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Bjorn

drlivingston said:


> There is no such thing as a "minor" amendment to the US Constitution. While you and I can agree that something has to change, there are things about the American legal system that defy logic. First and foremost, in this regard, is the power of the NRA. They are one of the most (if not, the most) lobbying groups in the country. They are extremely well-funded and politically connected. If you travel anywhere in the rural US, you will see bumper stickers that proudly claim, "You can have my gun. As soon as you pry it from my cold, dead fingers." People in the US are serious about their freedoms to purchase and own firearms. Any infringement on those rights will trigger MAJOR backlash.


But that's a political issue, isn't it? Rather than a legal issue I mean.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## drlivingston

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> Sir, There is no such thing as a "minor ammenmdment" to the US Constitution.


You beat me to it. I was typing my reply. But, yes, there is a reason when something is nearly impossible, we tend to say that "it will take and act of Congress" for that to happen.


----------



## drlivingston

Bjorn said:


> But that's a political issue, isn't it? Rather than a legal issue I mean.


They are one and the same.


----------



## Bjorn

drlivingston said:


> They are one and the same.


That's an Americanism, right there 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## vpkozel

Bjorn said:


> From a legal point of view
> 
> Its just a minor amendment of the US constitution away. I think it could scale alright as long as there was a federal minimum
> standard. If there's political support for it, now that's another issue entirely.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


In general, the Founders added the Bill of Rights in order of their importance to them, so the fact that it was the second one contradicts your point. 
Remember, that the Brits tried to control the guns we colonists had precisely so that we could not revolt. It was common thinking in Europe at the time and why it is so important to us.

You only need to look at any totalitarian regime to understand the linkage between power and the ability to revolt.

Also, as BSR pointed out, the process for amending any of them is highly complex - by design.


----------



## vpkozel

Bjorn said:


> But that's a political issue, isn't it? Rather than a legal issue I mean.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Because we the people grant the political power to make laws to the government. And as part of that right all laws must be Constitutional.

The USSC has rules on many, many Second Amendment cases and generally in favor of interpreting it broadly in scope.


----------



## Bjorn

vpkozel said:


> Because we the people grant the political power to make laws to the government. And as part of that right all laws must be Constitutional.
> 
> The USSC has rules on many, many Second Amendment cases and generally in favor of interpreting it broadly in scope.


A constitution is by definition a law.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## vpkozel

Bjorn said:


> A constitution is by definition a law.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


It is also political.


----------



## dirtlawyer

Absolutely! My wife and I enjoy target shooting, skeet/trap shooting, and have recently gotten into hunting. In fact, ate some elk for dinner last night from October's elk hunt. The problem now is that, like clothes, like watches, once you start getting into firearms you start noticing the little differences and you only want the best!


----------



## drlivingston

Bjorn said:


> A constitution is by definition a law.


Unfortunately, the framework of our Constitution allows for some interpretation issues and ambiguity.


----------



## Bjorn

dirtlawyer said:


> Absolutely! My wife and I enjoy target shooting, skeet/trap shooting, and have recently gotten into hunting. In fact, ate some elk for dinner last night from October's elk hunt. The problem now is that, like clothes, like watches, once you start getting into firearms you start noticing the little differences and you only want the best!


I have a 1954 Sig Sauer Neuhausen 9mm. It *is* the best. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## eagle2250

Bjorn said:


> I have a 1954 Sig Sauer Neuhausen 9mm. It *is* the best.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


My Sig Sauer 516 Patrol Rifle is one of my favorite pieces to take to the local range and tear up paper targets. My Colt Sauer Bolt Action .243 (a cooperative effort involving Colt Arms and Sig Arms) has taken more whitetail deer than all the other long guns in my collection, combined. Sig Arms puts out great products! :happy:


----------



## vpkozel

Bjorn said:


> A constitution is by definition a law.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


The more that I think about it, the less apt I am to agree with this. Laws are enforced by police and carry a penalty for violation. Neither is true of the Constitution. It isn't like the people who voted on and signed a law that is later unconstitutional are thrown in jail.

Only once in our history was the Constitution forcibly applied.

The Constitution is more like a civil contract that supersedes all of out legal and political systems.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

Bjorn said:


> Why would that be suicidal? A convention I mean.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Because it would essentially open up a Pandora's box of restructuring the entire Constitutional compact between the federal government and the states.

The regions and states that saw themselves as losers in the process would reserve the right to secceed. It would be a mass exodus for the door.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

Is there anything new that any of us can add that hasn’t been said before ad nauseum on this topic?

I fear that all that is left to add is more heat and no more light.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## SG_67

The 18th amendment prohibited alcohol. 

The Volstead act was the law enacted to carry out that constitutional amendment.


----------



## Dhaller

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> Is there anything new that any of us can add that hasn't been said before ad nauseum on this topic?
> 
> I fear that all that is left to add is more heat and no more light.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


There is much to add.

I've actually started writing a memo on the subject for publication, from the point of view of analytics and dynamical systems theory. I'll revisit with a link later.

That said, guns are an enormously complex topic in the USA. As for mass shootings, there is no "thing you can do" to prevent them, and actual mitigation is confounded by the scale and low density of the nation. Of course, one should try.

For the record, I think teachers should be armed; I look to the Rhodesian conflict for an example, in which schools were frequent targets of attack and had to rely on teachers as first responders. That would be a bandaid, though.

DH


----------



## Tiger

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> Sir, There is no such thing as a "minor ammenmdment" to the US Constitution.
> 
> Getting any change to the second amendment through Congress, past the President, through 2/3 of the State Legislatures and then past the innumerable constitutional challenges in court would be impossible.
> 
> This is why anyone who really understands the process knows that nothing will or can be done Constitutionally. All the handwringing is just that. Unless the will to call a Constitutional Convention is gathered, which would probably be suicidal for the Republic, the point is moot.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


This is inaccurate. The United States Constitution, as per Article V, can be amended when two-thirds of each house of Congress supports such a proposed amendment (or if the proposed amendment emanates from the "convention" method), and three-fourths of the States ratify the proposed amendment. The chief executive plays no role in the amendment process.

In addition, a Constitutional Convention would be a refreshing course of action, if it led to the diminution of central (federal) government power...


----------



## Tiger

drlivingston said:


> Unfortunately, the framework of our Constitution allows for some interpretation issues and ambiguity.


Far less interpretation and/or ambiguity than most seem to think!


----------



## Tiger

vpkozel said:


> The more that I think about it, the less apt I am to agree with this. Laws are enforced by police and carry a penalty for violation. Neither is true of the Constitution. It isn't like the people who voted on and signed a law that is later unconstitutional are thrown in jail.
> 
> Only once in our history was the Constitution forcibly applied.
> 
> The Constitution is more like a civil contract that supersedes all of out legal and political systems.


To which "forcible application" are you referring?


----------



## Tiger

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> Because it would essentially open up a Pandora's box of restructuring the entire Constitutional compact between the federal government and the states.
> 
> The regions and states that saw themselves as losers in the process would reserve the right to secceed. It would be a mass exodus for the door.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


There's a difference between a convention of the states to determine constitutional amendments, if any, and a constitutional convention to create a new constitution in its entirety.

Please note that the current Constitution has been destroyed a long time ago; strict constructionists like me lament it daily!


----------



## vpkozel

Tiger said:


> To which "forcible application" are you referring?


The Civil War


----------



## Tiger

Tiger said:


> There's a difference between a convention of the states to determine constitutional amendments, if any, and a constitutional convention to create a new constitution in its entirety.
> 
> Please note that the current Constitution has been destroyed a long time ago; strict constructionists like me lament it daily!


One other important point: The Second Amendment specifies that the central (federal) government cannot infringe on the right of citizens to bear arms. States have always had the right to do so!

It is unfortunate that we have eviscerated the Constitution and destroyed the notion of federalism. Once we realize that the Bill of Rights applied solely to the general government and not the States, much clarity can be achieved. Of course, the distortion of federalism known as the "incorporation doctrine" has probably done more to ruin the Constitution than anything since the mischief of Hamilton and Marshall...


----------



## Tiger

vpkozel said:


> The Civil War


Unfortunately, that was not a "forcible application" of the Constitution, but rather a forcible application of unconstitutionalism. Unless, of course, you have evidence that secession was indeed impermissible; if so, you'd be the first to possess such knowledge!


----------



## vpkozel

Tiger said:


> Unfortunately, that was not a "forcible application" of the Constitution, but rather a forcible application of unconstitutionalism. Unless, of course, you have evidence that secession was indeed impermissible; if so, you'd be the first to possess such knowledge!


Its permissibility was not clear cut either way. It was the forcible rejoining of the union that settled the matter.

Which is why I said it had been forcibly applied that one time.


----------



## drlivingston

Tiger said:


> Please note that the current Constitution has been destroyed a long time ago; strict constructionists like me lament it daily!


Even strict constructionism is a form of interpretation.


----------



## Tiger

vpkozel said:


> Its permissibility was not clear cut either way. It was the forcible rejoining of the union that settled the matter.
> 
> Which is why I said it had been forcibly applied that one time.


Actually, it is quite clear, as the historical evidence for the permissibility of secession is great, while no evidence exists that would prove its impermissibility.

The "forcible rejoining of the Union" did not "settle the matter," as it proved nothing legal or constitutional. It simply meant that the Union was militarily more powerful than the Confederacy...


----------



## Tiger

drlivingston said:


> Even strict constructionism is a form of interpretation.


Only if words have no common meaning...


----------



## vpkozel

Tiger said:


> One other important point: The Second Amendment specifies that the central (federal) government cannot infringe on the right of citizens to bear arms. States have always had the right to do so!


I believe that all of the state constitutions already had provisions protecting the right to bear arms. Which is where the federal convention got the idea.



> It is unfortunate that we have eviscerated the Constitution and destroyed the notion of federalism. Once we realize that the Bill of Rights applied solely to the general government and not the States, much clarity can be achieved. Of course, the distortion of federalism known as the "incorporation doctrine" has probably done more to ruin the Constitution than anything since the mischief of Hamilton and Marshall...


While I mostly agree, it should be noted that the inability or unwillingness to settle a crucial difference between the states was a major contributing factor to the bloodiest war we have ever fought.


----------



## vpkozel

Tiger said:


> Actually, it is quite clear, as the historical evidence for the permissibility of secession is great, while no evidence exists that would prove its impermissibility.


I agree. And the South was not the first to have considered it.



> The "forcible rejoining of the Union" did not "settle the matter," as it proved nothing legal or constitutional. It simply meant that the Union was militarily more powerful than the Confederacy...


I disagree. In fact, NC changed its constitution to reflect it. I don't plan on researching whether all Confederate states did the same.


----------



## Tiger

vpkozel said:


> I believe that all of the state constitutions already had provisions protecting the right to bear arms. Which is where the federal convention got the idea.
> 
> While I mostly agree, it should be noted that the inability or unwillingness to settle a crucial difference between the states was a major contributing factor to the bloodiest war we have ever fought.


There was the option, of course, of separating peacefully...


----------



## Tiger

vpkozel said:


> I agree. And the South was not the first to have considered it.
> 
> I disagree. In fact, NC changed its constitution to reflect it. I don't plan on researching whether all Confederate states did the same.


Many States were forced to renounce the right of secession during Reconstruction. Just one more example of raw power winning, rather than the rights of states and their people.


----------



## Orsini

Bjorn said:


> From a legal point of view
> 
> Its just a minor amendment of the US constitution away. I think it could scale alright as long as there was a federal minimum
> standard. If there's political support for it, now that's another issue entirely.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


You don't know what you are talking about. Changing an amendment to the US Constitution is a big, big deal.

And, as the other gentleman said, there are no minor amendments to the US Constitution.


----------



## 16412

The Declaration of Independence says that we are not owned by the government. Europeans are just government property one way or another. The constitution and bill of rights are second place. They just explain details that need to be made of the smaller needs. The bill of rights actually enforces with further explanation The Declaration Of Independence. Those guys who signed it would never abolished it. They put their life on the line when they signed it. The na-sayers never had their lifes on the line, and they babble foolishness. The grievances written there in against the crown also apply to this country. What they wrote was not a joke. Since we are not government property the government legally cannot take guns away or prevent us from buying them, making them and etc. Technically drivers licenses and flying licenses are illegal. A good potion of the FAA is criminal. Any government over stepping is criminal.


----------



## 16412

eagle2250 said:


> Gemtlemen, the sad truth is that we generally do reap what we sow!


How true.


----------



## 16412

The psychological thoughts brought up are troubling. It looks to me, without a doubt, that the more America depends on psychology the worse America becomes. It is a false hope.


----------



## Shaver

Adding little to the sensible discussion or perhaps focusing the entire issue, nevertheless, I can recall a multitude of situations where firepower would have been welcome. Last week I witnessed my neighbour attacked by two thugs wielding a machette. A circumstance which may have been positively resolved had my country permitted me weaponry which distributes bullets.


----------



## drlivingston

Shaver said:


> Adding little to the sensible discussion or perhaps focusing the entire issue, nevertheless, I can recall a multitude of situations where firepower would have been welcome. Last week I witnessed my neighbour attacked by two thugs wielding a machette. A circumstance which may have been positively resolved had my country permitted me weaponry which distributes bullets.


Unless the thug had a machete with a bump stock.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

Tiger said:


> This is inaccurate. The United States Constitution, as per Article V, can be amended when two-thirds of each house of Congress supports such a proposed amendment (or if the proposed amendment emanates from the "convention" method), and three-fourths of the States ratify the proposed amendment. The chief executive plays no role in the amendment process.
> 
> In addition, a Constitutional Convention would be a refreshing course of action, if it led to the diminution of central (federal) government power...


Refreshing, like a splash of battery acid to the face is refreshing. Not going to ever happen anyway, so the point is moot.

Of course the Constitution can be amended. I never argued that it couldn't. I said that getting through a change to the 2nd would be impossible.

As a southerner who's family was essentially wiped out in the war, I think the issue of whether secession is "legal" is as well established as the loss of our "legal" right to own human beings and/or be compensated by the federal government for our financial loss for the unconstitutional taking of our "legal" property at the hands of an oppressive federal authority.

Losing a war had effects. We lost. The illegality of Slavery and secession are as settled as John Browns bones. Any argument to the contrary is the arena of crack pots of which I am not a member.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Bjorn

WA said:


> The Declaration of Independence says that we are not owned by the government. Europeans are just government property one way or another. The constitution and bill of rights are second place. They just explain details that need to be made of the smaller needs. The bill of rights actually enforces with further explanation The Declaration Of Independence. Those guys who signed it would never abolished it. They put their life on the line when they signed it. The na-sayers never had their lifes on the line, and they babble foolishness. The grievances written there in against the crown also apply to this country. What they wrote was not a joke. Since we are not government property the government legally cannot take guns away or prevent us from buying them, making them and etc. Technically drivers licenses and flying licenses are illegal. A good potion of the FAA is criminal. Any government over stepping is criminal.


That simply does not survive a comparative approach. European countries generally honor for example the convention on human rights and will enforce the rulings of the Court. For example, setting up extrajudicial courts (whether territorial or based abroad) or arguing legally in favor of torture would simply not be possible. Also, stating that driving licenses would be illegal does not bear out either, because any American court will enforce them. What the court says, that is what I mean with the law. To impose religious meaning to a constitution only serves to muddy the waters. Especially when all of them (save maybe a few exotics) are known to be highly derivative of earlier and contemporary constitutions.

As for change being good or bad, difficulty or impossible, it's also quite possible to reevaluate the meaning in present context.

However, as another member pointed out, perhaps this has been argued about ad nauseum before.

I own handguns and shoot, we are about 700 000 legal gun owners in Sweden (vast majority hunting rifles). It's very relaxing to shoot. I feel strongly though that the right place for my handgun when I'm not shooting is in a locked safe.

My only gripe with our system is that the prices are high (only about 400 weapons dealers nationally, 25% VAT) and the license application process takes weeks if not months. Also, applications are made to the Police rather than a civil licensing authority, and they tend to err on the side of caution. Service level isn't stellar.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Bjorn

Shaver said:


> Adding little to the sensible discussion or perhaps focusing the entire issue, nevertheless, I can recall a multitude of situations where firepower would have been welcome. Last week I witnessed my neighbour attacked by two thugs wielding a machette. A circumstance which may have been positively resolved had my country permitted me weaponry which distributes bullets.


Would that multitude have been within the limits of personal defense or are you imagining a wider use? 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Shaver

I am rather pleased that I chose to bump this thread. Most of the gentlemen whose opinions I respect are contributing and including several who have been silent for a while.


----------



## Shaver

Bjorn said:


> Would that multitude have been within the limits of personal defense or are you imagining a wider use?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Occasionally I would prefer to 'defend' a miscreant's head clean off his shoulders.

Bang!


----------



## Shaver

vpkozel said:


> Swap responsible gun owner and mental illness for muslim and terrorist and let me know if it changes any of your thoughts.


Mental illness and Muslim are synonymous. No swap is required.


----------



## Bjorn

Shaver said:


> Mental illness and Muslim are synonymous. No swap is required.


Au contraire, I know several secular Muslims that I don't mind having a pint with. But then, maybe we are similarly daft.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Shaver

Bjorn said:


> Au contraire, I know several secular Muslims that I don't mind having a pint with. But then, maybe we are similarly daft.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I too am on good terms with several Islamists. The point still stands: the 'religion' is a disgrace and at odds with sanity.

How many 'no go' zones, sorry 'vulnerable areas', are there in your country now?


----------



## Bjorn

Shaver said:


> I too am on good terms with several Islamists. The point still stands: the 'religion' is a disgrace and at odds with sanity.
> 
> How many 'no go' zones, sorry 'vulnerable areas', are there in your country now?


About the same number. But they did not spontaneously occur since 2015, contrary to popular belief. They've been in the making since the 80:s (at least that's when they were first discussed by researchers).

We've kind of kept our head in the sand on the matter, which is a perfectly Trad way of dealing with things in Sweden. But I do think that the religion itself is fairly compatible, but maybe does not enhance integration. Not the a priori problem.

Very bad development though. Hoping for a change in government in 2018. More of a law-and-order approach is sorely needed at this point.

But where do you hang out to get neighbors assaulted with machetes??

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Shaver

As with most English city centres the affluent areas adjoin the centres of criminality. Moss Side is a short walk from my flat and occasionally the denizens stray from their home turf.

Perhaps germane to this thread drift they were almost certainly Islamist.


----------



## eagle2250

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> Refreshing, like a splash of battery acid to the face is refreshing. Not going to ever happen anyway, so the point is moot.
> 
> Of course the Constitution can be amended. I never argued that it couldn't. I said that getting through a change to the 2nd would be impossible.
> 
> As a southerner who's family was essentially wiped out in the war, I think the issue of whether secession is "legal" is as well established as the loss of our "legal" right to own human beings and/or be compensated by the federal government for our financial loss for the unconstitutional taking of our "legal" property at the hands of an oppressive federal authority.
> 
> Losing a war had effects. We lost. The illegality of Slavery and secession are as settled as John Browns bones. Any argument to the contrary is the arena of crack pots of which I am not a member.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


Thank you for a very insightful reply, my friend. You have described in a few short paragraphs a core problem that has plagued this Nation, generally throughout it's history. Historically, we have proven ourselves as being far more adept at winning the battles/wars than we have been at making the peace. Each and every time a nation presumes to sh*t on a vanquished enemy, they plant the seeds of a future conflict. Far too many of our elected leadership consistently demonstrate greater allegiance to their respective party affiliations with their actions, than they do to the greater national interests!


----------



## Tiger

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> Refreshing, like a splash of battery acid to the face is refreshing. Not going to ever happen anyway, so the point is moot.
> 
> Of course the Constitution can be amended. I never argued that it couldn't. I said that getting through a change to the 2nd would be impossible.
> 
> As a southerner who's family was essentially wiped out in the war, I think the issue of whether secession is "legal" is as well established as the loss of our "legal" right to own human beings and/or be compensated by the federal government for our financial loss for the unconstitutional taking of our "legal" property at the hands of an oppressive federal authority.
> 
> Losing a war had effects. We lost. The illegality of Slavery and secession are as settled as John Browns bones. Any argument to the contrary is the arena of crack pots of which I am not a member.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


A convention to offer amendments to the Constitution is quite necessary, as many of the ills that afflict the United States are caused by the federal government, and the federal congress is not likely to propose amendments that will limit its power!

The Second Amendment does not need to be altered; a simple return to the proper understanding of federalism (as per the Tenth Amendment) would allow states to be as stringent or liberal as they wish re: guns.

Winning or losing a war does not establish legality and constitutionality. This is too clear for argument. Neighborhood thugs stealing my car does not negate my legal right to own property.

Please do not conflate secession and slavery; it is unnecessary and unhelpful to the constitutional issues discussed.

I hope you were not inferring that I am a "crack pot." That would be very unfortunate...


----------



## Tiger

eagle2250 said:


> Thank you for a very insightful reply, my friend. You have described in a few short paragraphs a core problem that has plagued this Nation, generally throughout it's history. Historically, we have proven ourselves as being far more adept at winning the battles/wars than we have been at making the peace. Each and every time a nation presumes to sh*t on a vanquished enemy, they plant the seeds of a future conflict. Far too many of our elected leadership consistently demonstrate greater allegiance to their respective party affiliations with their actions, than they do to the greater national interests!


I agree, Eagle. President Washington warned about the detrimental and self-seeking aspects of political parties in his Farewell Address of 1796.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

Tiger said:


> A convention to offer amendments to the Constitution is quite necessary, as many of the ills that afflict the United States are caused by the federal government, and the federal congress is not likely to propose amendments that will limit its power!
> 
> The Second Amendment does not need to be altered; a simple return to the proper understanding of federalism (as per the Tenth Amendment) would allow states to be as stringent or liberal as they wish re: guns.
> 
> Winning or losing a war does not establish legality and constitutionality. This is too clear for argument. Neighborhood thugs stealing my car does not negate my legal right to own property.
> 
> Please do not conflate secession and slavery; it is unnecessary and unhelpful to the constitutional issues discussed.
> 
> I hope you were not inferring that I am a "crack pot." That would be very unfortunate...


My tin foil hat is in for repairs so I am ill suited to judge what is ridiculous and what is sublime.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Shaver

Tiger said:


> A convention to offer amendments to the Constitution is quite necessary, as many of the ills that afflict the United States are caused by the federal government, and the federal congress is not likely to propose amendments that will limit its power!
> 
> The Second Amendment does not need to be altered; a simple return to the proper understanding of federalism (as per the Tenth Amendment) would allow states to be as stringent or liberal as they wish re: guns.
> 
> Winning or losing a war does not establish legality and constitutionality. This is too clear for argument. Neighborhood thugs stealing my car does not negate my legal right to own property.
> 
> Please do not conflate secession and slavery; it is unnecessary and unhelpful to the constitutional issues discussed.
> 
> I hope you were not inferring that I am a "crack pot." That would be very unfortunate...


In which our hero manfullly resists the temptation to comment on infer versus imply.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

Shaver said:


> In which our hero manfullly resists the temptation to comment on infer versus imply.


An educated guess is all my education allows


----------



## Tiger

Shaver said:


> In which our hero manfullly resists the temptation to comment on infer versus imply.


I keep forgetting that the British members such as Shaver actually know how to speak and write in English, unlike me!

"Imply" it is!


----------



## 16412

Björn, your thoughts are to tied to 'suppose to'. The US Supreme Court decided it was illegal to have capital punishment. Then it decided we should have capital punishment. So, what are laws? The latest governor of Washington state (on the west coast) decided that nobody dies from capital punishment while he is governor, even though it is on the states laws to. Is he breaking the law? Do not the rest of us in Washington state have a say. He has stepped away from, We The People, to I'm the ruler. How is he not breaking the law?

The Bill of Rights is only a sample of our rights. The Bill of Rights makes it clear that the government can't make us get a license to buy and own guns. Drivers licenses and flying licenses really do fall into this category. The only reason why we go through the process to get them is because people have become lulled into non thinking, or laziness. Let government think for them. Listen to the blather of them who want to control people. In other words, theft. And, because of this, responsability and freedom is going out the window faster and faster. It is not the world I want to live. I am not an animal. Animals get shuttled from corral to corral. This is the way America's look more and more.

When I was a boy so many houses had a rifle, or more, hanging above the fireplace or resting on the mantel. People could do that back then, because of the way people thought back then. Are we better off with today's thinking? It is becoming more dangerous because people are thinking thoughts that don't work, and these thoughts are getting worse. Go back to our old methods of thinking and we can have our freedoms back. All those guns freely out in the open, and we were safer back then. It is how we think that matters.

How many boys and girls took guns to school less than a hundred years ago? The real question is why. Some children had trap lines along the way to school. If the animal does not die properly it is best to shoot it. And these children had shooting competitions during recess. They even got some school marms involved. Once in awhile they forgot to tell the teacher how to handle skunks, therefore getting a few days off. 

In a town, not far away from here, this father bought a 22 for his daughter. Taught her how to use it. She was a good shot. If he came home unpleasantly drunk she was out on the porch with her 22 telling him not to step on the property or she would shoot him. Of course, not dead, but graze his leg. If you don't see the humor in this you have been hearing way too much of the terrible until your mind is controlled with terrible thoughts of guns. Some thinking, over thinking, is not healthy.


----------



## SG_67

Tiger said:


> I agree, Eagle. President Washington warned about the detrimental and self-seeking aspects of political parties in his Farewell Address of 1796.


Parties are natural to democracy. Why the gnashing of teeth.


----------



## eagle2250

^^The problem isn't the political parties, but rather the thoughtless, inflexible, and exclusive adherence to party platforms to the detriment of the public good and the opposing party. "That;s the way our Congress seems to roll" these days.


----------



## SG_67

eagle2250 said:


> ^^The problem isn't the political parties, but rather the thoughtless, inflexible, and exclusive adherence to party platforms to the detriment of the public good and the opposing party. "That;s the way our Congress seems to roll" these days.


The beautiful thing about democracy is that it is a reflection of the populous.

When at best 50% of the population votes this is what happens. Of that 50%, the better portion are older people who are probably going to be dead soon. Voter participation for those <30 is less than 40%, while >60 is over 70%. Old people will naturally use government to extract and otherwise suck resources from younger people for their own purpose.

All this talk of political parities, interest groups, lobbyists and money wouldn't matter if people voted and would every once in a while vote for change and throw out some of these fossils warming seats in the house and senate.

Donald Trump won on a shoe string budget. Against probably the most formidable and well financed politician the US has ever produced.

She lost because she was a lousy candidate but more importantly, he won because he went out and talked to and listened to people who had long been taken for granted. They listened. The system worked.

So our political process has become what it has because we (collectively) have allowed it to become that.


----------



## Tiger

SG_67 said:


> Parties are natural to democracy. Why the gnashing of teeth.


Undoubtedly, we have very different definitions of "democracy."

To paraphrase George Mason, the United States became an amalgam of monarchy and corrupt, tyrannical aristocracy a very long time ago.


----------



## 16412

Lots of fighting and compromise. Look at what happened to get the trains across America, coast to coast. Lots of corruption.


----------



## eagle2250

SG_67 said:


> The beautiful thing about democracy is that it is a reflection of the populous.
> 
> When at best 50% of the population votes this is what happens. Of that 50%, the better portion are older people who are probably going to be dead soon. Voter participation for those <30 is less than 40%, while >60 is over 70%. Old people will naturally use government to extract and otherwise suck resources from younger people for their own purpose.
> 
> All this talk of political parities, interest groups, lobbyists and money wouldn't matter if people voted and would every once in a while vote for change and throw out some of these fossils warming seats in the house and senate.
> 
> Donald Trump won on a shoe string budget. Against probably the most formidable and well financed politician the US has ever produced.
> 
> She lost because she was a lousy candidate but more importantly, he won because he went out and talked to and listened to people who had long been taken for granted. They listened. The system worked.
> 
> So our political process has become what it has because we (collectively) have allowed it to become that.


I certainly agree that we have created (or perhaps more accurately, elected) our own collection of evils, but (LOL) that hardly excuses away the Nancy Pelosi's and Chuck Schumer's polluting and disrupting our present day Congress.

:icon_scratch:


----------



## SG_67

eagle2250 said:


> I certainly agree that we have created (or perhaps more accurately, elected) our own collection of evils, but (LOL) that hardly excuses away the Nancy Pelosi's and Chuck Schumer's polluting and disrupting our present day Congress.
> 
> :icon_scratch:


I'm not from a state or district where they run. My guess is that neither of them really have to campaign anymore.

All the more reason to term limit all of them. Serve, move on and go back into the private sector. Of course, that assumes that they have some marketable skill that will allow them to earn a living.


----------



## SG_67

Tiger said:


> Undoubtedly, we have very different definitions of "democracy."
> 
> To paraphrase George Mason, the United States became an amalgam of monarchy and corrupt, tyrannical aristocracy a very long time ago.


Then explain Donald Trump winning the way he did.


----------



## Tiger

SG_67 said:


> Then explain Donald Trump winning the way he did.


You are focusing on a singular issue; I can provide dozens of examples where the federal government has made decisions - almost all of them unconstitutional - without any regard for the _vox populi_.

The United States is (should be "are") not a democracy but a republic. Unfortunately, those in all three branches of government act as if they have supreme power in every sphere of our lives. Again, a monarchy blended with a corrupt and tyrannical aristocracy. It's what happens when we a) eviscerate the Constitution and the system of federalism, and b) have a populace that is in general ignorant and apathetic. "Bread and circuses" has made the American citizenry as docile as a lamb, and mutton is on the menu...


----------



## 127.72 MHz

SG_67 said:


> The beautiful thing about democracy is that it is a reflection of the populous.
> 
> When at best 50% of the population votes this is what happens. Of that 50%, the better portion are older people who are probably going to be dead soon. Voter participation for those <30 is less than 40%, while >60 is over 70%. Old people will naturally use government to extract and otherwise suck resources from younger people for their own purpose.
> 
> All this talk of political parities, interest groups, lobbyists and money wouldn't matter if people voted and would every once in a while vote for change and throw out some of these fossils warming seats in the house and senate.
> 
> Donald Trump won on a shoe string budget. Against probably the most formidable and well financed politician the US has ever produced.
> 
> She lost because she was a lousy candidate but more importantly, he won because he went out and talked to and listened to people who had long been taken for granted. They listened. The system worked.
> 
> So our political process has become what it has because we (collectively) have allowed it to become that.


Spot on.
And U.S. citizens, collectively, have precisely the government that we so richly deserve given our willful ignorance.


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Tiger said:


> You are focusing on a singular issue; I can provide dozens of examples where the federal government has made decisions - almost all of them unconstitutional - without any regard for the _vox populi_.
> 
> The United States is (should be "are") not a democracy but a republic. Unfortunately, those in all three branches of government act as if they have supreme power in every sphere of our lives. Again, a monarchy blended with a corrupt and tyrannical aristocracy. It's what happens when we a) eviscerate the Constitution and the system of federalism, and b) have a populace that is in general ignorant and apathetic. "Bread and circuses" has made the American citizenry as docile as a lamb, and mutton is on the menu...


I do not believe that 10% of the U.S. population could articulate what you have just said.

We are a spoiled and ignorant populace. And at least a simple majority cannot balance their check books let alone ponder the trajectory of our society,....


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

Tiger said:


> You are focusing on a singular issue; I can provide dozens of examples where the federal government has made decisions - almost all of them unconstitutional - without any regard for the _vox populi_.
> 
> The United States is (should be "are") not a democracy but a republic. Unfortunately, those in all three branches of government act as if they have supreme power in every sphere of our lives. Again, a monarchy blended with a corrupt and tyrannical aristocracy. It's what happens when we a) eviscerate the Constitution and the system of federalism, and b) have a populace that is in general ignorant and apathetic. "Bread and circuses" has made the American citizenry as docile as a lamb, and mutton is on the menu...


Reasonable points all.

I believe that the contemporary wisdom that the American Revolution was a good thing appears less defensible over time.

The experiment with republican democracy requires an informed, educated and active citizenry to function well. Without active engagement from a savvy citizenry, the experiment collapses. The expansion of voting rights to encompass universal adult sufferage has done more to torpedo our Republic as any other action. Allowing the poorly informed, non property owners, non taxpayers, those looking to vote themselves a living from the public trough voting rights undermines good governance and results in mob rule.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## SG_67

Tiger said:


> You are focusing on a singular issue; I can provide dozens of examples where the federal government has made decisions - almost all of them unconstitutional - without any regard for the _vox populi_.
> 
> The United States is (should be "are") not a democracy but a republic. Unfortunately, those in all three branches of government act as if they have supreme power in every sphere of our lives. Again, a monarchy blended with a corrupt and tyrannical aristocracy. It's what happens when we a) eviscerate the Constitution and the system of federalism, and b) have a populace that is in general ignorant and apathetic. "Bread and circuses" has made the American citizenry as docile as a lamb, and mutton is on the menu...


Perhaps a singular issue or instance but an example nonetheless. Whatever it is that we bemoan, it's not because some generalissimo rolled into the Capitol with his tanks and declared Marshall law. We have let it become that way because we have made ourselves reliable voting blocks. San Francisco will always vote democratic. South Carolina will always go republican.

African Americans vote >90% democratic. Bread and circuses indeed but it's because we have allowed it to become that way. It's within our domain to take it back.

So as tempting as it is to say it's some quasi monarchy with an aristocratic ruling class, I also believe that such sentiments are an excuse to shirk one's responsibility to be an informed and engaged citizen. It's easy to be apathetic when you believe that it doesn't matter.

But you're right, our government has become ever intrusive in our lives, right down to telling our kids what they should eat at school and dictating who uses what bathroom.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

SG_67 said:


> Perhaps a singular issue or instance but an example nonetheless. Whatever it is that we bemoan, it's not because some generalissimo rolled into the Capitol with his tanks and declared Marshall law. We have let it become that way because we have made ourselves reliable voting blocks. San Francisco will always vote democratic. South Carolina will always go republican.
> 
> African Americans vote >90% democratic. Bread and circuses indeed but it's because we have allowed it to become that way. It's within our domain to take it back.
> 
> So as tempting as it is to say it's some quasi monarchy with an aristocratic ruling class, I also believe that such sentiments are an excuse to shirk one's responsibility to be an informed and engaged citizen. It's easy to be apathetic when you believe that it doesn't matter.
> 
> But you're right, our government has become ever intrusive in our lives, right down to telling our kids what they should eat at school and dictating who uses what bathroom.


Agreed.

The deep state unseen hand paranoia allows us to direct the finger of blame other than where it aptly belongs. Toward our own hearts.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Tiger

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> Reasonable points all.
> 
> I believe that the contemporary wisdom that the American Revolution was a good thing appears less defensible over time.
> 
> The experiment with republican democracy requires an informed, educated and active citizenry to function well. Without active engagement from a savvy citizenry, the experiment collapses. The expansion of voting rights to encompass universal adult sufferage has done more to torpedo our Republic as any other action. Allowing the poorly informed, non property owners, non taxpayers, those looking to vote themselves a living from the public trough voting rights undermines good governance and results in mob rule.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


Many exceptional points!


----------



## Tiger

SG_67 said:


> Perhaps a singular issue or instance but an example nonetheless. Whatever it is that we bemoan, it's not because some generalissimo rolled into the Capitol with his tanks and declared Marshall law. We have let it become that way because we have made ourselves reliable voting blocks. San Francisco will always vote democratic. South Carolina will always go republican.
> 
> African Americans vote >90% democratic. Bread and circuses indeed but it's because we have allowed it to become that way. It's within our domain to take it back.
> 
> So as tempting as it is to say it's some quasi monarchy with an aristocratic ruling class, I also believe that such sentiments are an excuse to shirk one's responsibility to be an informed and engaged citizen. It's easy to be apathetic when you believe that it doesn't matter.
> 
> But you're right, our government has become ever intrusive in our lives, right down to telling our kids what they should eat at school and dictating who uses what bathroom.


Agree with most of this; ultimately, the ignorance and apathy of Americans combined with the manipulators and distorters of the Constitution have destroyed the Republic...


----------



## 16412

Freedom and bravery are disappearing. Can't have freedom without bravery. So many people drive 10 miles under the speed limit. The speed limit is set for tall trucks, motor homes and other cumbersome vehicles. Cars do not fit into that category. And so many people are asking the government for slower speeds. These people do not have a right to a drivers license. This one road I lived a long was 60 miles an hour. It is now wider, better visibility, not many more people living since over 50 years ago and yet the speed was cut down to 45 miles an hour. And one cop saying that it is good and would be better slower. This cop is slightly smart enough to shuck oysters and yet he is high enough in Washington State government to recommend speed limits. As a preschooler walked that road to grandparents 1 mile and down another road more than a mile with a brother towing my little brother in a wagon and another brother sometimes riding his bicycle, and we were safe. A wider road and far better cars the speed limit should be 70 or above. Plus we should be smarter, which would be producing better drivers. But instead, America is becoming dumber. Not forced to bravery, so government becomes more heavy handed as our freedoms disappear. Adults shouldn't be sucking their thumb. Back in the seventies there was a saying, "Stop the earth and let me off!" It seems more like a good idea.


----------



## 16412

eagle2250 said:


> I certainly agree that we have created (or perhaps more accurately, elected) our own collection of evils, but (LOL) that hardly excuses away the Nancy Pelosi's and Chuck Schumer's polluting and disrupting our present day Congress.
> 
> :icon_scratch:


Those two have sure damaged America far to much. It is sad to think that people actually vote for them. And the news media has given them power by giving them a voice, while they slander Republicans. Trump threatened the media by not allowing them to renew their licenses (must be the ones over the air), that would be good.


----------



## eagle2250

LOL. The President threatening not to renew licenses of the voices of the opposition would be the worst way to handle it. But wouldn't it be nice if the electorate, at long last, decided to wake up and smell the coffee, really listening to and considering what was being said and then they voted with their respective consciences. 

Years ago, Bill Clinton was heard to say, "I did not have sex with that woman," but he certainly did lie to the American people! George Bush unleashed our dogs of war against Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. Those weapons were never found, but we did topple Hussein's regime and ever so arrogantly, attempted to rebuild Iraq in our own image...that's generally a fools errand that never seems to work! Barrack Obama frequently spoke of our being a nation of laws and then ever so flippantly, ordered his Justice Department not to enforce this country's immigration laws and sanctuary cities, municipalities sworn to openly violate Federal Laws, with which they didn't agree, became an ever growing presence in our lives. If the other children won't play by the rules we may personally embrace, let us pick up our marbles and just go home! That doesn't sound like a nation of laws to me? 

The American electorate has somehow devolved into a morass of soft headed idiots, willing to elect and reelect scoundrels, liars, scam artists and megalomaniacs intent on enforcing only those laws with which they personally agree. God help us all!


----------



## 16412

Think Trumps threat is a wake up call for the media to have respect for their freedom of the press. The bull headed ones could care less.
The Republicans have put up with and even complained about the abuse for years. The media knows that they have millions of people eating out of their hands (animals eat out of people's hands). What is the media getting that they think is important? Have they talked themselves into believing lies that they are getting something? What they are saying is senceless. So, where is their gain? Todays paper and headlines are accusing Trump for saying that the FBI did not do their job to have prevented the murder of 17 children. They are deliberately trying to destroy the Republican party while claiming that they are for democracy. Anyway, it is endless foolishness from so much of the media.


----------



## Shaver

WA said:


> Think Trumps threat is a wake up call for the media to have respect for their freedom of the press. The bull headed ones could care less.
> The Republicans have put up with and even complained about the abuse for years. The media knows that they have millions of people eating out of their hands (animals eat out of people's hands). What is the media getting that they think is important? Have they talked themselves into believing lies that they are getting something? What they are saying is senceless. So, where is their gain? Todays paper and headlines are accusing Trump for saying that the FBI did not do their job to have prevented the murder of 17 children. They are deliberately trying to destroy the Republican party while claiming that they are for democracy. Anyway, it is endless foolishness from so much of the media.


17 children? How many terminations have been carried out in America so far this year?


----------



## SG_67

Shaver said:


> 17 children? How many terminations have been carried out in America so far this year?


Those don't count because a gun wasn't used.


----------



## Shaver

SG_67 said:


> Those don't count because a gun wasn't used.


These nuances forever elude me. I lack the ability to reason with something approaching sophistication.

On the plus side, however, I have never been complicit in the murder of a baby.


----------



## Shaver

SG_67 said:


> Perhaps a singular issue or instance but an example nonetheless. Whatever it is that we bemoan, it's not because some generalissimo rolled into the Capitol with his tanks and declared Marshall law. We have let it become that way because we have made ourselves reliable voting blocks. San Francisco will always vote democratic. South Carolina will always go republican.
> 
> African Americans vote >90% democratic. Bread and circuses indeed but it's because we have allowed it to become that way. It's within our domain to take it back.
> 
> So as tempting as it is to say it's some quasi monarchy with an aristocratic ruling class, I also believe that such sentiments are an excuse to shirk one's responsibility to be an informed and engaged citizen. It's easy to be apathetic when you believe that it doesn't matter.
> 
> But you're right, our government has become ever intrusive in our lives, right down to telling our kids what they should eat at school and dictating who uses what bathroom.


To coin a phrase 'don't get me started'. The policies of my workplace (a workplace I hasten to make clear that I adore) are so desperate to appease the various insignificant minorities demanding majority representation that one would need to be deranged to accept them all equally.


----------



## 16412

Shaver said:


> 17 children? How many terminations have been carried out in America so far this year?


15 - 16 shootings this year. Not sure how many children that adds up to who were murdered. 
Go back to the 60s and 70s and how many died from school shootings? Children were selling guns and trading guns and buying guns in the school parking lot back then, and nobody was in danger. 
Which way do you want it? Todays method of thinking? Or back when it was safe to be in school?


----------



## eagle2250

^^
Back in the 1960's, growing up in central Pennsylvania, it was not at all unusual during hunting season to drive to school with a bolt action .243 or a lever action .30 cal rifle in the gun rack, mounted across the back window of the vehicle, in the hope of getting in a few hours of hunting after school let out. Of course, back then they could still spank us, our gym teacher (The Coach) employing "Big Red," a 30 inch paddle with holes drilled through it to reduce the wind resistance against this localized board of education and allowing for a greater probability of knocking the 'bad' right out of we errant young men, if such became necessary. God bless you Mary Hopkins, "those were (indeed) the days my friend; we thought they'd never end. Those were the days...oh yes those were the days!" Jeez, Louise...things sure have changed...and not for the better!


----------



## Cawood

WA said:


> 15 - 16 shootings this year. Not sure how many children that adds up to who were murdered.
> Go back to the 60s and 70s and how many died from school shootings? Children were selling guns and trading guns and buying guns in the school parking lot back then, and nobody was in danger.
> Which way do you want it? Todays method of thinking? Or back when it was safe to be in school?


WA, First please have your facts straight. It's not "15 or 16" shootings this year. That is an overblown number to make a political point for gun confiscation. The number is 6, which we all agree is 6 too many. Our public schools our targets because they are "gun free" to begin with. We need to address all of the issues and start with honest facts which include security for schools, mental health and how to address that without political correctness, and access to firearms by the mentally unstable. Taking on Hollywood and the violence that comes from there and video games wouldn't be a bad place to look as well...What happened to fashion?


----------



## drlivingston

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> Back in the 1960's, growing up in central Pennsylvania, it was not at all unusual during hunting season to drive to school with a bolt action .243 or a lever action .30 cal rifle in the gun rack, mounted across the back window of the vehicle, in the hope of getting in a few hours of hunting after school let out. Of course, back then they could still spank us, our gym teacher (The Coach) employing "Big Red," a 30 inch paddle with holes drilled through it to reduce the wind resistance against this localized board of education and allowing for a greater probability of knocking the 'bad' right out of we errant young men, if such became necessary. God bless you Mary Hopkins, "those were (indeed) the days my friend; we thought they'd never end. Those were the days...oh yes those were the days!" Jeez, Louise...things sure have changed...and not for the better!


For what it's worth, the mid-1980's were no different. Several of us has gun racks with loaded weapons in our vehicles. And, yes, corporal punishment was still alive and well. It was nothing to see a large male teacher using a large wooden paddle on male AND female students. They didn't discriminate. I remember one young girl looking at my 8th grade government teacher and saying, "You can't paddle me. My daddy is the mayor." He was known for giving rather soft swats on the rump. He proceeded to knock her across his desk with a swat that made all of us wince. She never got in trouble again (and we never heard from her father). Life was better before social media and cell phones. We have lost the ability to effectively communicate in a non-keyboard fashion.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

Agreed ^^^

Abortion must remain legal because women shouldn't be held accountable for their reproductive choices and require government protection to bail them out for their bad reproductive decisions. Speaking of a right to choose, "hope" makes a poor birth control choice.

The devaluation of life in our society to the point of virtual worthlessness is one of the many facets of the current problem. Those who attempt to boil it down to guns alone are obtuse at best and insincere at worst. 

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## eagle2250

^^Indeed,
far more Americans die each year on our highways at the hands of drunk drivers, as compared to the number(s) of those dying in school shootings. Where is the outrage? Is it time to bring back prohibition? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Shaver

Laughable, isn't it? Boo hoo for a few wasted lives whilst permitting an industry of death.

To all those females who, too lazy and stupid to take birth control, believe that murdering babies is a healthcare issue (and worse their human right) I would remind them that they possess two other orifices.


----------



## 16412

Nice to see a lower number than 15 - 16.
Another problem is that the courts are involved when they should not be. And law enforcement is showing up because of that.
If Americans do not get their act together and choose government gun controls, as some people want, the rest of the freedoms will be wiped out. 
They are attacking free speech now, unless it is the left. You can't say/do this and that, but the left can! 
There is a real attempt to shut the right down through bogus laws. 
We got so many bogus judges, and this needs to be dealt with.
Freedom demands responsibility, which the democrats are pushing out the door. 
I think that in the past gun shops were more responsible when selling guns. Not by laws, but by measuring people's responsibility. How many used words like mental illness, insanity and so on? I think it was more of measuring a person's ability of responsibility. Throwing in words like mental illness, means what? Sounds wise, but there is a foolishness to it. Sound judgment is being replaced by words that muddy, or distracts from sound judgement. Psychologist use certain types of words, but should the rest? Psychologist make mistakes, too. The new laws are taking responsibility away from gun dealers, and it is not working. Fill out this form....


----------



## eagle2250

Over the past several days I've watched the local and national media talking heads interviewing perhaps a half dozen of so students and adults regarding this most recent school shooting tragedy, the shooter and their respective opinions regarding his propensity to commit such an act. Where were all these folks before the shooting occurred and why didn't they share their opinions before rather than after the shooting? Again, the problem is not with the hardware, but rather with the state of mind of the shooter and the typical head in the sand approach to life that so many of us embrace! Gentlemen, as the Good Book tells us, "we reap what we sow!" :angry:


----------



## SG_67

We could just start arresting and incarcerating people who act in an odd way.

Better yet, put stricter curbs on the 1st amendment and start to regulate social media. Anyone found to be making offensive or threatening remarks or remarks outside the mainstream of thinking will be detained, questioned and if deemed appropriate held for a period of time as prescribed by law until such time as a panel of psychologists and psychiatrists determine that persons fitness to integrate into society.

Better yet, anyone expelled from school for behavioral issues should be arrested and locked up for a period as defined by law.

Of course I joke as much of this would be a serious abridgment of our constitutional rights, but then again so would the banning of firearms. Nevertheless, it does seem that it gets to the source of the problem; the individual who is disturbed rather than the mode of killing he chooses.

Funny how some never talk about it like that yet are all to eager to repeal the 2nd amendment.

The truth is that there are certain interest groups in this country who don't believe that ordinary citizens can or should be armed as this poses a threat to the coercive power of government.

I'll always remember an interesting dialogue Condoleezza Rice had during an interview when she was asked about guns. She said that in the south during the 60's her father certainly couldn't count on Bull Connor to keep his family safe, so he did so with his shotgun.

https://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Condoleezza_Rice_Gun_Control.htm


----------



## vpkozel

eagle2250 said:


> Over the past several days I've watched the local and national media talking heads interviewing perhaps a half dozen of so students and adults regarding this most recent school shooting tragedy, the shooter and their respective opinions regarding his propensity to commit such an act. Where were all these folks before the shooting occurred and why didn't they share their opinions before rather than after the shooting? Again, the problem is not with the hardware, but rather with the state of mind of the shooter and the typical head in the sand approach to life that so many of us embrace! Gentlemen, as the Good Book tells us, "we reap what we sow!" :angry:


From what I have seen and read, many did share concerns but they were never acted on by authorities. It concerns me greatly that our first reaction to this is to further strip away liberties when it has been clearly demonstrated in the past few years that organizations are all to happy to abuse law enforcement powers on political foes.


----------



## vpkozel

In regards to limiting the First Amendment, there have been studies that show that many of the killers do so to get the publicity and that we should refrain from showing their pictures or names in any reports.

https://journalistsresource.org/stu...alth/mass-shooters-suicide-bombers-journalism

Where are the calls to limit free speech?


----------



## 16412

Freedom of speech is already being aborted. There is something called bots (not sure how it is spelled). It works in the internet world. You can buy bots, which is a form of advertising (which is speech). This form of speech is now coming under attack. They are starting to make laws that you have to get permission. They view what you want to say and how you want to use it. Then they decide if they think it is OK. The main media says what it wants and doesn't get permission. Bots is legally no different when it comes to free speech, according to the bill of rights. The left is doing its best to stomp out opposing voices while they want the freedom to lie anyway they want to persuade to voters to vote against themselves.


----------



## Shaver

Lucido said:


> Your posts rarely portray you in a particularly pleasant light Shaver, but the example above is one of the ugliest, crudest, most disgusting things I have ever read on a discussion forum.


I am, marginally, curious. Why do you take such offence at a rational, and accurate, position?

BTW, I made a minor adjustment to the composition of your post as it was really rather ugly and crude as originally submitted.


----------



## drlivingston

Lucido said:


> Your posts rarely portray you in a particularly pleasant light Shaver, but the one above is one of the ugliest, crudest, most disgusting things I have ever read on a discussion forum.


With all due respect, Lucido, if that is one of the "ugliest, crudest, most disgusting things" that you have read on a discussion forum, you must not be a member of many forums.


----------



## Shaver

Now that you have kindly provided this further explanation it would seem that you have introduced your own layer of meaning to my statement and are commenting upon that distortion.

At any rate, please accept my sincere apologies that my tending towards verbosity offends your sensibilities. However, I did not assert that failing to take birth control was lazy and stupid in and of itself nor did I imply* that one should recommend sexual technique to one's own mother or daughter, this is patently ridiculous.

The least of my flaws, eh? The pro-abortion mob, their position intellectually untenable, have ever resorted to besmirching their opponents rather than engage the debate.




*this usage dedicated to my good friend Tiger.


----------



## FLMike

Why is the media not asking the question of WHY, rather than focusing solely on the how (guns)? WHY are there so many more mass shootings today than, say, sixty years ago, when gun ownership rates were higher and restrictions on gun ownership were lower than they are today? Why aren’t they talking about the cultural breakdown, the erosion of our moral code, the destruction of the nuclear family, among other troubling societal trends. The fact that kids are scarcely taught that right and wrong exists, lest someone be offended because what’s wrong for you may not be wrong for them, in their own morally relativistic view of the world. The desensitization to violence and death given its increasingly graphic pervasiveness on TV, and in movies and video games. Not to mention, the medicating of our kids with all manner of prescription drugs. 

Why aren’t the cable news shows talking about these things? I guess I already know the answer, but it’s driving me nuts.


----------



## eagle2250

^^My friend, in your post above, 
you said what I tried to say earlier in this thread, but you did so more comprehensively and far more eloquently than I could ever hope to do. Thank you!


----------



## vpkozel

While I agree that the Paovian response of GUNS BAD!!! is a lazy - albeit well trod - path, I also think there is very little doubt that the weapons of today are for more capable of doing mass damage than the weapons of 60 years ago.


----------



## FLMike

vpkozel said:


> While I agree that the Paovian response of GUNS BAD!!! is a lazy - albeit well trod - path, I also think there is very little doubt that the weapons of today are for more capable of doing mass damage than the weapons of 60 years ago.


Yet, your garden variety semi-automatic handguns still account for the vast majority of weapons used in mass shootings in the US.


----------



## drlivingston

FLMike said:


> Yet, your garden variety semi-automatic handguns still account for the vast majority of weapons used in mass shootings in the US.


I am just wondering how many more neighborhood birds I could have neutralized if my BB-gun had had a bump stock.


----------



## 127.72 MHz

^^ My brother and I with that old Daisy BB gun,......It makes me smile.


----------



## Multnomah

drlivingston said:


> I am just wondering how many more neighborhood birds I could have neutralized if my BB-gun had had a bump stock.


Dad was a Depression boy. He drilled into me 'dont waste em' . Defined as kill a bird or dont shoot. He didnt hate birds ,,,, it was harvest practice in his mind.


----------



## Multnomah

In case you've missed this one 


Logical arguments from Steve Thomas:

There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.00925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

• 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons – gun violence
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths

So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?
• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, so it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, and sexual assault are all done by criminals and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?
• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–Where's the excuse for that?
• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)

Now it gets good:
• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!

• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It’s time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides......Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!

So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple.:
Taking away guns gives control to governments.

The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution.

So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."

Remember, when it comes to "gun control," the important word is “control," not “gun."


----------



## Shaver

Hallelujah brother.

:beer:

.


----------



## vpkozel

FLMike said:


> Yet, your garden variety semi-automatic handguns still account for the vast majority of weapons used in mass shootings in the US.


My point was that semi automatics were very rate 60 years ago and now, not so much.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Multnomah said:


> In case you've missed this one
> 
> Logical arguments from Steve Thomas:
> 
> There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.00925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:
> 
> • 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
> • 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
> • 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons - gun violence
> • 3% are accidental discharge deaths
> 
> So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?
> • 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
> • 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
> • 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
> • 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)
> 
> So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.
> 
> This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.
> 
> Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, so it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.
> 
> Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, and sexual assault are all done by criminals and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.
> 
> But what about other deaths each year?
> • 40,000+ die from a drug overdose-Where's the excuse for that?
> • 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
> • 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)
> 
> Now it gets good:
> • 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!
> 
> • 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It's time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides......Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!
> 
> So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple.:
> Taking away guns gives control to governments.
> 
> The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.
> 
> Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."
> 
> Remember, when it comes to "gun control," the important word is "control," not "gun."


A lot of good stuff there, but not all of it. I agree with the fundamental premises that (i) gun violence in the US is both misunderstood and exaggerated, (ii) the Second Amendment is important and must be respected, and (iii) many if not most regulations that are suggested would be fairly ineffectual. That said, I do not agree that local gun control laws are indicative of their fecklessness. Last I checked the City of Chicago borders were pretty porous. And I really don't think that gun control advocates are trying to disarm Americans so that they can impose some sort of authoritarian state, even if that could be an effect. One should not add bad arguments to good arguments lest the former impair the credibility of the latter.


----------



## SG_67

I wonder if anyone has gone further and asked what those 4 cities have in common? Why are the bulk of the gun murders in this country in those 4 cities?

One could break it down even further and identify specific neighborhoods in those cities, at least this is true in Chicago, where those murders take place.


----------



## drlivingston

SG_67 said:


> I wonder if anyone has gone further and asked what those 4 cities have in common? Why are the bulk of the gun murders in this country in those 4 cities?
> 
> One could break it down even further and identify specific neighborhoods in those cities, at least this is true in Chicago, where those murders take place.


There has to be a common denominator. Baffling!


----------



## eagle2250

The Mayor(s) are Democrats! Go figure?


----------



## SG_67

eagle2250 said:


> The Mayor(s) are Democrats! Go figure?


All of the institutions are run by dems. 
They've also had major housing projects which have resulted in nothing less than ghettos and concentrated poverty.


----------



## 16412

Isn't abortion more cruel? 
And, are you supporting it, Lucido?


----------



## 16412

The old way, children are to be seen and not heard, certainly applies so many times. They simply don't know enough. The fact that they don't know about other ways of thought and enforcement that worked means that they are unqualified to give answers. They have a right to demand change for safety. But they have proven that they do not have the right answers. They have been feed liberal rot for a long time. This needs to end. They need a balanced education with physical punishment. This needs to be established before middle school. So that unthinkable thoughts do not develop into worse thoughts that include shootings. Public schools do not teach this at, all it seems, much more practice it.


----------



## 16412

SG_67 said:


> All of the institutions are run by dems.
> They've also had major housing projects which have resulted in nothing less than ghettos and concentrated poverty.


You mean poverty they can't get out of. It is a form of slavery, which is illegal.


----------



## drlivingston

WA said:


> You mean poverty they can't get out of. It is a form of slavery, which is illegal.


Any type of government dependence is a type of slavery. Welfare, food stamps, section 8, etc. If the government can support you, they can control you. Regardless of the success rate (or lack thereof) of these programs, it achieved the desired results.


----------



## 127.72 MHz

If calling a 24+ week fetus an "Embryo" makes the process palatable for you then so be it.

I see 24 to 36 week fetuses in uterio on a weekly basis. When one sees all the anatomical features of a human, including all four chambers in their so called "Embryo" heart beating, I am 100% certain that I am looking at a living human being.

But you have made your position clear.

Regards,


----------



## SG_67

Lucido said:


> I support the right for women to chose to have an abortion if they wish, yes.
> 
> I don't see any cruelty in the termination of a embryo. Cruelty is forcing a woman or couple to bring an unwanted or seriously disabled child into an already over-populated world.


I'm wondering if in your equation, the unborn baby has any rights at all. Who speaks for the unborn?


----------



## Bjorn

Lucido said:


> I support the right for women to chose to have an abortion if they wish, yes.
> 
> I don't see any cruelty in the termination of a embryo. Cruelty is forcing a woman or couple to bring an unwanted or seriously disabled child into an already over-populated world.


Agreed.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Bjorn

SG_67 said:


> I'm wondering if in your equation, the unborn baby has any rights at all. Who speaks for the unborn?


Not being deliberately offensive here, but pretty much all the busy-bodies in the world, who don't generally have any real stake in the issue, but have moral standards (though rarely as strictly applied to themselves, in my experience).

Or people who feel that their freedom of religion don't apply to other people as an actual freedom NOT to have other people's religion apply to them even if they've opted out.

Also people who have reasoned opinions on number of weeks, etc, but I've never noticed them being in the fore of the issues.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## SG_67

Bjorn said:


> Not being deliberately offensive here, but pretty much all the busy-bodies in the world, who don't generally have any real stake in the issue, but have moral standards (though rarely as strictly applied to themselves, in my experience).
> 
> Or people who feel that their freedom of religion don't apply to other people as an actual freedom NOT to have other people's religion apply to them even if they've opted out.
> 
> Also people who have reasoned opinions on number of weeks, etc, but I've never noticed them being in the fore of the issues.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


That's a straw man argument in the most classic sense. I didn't mention a peep about religion or imposing my values on anyone else.

I asked a simple question; does the unborn child have any rights? Who speaks for him/her?

By the way, one need not have a direct stake in something as a pre requisite for being able to voice an opinion.


----------



## barca10

vpkozel said:


> While I agree that the Paovian response of GUNS BAD!!! is a lazy - albeit well trod - path, I also think there is very little doubt that the weapons of today are for more capable of doing mass damage than the weapons of 60 years ago.


Are you trying to say that there have always been shootings like this, but the difference is that the weapons of today allow the shooters to kill more people, or are you trying to say that shooters are more willing to commit mass murder because the weapons are more effective? Comments like yours distract from the real issue, which is that we have created a society that is producing an increasing number of disturbed people who are willing to shoot up their local school, church, night club, etc. That is the issue that needs to be addressed, and it won't be as long as we continue to focus on the gun instead of the person using the gun.


----------



## eagle2250

I probability shouldn't, but will add that there seems to be a direct correlation between one's level of personal irresponsibility and the number of unexpected complicating issues that seem to incessantly clutter their lives. :icon_scratch:


----------



## 127.72 MHz

^^
Yes indeed Eagle, in our world of endless rationalizations and shades of grey you probably shouldn't point out anything that hints of personal responsibility.

Personal responsibility is a vile concept to about half of the population of the U.S.


----------



## 127.72 MHz

SG_67 said:


> I'm wondering if in your equation, the unborn baby has any rights at all. Who speaks for the unborn?


No, according to the law of the land the unborn do not have any rights at all.

Next question.


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Bjorn said:


> Not being deliberately offensive here, but pretty much all the busy-bodies in the world, who don't generally have any real stake in the issue, but have moral standards (though rarely as strictly applied to themselves, in my experience).
> 
> Or people who feel that their freedom of religion don't apply to other people as an actual freedom NOT to have other people's religion apply to them even if they've opted out.
> 
> Also people who have reasoned opinions on number of weeks, etc, but I've never noticed them being in the fore of the issues.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


The *only* mention of religion has been from you Sir. Without regard to morality the intentional taking of a human life is against the law.

The only way your argument holds up is to define a human life as being exclusively outside of the uterus.

Black and white fact.


----------



## Bjorn

127.72 MHz said:


> The *only* mention of religion has been from you Sir. Without regard to morality the intentional taking of a human life is against the law.
> 
> The only way your argument holds up is to define a human life as being exclusively outside of the uterus.
> 
> Black and white fact.


Not really, because the law is as the legislator wills it. So a definition of abortion as murder is up to a legislator to make or (thankfully in most civilized countries) not make. The current definition in most countries of "human life" excludes fetuses up to a certain time.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Bjorn said:


> Not really, because the law is as the legislator wills it. So a definition of abortion as murder is up to a legislator to make or (thankfully in most civilized countries) not make. The current definition in most countries of "human life" excludes fetuses up to a certain time.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


You say "Not really" I say *Yes really*. You were the *only individual* to mention religion, period.

And one need not be an attorney to know full well that law does not supersede scientific fact, or for that matter, common sense. It is not against the law to think for yourself.

Remember, many despots have made "Laws."


----------



## Bjorn

SG_67 said:


> That's a straw man argument in the most classic sense. I didn't mention a peep about religion or imposing my values on anyone else.
> 
> I asked a simple question; does the unborn child have any rights? Who speaks for him/her?
> 
> By the way, one need not have a direct stake in something as a pre requisite for being able to voice an opinion.


Disagree. You asked who "speaks for the unborn" and I answered that question, rather than accepting it as a valid point in itself.

There is a difference between (1) wanting to regulate a say in something that happens in another persons body, and (2) preferring that that person decides over her own body.

The first wanting needs a very strong motivation to be proportional and just. This is argued in absurdum regarding much less intervening regulations, often when it comes to the rights of those same people who oppose abortions, regarding their freedoms (like making up your own school-and-curriculum at home to avoid your children learning about evolution, or when arguing against gun control).

The second is in following with the unalienable natural rights to life and self-preservation of every human being.

If your online persona is close to your real self, I don't see you getting pregnant anytime soon, nor getting pregnant while in an economic or social situation that makes hard for you to fulfill the basic functions as a parent, nor getting pregnant as a result of rape or as a result of sexual activity as a child while not having access to basic sexual education, birth control, basic maternal care etc.

So I'll readily accept your right to voice the opinion that a woman should be free to choose over her own body (item 2) but I'm hesitant to accept the opposite (item 1).

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Bjorn

127.72 MHz said:


> You say "Not really" I say *Yes really*. You were the *only individual* to mention religion, period.
> 
> And I one need not be an attorney to know full well hat law does not supersede scientific fact, or for that matter, common sense. It is not against the law to think for yourself.
> 
> Remember, many despots have made "Laws."


That was in relation to your statement that the law forbids killing.

I brought up religion and morality to make a point about who generally speaks for the unborn.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## vpkozel

barca10 said:


> Are you trying to say that there have always been shootings like this, but the difference is that the weapons of today allow the shooters to kill more people, or are you trying to say that shooters are more willing to commit mass murder because the weapons are more effective? Comments like yours distract from the real issue, which is that we have created a society that is producing an increasing number of disturbed people who are willing to shoot up their local school, church, night club, etc. That is the issue that needs to be addressed, and it won't be as long as we continue to focus on the gun instead of the person using the gun.


You have made quite a few assumptions that I do not believe are supported by facts. How do yo know that more people are willing to commit mass murder now? How is society producing these folks? How an you address these things if you cannot define these things?

And how is making factual comments ever a distraction?


----------



## Multnomah

Bjorn said:


> Not really, because the law is as the legislator wills it. So a definition of abortion as murder is up to a legislator to make or (thankfully in most civilized countries) not make. The current definition in most countries of "human life" excludes fetuses up to a certain time.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


 Which is the essence of science denial.


----------



## Multnomah

Nothing to do with guns. No mother has the same DNA as her unborn child. There is no scientific reason to refer to hers and the child's as one body(hers) .


----------



## Multnomah

The US educational system has become an asylum run by the inmates.


----------



## vpkozel

Bjorn said:


> Not really, because the law is as the legislator wills it. So a definition of abortion as murder is up to a legislator to make or (thankfully in most civilized countries) not make. The current definition in most countries of "human life" excludes fetuses up to a certain time.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Just throwing this out there, but it wasn't considered murder to kill Jews, eastern europeans, and other "sub humans" by one certain state. So leaning on legislators to correctly define what constitutes life might not be your best call.


----------



## Mike Petrik

vpkozel said:


> Just throwing this out there, but it wasn't considered murder to kill Jews, eastern europeans, and other "sub humans" by one certain state. So leaning on legislators to correctly define what constitutes life might not be your best call.


Exactly right.
First, from the US perspective it really is pretty funny to lean on legislative decisions to justify abortion rights. Abortion is generally legal in this country not because of legislative decisions but in spite of them. The US Supreme Court invalidated those decisions in 1973 when it created a constitutional right to abortion.
Second, as Bjorn correctly notes it is indeed the job of legislatures to make law, and if a legislature chooses to legalize murder it certainly may do so. But it would still be wrong and citizens would be right to take exception and to support and vote for better lawmakers (or perhaps copy their opponents' strategy and just cheat by electing (or advocating for the appointment of) judges who will act as super-legislators).


----------



## 127.72 MHz

^^ Yes Sir. They have legalized murder plain and simple. And the fact that a court of fallible human beings has said murder is legal is all that is needed for at least a simple majority of the population to follow in line like the "Sheeple" that they are.


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Lucido said:


> Out of curiosity - do you feel the same way about say, the death penalty?


Purely out of curiosity, right? 

Looking for a kink in the armor eh?

Let me remind you that I have not said one way or the other how I feel about abortion. (Legally speaking.) So how can we move on to the death penality when you still do not know how I feel about abortion?


----------



## 127.72 MHz

^^ Yes, I still feel that way, and you have posted *nothing* to the contrary. Legally speaking I have not expressed a position.

Murder, in the case of abortion, is legal in the United States. I have not said one way or he other weather I believe it should be legal or not.

You, like many others, see me pointing out that abortion is murder means I am a conservative. * (With that brand of cause and effect you should move to the U.S. and join in the outright stupidity that is our politic.)*

I am not a conservative. In fact, in my opinion, the only thing I see as more willfully ignorant than a partisan U.S. Democrat is a partisan U.S. Republican.

We have legalized bribery in the U.S.A.. And politicians of both stripes laugh at the fact that the dirt dumb or willfully ignorant masses are fighting among ourselves while politicians continue to serve their big money masters.

Bottom line point on abortion: * If you are in favor the right of a mother to end the life of their unborn human being at least have the guts to say so.* You do not need a judge to tell you it is okay in order to rationalize the murder you support.

I believe the murder of unborn humans while they are in utero must remain legal. But, given the entire context of my feelings, this murder must be approached cautiously, with solemn deliberation.

My belief is that a greater harm would be for a government to begin making healthcare decisions on what people do with their bodies.

So there you have it. *You were dead wrong.

Now that I have answered your question would you care to comment on weather you believe that abortion should be used a means of birth control?

Do you believe that there are a remarkable percentage of women who have had multiple abortions?

If you believe that there are millions of women that use abortion, (Free abortion at planned parenthood) as a means to dispose of their "Problem" do you believe that very much thought went into their multiple decisions to kill their unborn babies?*


----------



## Mike Petrik

Lucido said:


> Not really, no.
> 
> I understand why some are staunchly pro-life even if it's not a position I agree with. It's the hypocrisy of being 'pro-life' yet in favour of the death penalty that I despise. Often seen in conservatives that proclaim to be god-fearing Christians yet ignore the sixth commandment if and when it suits them.


The killing of an innocent by a private actor for whatever reason he or she might have -- however selfish, arbitrary, idiosyncratic, pecuniary, or capricious -- cannot logically be equated with the killing of a murderer by the state subsequent to due process of law.

I oppose capital punishment (except perhaps in the case of certain prison murders) for various prudential reasons having to do with human and legal imperfections, but I have sufficient moral sensibility to appreciate the foregoing moral distinction. The charge of hypocrisy is the first refuge of weak advocacy.


----------



## Bjorn

vpkozel said:


> Just throwing this out there, but it wasn't considered murder to kill Jews, eastern europeans, and other "sub humans" by one certain state. So leaning on legislators to correctly define what constitutes life might not be your best call.


But that is widely considered as a violation of human rights, and would be non-enforceable under for example an extradition treaty with another country due to that fact, whereas abortion within reasonable time limits or when the fetus is damaged is widely recognized as not being contrary to those same rights.

And there is no one else but legislators, duly selected by the people in democratic elections, who can be recognized as having the authority to make that call. To argue otherwise is squarely within the region of "religion". And there is religious freedom.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Bjorn

Mike Petrik said:


> The killing of an innocent by a private actor for whatever reason he or she might have -- however selfish, arbitrary, idiosyncratic, pecuniary, or capricious -- cannot logically be equated with the killing of a murderer by the state subsequent to due process of law.
> 
> I oppose capital punishment (except perhaps in the case of certain prison murders) for various prudential reasons having to do with human and legal imperfections, but I have sufficient moral sensibility to appreciate the foregoing moral distinction. The charge of hypocrisy is the first refuge of weak advocacy.


A fetus is not "an innocent". It is not yet a human being. Science supports no other conclusion.

And, of course, any action of the state that includes violence to person or property, be it taxation, imprisonment or capital punishment, must of course be held up to a much stricter standard... Much like the imposition of regulation on women's bodies against their will.

So no, it's simply not the same as murder.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Bjorn

127.72 MHz said:


> ^^ Yes, I still feel that way, and you have posted *nothing* to the contrary. Legally speaking I have not expressed a position.
> 
> Murder, in the case of abortion, is legal in the United States. I have not said one way or he other weather I believe it should be legal or not.
> 
> You, like many others, see me pointing out that abortion is murder means I am a conservative. * (With that brand of cause and effect you should move to the U.S. and join in the outright stupidity that is our politic.)*
> 
> I am not a conservative. In fact, in my opinion, the only thing I see as more willfully ignorant than a partisan U.S. Democrat is a partisan U.S. Republican.
> 
> We have legalized bribery in the U.S.A.. And politicians of both stripes laugh at the fact that the dirt dumb or willfully ignorant masses are fighting among ourselves while politicians continue to serve their big money masters.
> 
> Bottom line point on abortion: * If you are in favor the right of a mother to end the life of their unborn human being at least have the guts to say so.* You do not need a judge to tell you it is okay in order to rationalize the murder you support.
> 
> I believe the murder of unborn humans while they are in utero must remain legal. But, given the entire context of my feelings, this murder must be approached cautiously, with solemn deliberation.
> 
> My belief is that a greater harm would be for a government to begin making healthcare decisions on what people do with their bodies.
> 
> So there you have it. *You were dead wrong.
> 
> Now that I have answered your question would you care to comment on weather you believe that abortion should be used a means of birth control?
> 
> Do you believe that there are a remarkable percentage of women who have had multiple abortions?
> 
> If you believe that there are millions of women that use abortion, (Free abortion at planned parenthood) as a means to dispose of their "Problem" do you believe that very much thought went into their multiple decisions to kill their unborn babies?*


I am a conservative. A member of the Conservative party in Sweden. I am staunchly pro abortion. Being conservative does not equal being religious. That is a current American theme.

And you are not pointing out it's murder. You are arguing in favor of it being murder. While stating that you think it should be legal. But if it were murder, we could not keep it legal, because that would violate very basic legal principles. The word "murder" means something... Don't label women getting abortions murderers.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

Multnomah said:


> In case you've missed this one
> 
> Logical arguments from Steve Thomas:
> 
> There are 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.00925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:
> 
> • 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
> • 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
> • 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons - gun violence
> • 3% are accidental discharge deaths
> 
> So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?
> • 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
> • 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
> • 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
> • 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)
> 
> So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.
> 
> This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.
> 
> Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, so it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.
> 
> Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? How about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, and sexual assault are all done by criminals and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.
> 
> But what about other deaths each year?
> • 40,000+ die from a drug overdose-Where's the excuse for that?
> • 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
> • 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities(exceeding gun deaths even if you include suicide)
> 
> Now it gets good:
> • 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!
> 
> • 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. It's time to stop the double cheeseburgers! So what is the point? If Obama and the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.). A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides......Simple, easily preventable 10% reductions!
> 
> So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? It's pretty simple.:
> Taking away guns gives control to governments.
> 
> The founders of this nation knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule as the British did by trying to disarm the populace of the colonies. It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a controlled populace.
> 
> Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."
> 
> Remember, when it comes to "gun control," the important word is "control," not "gun."


My point exactly. On these forums I had proposed that male suicide by firearm is the largest percentage of the issue and that if we address the issues surrounding male mental health, we can solve a large portion of the gun death issue. But getting funding for male mental health is a pipe dream.

Suck it up and man up you men!

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Mike Petrik

Bjorn said:


> A fetus is not "an innocent". It is not yet a human being. Science supports no other conclusion.
> 
> And, of course, any action of the state that includes violence to person or property, be it taxation, imprisonment or capital punishment, must of course be held up to a much stricter standard... Much like the imposition of regulation on women's bodies against their will.
> 
> So no, it's simply not the same as murder.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


It is true that science only supports one conclusion. Just not the one you think.

https://bdfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/wi_whitepaper_life_print.pdf

As for standards, just to be clear you are saying that you or I should be subject to a lower/weaker standard in order to lawfully imprison someone against his will than the state. I am in favor of a high standard for the state of course, but not necessarily higher than a private actor.


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Bjorn said:


> I am a conservative. A member of the Conservative party in Sweden. I am staunchly pro abortion. Being conservative does not equal being religious. That is a current American theme.
> 
> And you are not pointing out it's murder. You are arguing in favor of it being murder. While stating that you think it should be legal. But if it were murder, we could not keep it legal, because that would violate very basic legal principles. The word "murder" means something... Don't label women getting abortions murderers.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I am pointing out that abortion is murder *and you are incorrect*.

*Your flawed logic only points out that you lack the ability to call the taking of a life what it is. You wish to win a debate at the expense of common sense.
*
In my opinion you express yourself too well to claim stupidity or ignorance so I call your position* intellectual cowardice.*


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

Bjorn said:


> I am a conservative. A member of the Conservative party in Sweden. I am staunchly pro abortion. Being conservative does not equal being religious. That is a current American theme.
> 
> And you are not pointing out it's murder. You are arguing in favor of it being murder. While stating that you think it should be legal. But if it were murder, we could not keep it legal, because that would violate very basic legal principles. The word "murder" means something... Don't label women getting abortions murderers.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I support abortion because it is clear that women are not capable of managing their reproductive choices and government must intervene to protect their stupidity. How can a sentient being fall pregnant accidentally? Seriously, it is a joke.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## vpkozel

Bjorn said:


> But that is widely considered as a violation of human rights, and would be non-enforceable under for example an extradition treaty with another country due to that fact, whereas abortion within reasonable time limits or when the fetus is damaged is widely recognized as not being contrary to those same rights.
> 
> And there is no one else but legislators, duly selected by the people in democratic elections, who can be recognized as having the authority to make that call. To argue otherwise is squarely within the region of "religion". And there is religious freedom.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


It wasn't widely recognized as illegal in that country at that time though. Which is the whole point.

You want to play both sides of the coin, which isn't possible.

And just for giggles, if you are putting your money on science not finding ways to detail that life begins closer to conception than we now think, you are mistaken. So, when that happens how are you going to portray abortion advocates?


----------



## vpkozel

Lucido said:


> Out of curiosity - do you feel the same way about say, the death penalty?


While not addressed to me, I would put my thoughts on this out there.

I am against the death penalty. Partially on humanitarian grounds that even a stone cold psycho killer can change, and even if not, can still possible have a purpose unknown to us now.

Primarily though, it is because death penalty cases have become so political and high profile that they are ripe for abuse of power for the parties involved to make respective names for themselves that I cannot feel comfortable in the trials' fairness.

Edit - so now your turn for a hypothetical. Would you be in favor of abortion if the mother only had the abortion because the child was gay?


----------



## vpkozel

Bjorn said:


> A fetus is not "an innocent". It is not yet a human being. Science supports no other conclusion.
> 
> And, of course, any action of the state that includes violence to person or property, be it taxation, imprisonment or capital punishment, must of course be held up to a much stricter standard... Much like the imposition of regulation on women's bodies against their will.
> 
> So no, it's simply not the same as murder.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Since you can definitively say that a fetus is not a human. When does one become a human being? I mean - what precise moment?


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Bjorn said:


> A fetus is not "an innocent". It is not yet a human being. Science supports no other conclusion.
> 
> And, of course, any action of the state that includes violence to person or property, be it taxation, imprisonment or capital punishment, must of course be held up to a much stricter standard... Much like the imposition of regulation on women's bodies against their will.
> 
> So no, it's simply not the same as murder.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Keep telling yourself that. If you say it enough times you might actually be able to believe it.

it's not the same as murder eh? Well then preps you can add a word to a language in order to *rationalize your truth*,....


----------



## vpkozel

Lucido said:


> Rape. Lack of sexual education. Lack of access to contraceptives. Using contraceptives incorrectly or inconsistently. Failure of said contraceptives.
> 
> Your assertion that women are too stupid to manage their own reproductive affairs is disgusting. Is this forum really such a den of rank misogyny?


Lack of sexual education? Lack of access to contraceptives?

You have GOT to be kiddig me. This ain't 1985, brother.

And if you can't figure out how to use contraceptives properly or plan for their failure, then perhaps you should, you know, not have sex and stuff.

Edit - btw, he was being ironic to make a point.


----------



## Multnomah

Bjorn said:


> I am a conservative. A member of the Conservative party in Sweden. I am staunchly pro abortion. Being conservative does not equal being religious. That is a current American theme.
> 
> And you are not pointing out it's murder. You are arguing in favor of it being murder. While stating that you think it should be legal. But if it were murder, we could not keep it legal, because that would violate very basic legal principles. The word "murder" means something... Don't label women getting abortions murderers.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


If a woman killed you I probably wouldnt call it murder , but I do find it interesting that you took time to loudly proclaim your own religious stance as pro abortion. You stepped in it BJ, if anti -abortion is 'religious' pro abortion must be as well.


----------



## eagle2250

Lucido said:


> To answer your points in order
> 
> - Yes, I believe that abortion is, and should be used as a means of birth control. If a woman becomes pregnant for whatever reason, she has the right to choose not to carry the pregnancy to term.
> 
> - I don't know and frankly, don't care. You might as well ask me if I believed that there are a remarkable number of women using condoms, IUDs and oral contraceptives.
> 
> - It's not for me to tell a woman what decision making or thought process she needs to follow before deciding to opt for abortion. Her body, her choice.


Be it the woman or the man involved in a physical relationship, they do have a responsibility to exercise the proper levels of responsibility as they choose to engage in sexual relations. The failure to do so goes beyond personal irresponsibility and enters into the realm of personal stupidity! If they without intention, create a life, they should properly shoulder the ongoing responsibility for that life.


----------



## Bjorn

Mike Petrik said:


> It is true that science only supports one conclusion. Just not the one you think.
> 
> https://bdfund.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/wi_whitepaper_life_print.pdf
> 
> As for standards, just to be clear you are saying that you or I should be subject to a lower/weaker standard in order to lawfully imprison someone against his will than the state. I am in favor of a high standard for the state of course, but not necessarily higher than a private actor.


You do know who those people are, right? That's not science, right there...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Bjorn

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> I support abortion because it is clear that women are not capable of managing their reproductive choices and government must intervene to protect their stupidity. How can a sentient being fall pregnant accidentally? Seriously, it is a joke.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


By that argument, seriously, you become the joke.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Bjorn

vpkozel said:


> Since you can definitively say that a fetus is not a human. When does one become a human being? I mean - what precise moment?


In Sweden, you may abort up until the 18th. After that, it's subject to review by medical authorities. The right to abort may not be granted at that point by that authority if the fetus can sustain life outside of the mothers body.

I am ok with that timeframe.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Bjorn

eagle2250 said:


> Be it the woman or the man involved in a physical relationship, they do have a responsibility to exercise the proper levels of responsibility as they choose to engage in sexual relations. The failure to do so goes beyond personal irresponsibility and enters into the realm of personal stupidity! If they without intention, create a life, they should properly shoulder the ongoing responsibility for that life.


By having an abortion.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Bjorn

Multnomah said:


> If a woman killed you I probably wouldnt call it murder , but I do find it interesting that you took time to loudly proclaim your own religious stance as pro abortion. You stepped in it BJ, if anti -abortion is 'religious' pro abortion must be as well.


I have no idea what this means. Except you seem to want for a matriarchal society, where women are above the law. Good for you.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## eagle2250

Bjorn said:


> By having an abortion.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


????? How in the H*ll did yopu conclude that from what I included in my post you quoted? :icon_scratch: :crazy:


----------



## Mike Petrik

Bjorn said:


> You do know who those people are, right? That's not science, right there...
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


You do know what an ad hominem argument is, right? You might try addressing the substance instead. Good luck.


----------



## eagle2250

Lucido said:


> The only responsibilities required for a sexual relationship is that a) both parties be within the age of consent as defined by the state and/or country, b) the activity is consensual and c) that both parties disclose any STDs they may be carrying.
> 
> If an unwanted pregnancy results then the woman has the right to an abortion and you nor I are in any position to tell her what she can and can't do with her own body.


This propensity for excusing those who act irresponsibly from being held accountable for the consequences of their actions is why this poor old world we live in is so consistently screwed up. Responsible males and females involved in physical relations would use contraceptives, unless they intended to conceive a child. If they acted irresponsibly they should not be simply allowed to go out and frivolously schedule an abortion. I don't think it is possible for me to disagree with you any more than I do


----------



## Bjorn

Mike Petrik said:


> You do know what an ad hominem argument is, right? You might try addressing the substance instead. Good luck.


Peer reviewed articles in scientific journals is science... That's not it right there. That's not ad hominem.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Mike Petrik

eagle2250 said:


> This propensity for excusing those who act irresponsibly from being held accountable for the consequences of their actions is why this poor old world we live in is so consistently screwed up. Responsible males and females involved in physical relations would use contraceptives, unless they intended to conceive a child. If they acted irresponsibly they should not be simply allowed to go out and frivolously schedule an abortion. I don't think it is possible for me to disagree with you any more than I do


I agree that the culture of personal responsibility is in decline in the US and this has greatly exacerbated many social problems, hurting the most vulnerable. But my opposition to abortion has little to do with that. If abortion was not morally wrong I'd be perfectly fine with it. I have no wish to prevent people from being rescued from their irresponsibility. We all make mistakes. But taking an innocent life is not a morally acceptable solution.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Bjorn said:


> Peer reviewed articles in scientific journals is science... That's not it right there. That's not ad hominem.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I knew you would not address the substance, precisely because you can't. Impeaching the source (which in this case does in fact happen to rely on and cite peer-reviewed scientific journals) is pure classic ad hominem. Address the substance. I dare you.


----------



## Bjorn

Mike Petrik said:


> I knew you would not address the substance. The article does cite and rely on peer reviewed scientific journals.


Then it is a meta study. Had it itself been published and subjected to peer review I could perhaps be persuaded to look past the bogus "institute" publisher on the front of it and the complete lack of confidence the academic titles of the authors gives me.

But alas, it seemingly has not. I believe this would be the science equivalent of "fake news".

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Mike Petrik

Bjorn said:


> Then it is a meta study. Had it itself been published and subjected to peer review I could perhaps be persuaded to look past the bogus "institute" publisher on the front of it and the complete lack of confidence the academic titles of the authors gives me.
> 
> But alas, it seemingly has not. I believe this would be the science equivalent of "fake news".
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I knew you would not rise to the challenge. You seem to think using different words somehow disguises your same ad hominem argument.


----------



## eagle2250

Mike Petrik said:


> I agree that the culture of personal responsibility is in decline in the US and this has greatly exacerbated many social problems, hurting the most vulnerable. But my opposition to abortion has little to do with that. If abortion was not morally wrong I'd be perfectly fine with it. I have no wish to prevent people from being rescued from their irresponsibility. We all make mistakes. But taking an innocent life is not a morally acceptable solution.


My friend, I don't think we are in substantial disagreement on the point you make! There are perhaps a very few narrowly defined situations in which an abortion might be justifiable, for instance the victim of a forcible rape, a mother whose survival is threatened by the pregnancy, etc. In any event, I certainly would not want to be the one making those decisions!


----------



## Mike Petrik

eagle2250 said:


> My friend, I don't think we are in substantial disagreement on the point you make! There are perhaps a very few narrowly defined situations in which an abortion might be justifiable, for instance the victim of a forcible rape, a mother whose survival is threatened by the pregnancy, etc. In any event, I certainly would not want to be the one making those decisions!


Understood Eagle, and of course not. All people commit evil acts, and good people tend to commit such acts for reasons that are grounded in goodness. The fact that doing bad things for good reasons is both understandable and forgivable does not render such bad things good things.


----------



## Multnomah

Im pretty sure the NRA has caused all this global warming, the fall of Atlantis and faked the moon landing


----------



## Mike Petrik

Multnomah said:


> Im pretty sure the NRA has caused all this global warming, the fall of Atlantis and faked the moon landing


How silly. Those few of us who are really really informed know that Agnew faked the moon landing and the Jews sabotaged Atlantis. Or maybe it was the Pope. I forget. In any case I'm sure I read it in a journal reviewed by the author's peers.


----------



## Multnomah

Bjorn said:


> In Sweden, you may abort up until the 18th. After that, it's subject to review by medical authorities. The right to abort may not be granted at that point by that authority if the fetus can sustain life outside of the mothers body.
> 
> I am ok with that timeframe.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Why ?


----------



## Multnomah

Bjorn said:


> I have no idea what this means. Except you seem to want for a matriarchal society, where women are above the law. Good for you.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


You missed it again. Its only logical that anyone whos name begins with 'B' is not yet fully human. You know like the way a 'fetus' becomes human after 18 weeks and one day.


----------



## eagle2250

^Damned NRA causing global warming. That explains why our high temperature in Harmony, FL today was 84 degrees. :crazy:


----------



## Multnomah

Mike Petrik said:


> How silly. Those few of us who are really really informed know that Agnew faked the moon landing and the Jews sabotaged Atlantis. Or maybe it was the Pope. I forget. In any case I'm sure I read it in a journal reviewed by the writer's peers.


Ratz. I have to quit watching CNN


----------



## Multnomah

Lucido said:


> To answer your points in order
> 
> - Yes, I believe that abortion is, and should be used as a means of birth control. If a woman becomes pregnant for whatever reason, she has the right to choose not to carry the pregnancy to term.
> 
> - I don't know and frankly, don't care. You might as well ask me if I believed that there are a remarkable number of women using condoms, IUDs and oral contraceptives.
> 
> - It's not for me to tell a woman what decision making or thought process she needs to follow before deciding to opt for abortion. Her body, her choice.


Well obviously anytime an Irishman is killed it should be called an abortion and therefore legal.


----------



## Multnomah

Hey Bjorn. If a 'fetus' is human at 18 weeks plus one day, what is it at 18 weeks minus one day ? A giraffe?


----------



## Multnomah

Lucido said:


> Why do you feel the need to punish someone with the unwanted consequences of an entirely victimless action? Would you force a rape victim to have a child? Deny treatment to someone who contracts an STD after having unprotected sex?


When ever there has been a rape we should execute an Irishman. Certainly a random Irishman at least had the possibilty of being a rapist, whereas the child certainly did not.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Lucido said:


> Why do you feel the need to punish someone with the unwanted consequences of an entirely victimless action? Would you force a rape victim to have a child? Deny treatment to someone who contracts an STD after having unprotected sex?


I doubt Eagle wants to punish anyone. I think he just doesn't think that irresponsibility is sufficient reason to take a human life, and he laments the fact that responsibility is so poorly valued that many folks are somehow able to disagree with that. Eagle can and should correct me of course.


----------



## Multnomah

Of course I dont actually condone murderous actions against Swedes ,Irishman ,not even Italians,,, but on the other hand some gents here really do condone the wanton destruction of innocent human beings. As I didnt join this forum to discuss this topic and since logic never is paramount when discussing chopping up infants, I'll bow out of this thread.


----------



## 127.72 MHz

vpkozel said:


> Since you can definitively say that a fetus is not a human. When does one become a human being? I mean - what precise moment?


You will not get a actionable


Lucido said:


> To answer your points in order
> 
> - Yes, I believe that abortion is, and should be used as a means of birth control. If a woman becomes pregnant for whatever reason, she has the right to choose not to carry the pregnancy to term.
> 
> - I don't know and frankly, don't care. You might as well ask me if I believed that there are a remarkable number of women using condoms, IUDs and oral contraceptives.
> 
> - It's not for me to tell a woman what decision making or thought process she needs to follow before deciding to opt for abortion. Her body, her choice.


You believe that abortion should be used as a means of birth control. (I'm sure even at the public's expense.)

And, not only are you not aware that large numbers of women flippantly use this free service as a means of birth control, but you do not care,....

And Bjorn likes that you feel that way.

Okay then. You are entitled to your opinion.

Your opinion illustrates why there are those of us in the United States fighting European style socialism.

Regards,


----------



## Bjorn

127.72 MHz said:


> You will not get a actionable
> 
> You believe that abortion should be used as a means of birth control. (I'm sure even at the public's expense.)
> 
> And, not only are you not aware that large numbers of women use this free service as a means of birth control, but you do not care,....
> 
> And Bjorn likes that you feel that way.
> 
> Okay then. You are entitled to your opinion.
> 
> Your opinion illustrates why there are those of us in the United States fighting European style socialism.
> 
> Regards,


No you introduced the socialism part here. Public welfare and social insurance was introduced by conservative politicians. Like Bismarck...

Socialism or not has no real bearing on whether there should be public welfare (social insurance) paid for by taxation or not. Indeed, even private or semi-private insurance will function much the same way.

Your post illustrates why there are those of you in the US fighting against having a functioning system for health care. Indeed, it was evident already to Bismarck that the US was heading in that direction, and the Germans took the experiences of returning emigrants from the US very much into account when they introduced their social insurance.

That you think it's socialism as soon as someone suggests a mandatory insurance solution, and you want to limit women's access to abortion because they don't pay for them, is rich. It may not be libertarian but that does not make it socialism.

Social insurance has the same merits and demerits as other insurance. It's not socialism, it's not social ownership and controlling the means of production. It's not based on the premise of class. It's risk distribution.

It means if your relative gets sick, you don't have to quit work to take care of her. Which largely makes economic sense.

Abortion opposition just isn't that pretty, in my opinion. It largely disregards everything we've learned for the past 500 years.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Again, you have drawn an incorrect conclusion, just as you did before, and now you are expanding on that distortion.

My comment about European style socialism has nothing what so ever to do with you or Bjorn. Do not flatter yourself.


----------



## Bjorn

Multnomah said:


> Im pretty sure the NRA has caused all this global warming, the fall of Atlantis and faked the moon landing


Oh god you don't *belive* in global warming?

Are you quite serious?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Bjorn said:


> No you introduced the socialism part here. Public welfare and social insurance was introduced by conservative politicians. Like Bismarck...
> 
> Socialism or not has no real bearing on whether there should be public welfare (social insurance) paid for by taxation or not. Indeed, even private or semi-private insurance will function much the same way.
> 
> Your post illustrates why there are those of you in the US fighting against having a functioning system for health care. Indeed, it was evident already to Bismarck that the US was heading in that direction, and the Germans took the experiences of returning emigrants from the US very much into account when they introduced their social insurance.
> 
> That you think it's socialism as soon as someone suggests a mandatory insurance solution, and you want to limit women's access to abortion because they don't pay for them, is rich. It may not be libertarian but that does not make it socialism.
> 
> Social insurance has the same merits and demerits as other insurance. It's not socialism, it's not social ownership and controlling the means of production. It's not based on the premise of class. It's risk distribution.
> 
> It means if your relative gets sick, you don't have to quit work to take care of her. Which largely makes economic sense.
> 
> Abortion opposition just isn't that pretty, in my opinion. It largely disregards everything we've learned for the past 500 years.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


If you are happy about socialism then more power to you.


----------



## Bjorn

127.72 MHz said:


> If you are happy about socialism then kore power to you.


If you can't read I can't help you.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## vpkozel

Bjorn said:


> In Sweden, you may abort up until the 18th. After that, it's subject to review by medical authorities. The right to abort may not be granted at that point by that authority if the fetus can sustain life outside of the mothers body.
> 
> I am ok with that timeframe.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


None of that is definitive. It is all subjective.

FWIW, Nazis had a percentage of being Jew that permitted death. And they were OK with that percentage.....


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Bjorn said:


> If you can't read I can't help you.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


The last thing I need Sir, is your help.


----------



## Bjorn

vpkozel said:


> None of that is definitive. It is all subjective.
> 
> FWIW, Nazis had a percentage of being Jew that permitted death. And they were OK with that percentage.....


Sure, subjective. But evidence based.

The race theories of the early 19th century weren't evidence based at all. They tried, but it did not hold up.

There seems to be lot of arguments here not being made about WHY women should not decide what should happen with their own bodies. Because that should be the baseline. Why the need to own women's bodies and decisions? Where's freedom of choice and liberty in that?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Bjorn

127.72 MHz said:


> The last thing I need Sir, is your help.


That's obvious since you write things about me, but don't bother to read what I write. I'm happy to leave it at that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Bjorn said:


> That's obvious since you write things about me, but don't bother to read what I write. I'm happy to leave it at that.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I am happy as well Bjorn,...

Even though it took many posts to draw your true feelings out, in summary:

You believe it is okay to for a woman to abort her fetus as long as the said fetus is at least 18 weeks plus one day into gestation. Heaven only knows what group of politicians came up with that one. Better yet, that anyone actually buys such misguided drivel masquerading as fact.

You believe it is fine if a woman uses an abortion as a means of birth control. (although you may be in the fence about whether the state should pay for it or not.) But be aware the current policy is for women in the U.S. to get these abortion services for free.

Enough said.


----------



## vpkozel

> Sure, subjective. But evidence based.


You said that a fetus is not a human being though, not there is not enough evidence to support a fetus becomes a human at conception, 6 weeks, 8 weeks, or whatever.

You made a statement of fact that a fetus is not a human. And you have yet to justify that statement of fact with proof or to amend your statement.



> The race theories of the early 19th century weren't evidence based at all. They tried, but it did not hold up.


Are you sure that you want to pin your position of what is and is not human on interpretative science that is only going to go one direction as technology gets better?



> There seems to be lot of arguments here not being made about WHY women should not decide what should happen with their own bodies. Because that should be the baseline. Why the need to own women's bodies and decisions? Where's freedom of choice and liberty in that?


I see a lot of questions about the fetus' rights.


----------



## Shaver

Hmmm. 

The short story 'Pre-persons' by the inimitable P K Dick may be a blunt force trauma but remains an intriguing point nevertheless.


----------



## 127.72 MHz

^^ You are priceless Shaver.


----------



## Shaver

127.72 MHz said:


> ^^ You are priceless Shaver.


Thank you. I have received two compliments this week (the other in the real world) and both warm my cockles.


----------



## drlivingston

Shaver said:


> Thank you. I have received two compliments this week (the other in the real world) and both warm my cockles.


You would do well to keep your cockles hidden away, kind sir. This is a public forum. What would the kids think?


----------



## Dhaller

Why has this veered off into abortion, the most pointless topic of discussion currently available? It's not as though the procedure involves a gun.

I will say that the recent spotlight on the need to be able to defend oneself vs. shooters in the USA has made me revisit practical carry.

My EDC since 2008 has been a Glock 19 (gen 3, 15+1, loaded with Speer +p 9mm Gold Dots), holstered in a Milt Sparks VM2 (horsehide and sharkskin). It's a compact, and a well-regarded concealed carry piece at the time... but boy does it seem heavy and immense now in the era of micro-compacts.

The bad thing is, I often simply forego carry because... what a hassle.

So I'm looking at two replacement guns, the Glock 43 and the Sig P938. Both have about a 3" barrel and are single-stack (6+1 or 7+1, depending on the gun), and I'd use magazine extenders for a better grip.

The Glock of course is striker-fired "safe action" and can reliably feed +P ammunition; just an idiot-proof, durable gun. The Sig is essentially a mini-1911. 1911 fans of course LOVE the 1911, but that's never really been me - still, I shoot really accurately with Sigs (well, everyone does!)

But these are just "luxurious" to carry, practically beneath notice; you can even pocket-carry. Still, a 3" barrel? Granted, most actual handgun combat occurs within 14 yards, so a 75 yard grouping isn't really an issue, but... definitely a compromise.

Sig is twice the price, of course.

Anyone carry a micro-compact? Thoughts/impressions?

DH


----------



## 16412

Bjorn said:


> Sure, subjective. But evidence based.
> 
> The race theories of the early 19th century weren't evidence based at all. They tried, but it did not hold up.
> 
> There seems to be lot of arguments here not being made about WHY women should not decide what should happen with their own bodies. Because that should be the baseline. Why the need to own women's bodies and decisions? Where's freedom of choice and liberty in that?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


This is ridiculous. The Baby is not her body. It never was. And never will be. It is the taking of an innocent life. It is capital punishment for being an made-up inconvenience. Why is this capital punishment okay, but not for murderer, rapists, etc. You are so greedy you can't see the truth any more.

And macro evolution means your life is absolutely worthless, and therefore government has no purpose and anybody has the right to kill you because your life is meaningless. As meaningless as any baby aborted. Your life is not worth more according to macro evolution. There is no way it is worth anything. Macro evolution means you are 100% zero. Glad you like your nothing life.

Who wants to be so foolish to belive macro evolution? Not a shred of scientific evidence to it, unless you believe in horse feathers.


----------



## 16412

Lucido said:


> I'm not familiar with the US educational system or the curriculum taught. What is it that you think is unbalanced?
> 
> Also if you would - can you elaborate on how physical punishment is going to deter would be school shooters?


Unions are democrats. Teachers belong to the union. What do you think they are going to teach?

Before Dr. Spock most, by far, parents and schools believed in spanking children. No doubt some over did it and some under did it. Spankings establish in children's mind rules that no words can ever do. YOU WOULDN'T DARE EVEN TO THINK OF SHOOTING SOMEONE! (except in absolute need of serious defense) Do you see the sentence in all caps being lived today? Just hitting your enemies was very limited. From a few bruises to killing people is a huge change. During lunch time how many guns were sold, bought and traded at the high school I went to? No danger what so ever at all. Nobody cared about this activity, because there was no reason for care. Can you say that now about this happening during lunch time at schools? America has seen drastic changes that are clearly for the worst. Dr. Spock changed how to instruct children, that sounds excellent, but is proven weak by all the school shootings nowadays that didn't exist before his foolish book. We are reaping what has been sown.

I like the old days when there was no fear of children with guns, because there was no reason for fear to exist. So many children today can't even imagine what I'm saying, it is so terrible.


----------



## Bjorn

Dhaller said:


> Why has this veered off into abortion, the most pointless topic of discussion currently available? It's not as though the procedure involves a gun.
> 
> I will say that the recent spotlight on the need to be able to defend oneself vs. shooters in the USA has made me revisit practical carry.
> 
> My EDC since 2008 has been a Glock 19 (gen 3, 15+1, loaded with Speer +p 9mm Gold Dots), holstered in a Milt Sparks VM2 (horsehide and sharkskin). It's a compact, and a well-regarded concealed carry piece at the time... but boy does it seem heavy and immense now in the era of micro-compacts.
> 
> The bad thing is, I often simply forego carry because... what a hassle.
> 
> So I'm looking at two replacement guns, the Glock 43 and the Sig P938. Both have about a 3" barrel and are single-stack (6+1 or 7+1, depending on the gun), and I'd use magazine extenders for a better grip.
> 
> The Glock of course is striker-fired "safe action" and can reliably feed +P ammunition; just an idiot-proof, durable gun. The Sig is essentially a mini-1911. 1911 fans of course LOVE the 1911, but that's never really been me - still, I shoot really accurately with Sigs (well, everyone does!)
> 
> But these are just "luxurious" to carry, practically beneath notice; you can even pocket-carry. Still, a 3" barrel? Granted, most actual handgun combat occurs within 14 yards, so a 75 yard grouping isn't really an issue, but... definitely a compromise.
> 
> Sig is twice the price, of course.
> 
> Anyone carry a micro-compact? Thoughts/impressions?
> 
> DH


I would consider the P320 compact variants.

If you worry about grouping, the SIG > the Glock IMO.

The trigger is better. I'd also see no reason to go with the 1911 derivative.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## drlivingston

Anyone know how to get urine stains out of Zanella pants?


----------



## 16412

Lucido said:


> @WA If you can produce a single piece of evidence that corporal punishment will prevent school shootings then I'm all ears. Your inane ramblings on the matter don't count I'm afraid.
> 
> Re the buying, selling and trading of guns _*during lunch hour at your high-school* - _if you consider that to be normal, healthy behaviour then I have serious doubts about your sanity. The idea is repulsive to me as someone strongly in favour of strict gun control and I'm sure it would be to a responsible firearms owner also.


Your are looking for a college educated answer for corporal punishment. You probably won't find it. Even if there are some, if it is poorly written, you probably wouldn't believe it, even if it is true. A college education does that to its students.

About guns. Sounds like you were never taught responsibility as a child. Do I need to say more? 
Triger locks, gun safes, who had them when I was a child? Guns were laying around, leaning in corners, hanging from the fireplaces or sitting on the mantles, in closets, etc. and yet it is proven life was far safer. This is not about sanity. This is the way it was. And, were are the deaths, threats, etc.? There were different expectations demanded of children than is demanded today. Todays world lacks sanity, and is proven by threats, school shootings, etc. It is how a child is taught that matters. Todays lessons are fear, instead of responsibility. Todays world is insane. Locking guns up is avoiding teaching children responsibility. The teaching here that I'm writing about is forced responsibility. Not empty words.


----------



## Bjorn

Today was bullseye practice. At 20 degrees F it was cold but the light was good. 

Got a decent group with one stray with my Benelli .22. 









Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Shaver

Very cool Bjorn my friend.

However, and please forgive me this tease, have you considered using babies for target practice? Double tap and headshot.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

Bjorn said:


> By that argument, seriously, you become the joke.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I forget, Swedes don't "do" irony....

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

Lucido said:


> Rape. Lack of sexual education. Lack of access to contraceptives. Using contraceptives incorrectly or inconsistently. Failure of said contraceptives.
> 
> Your assertion that women are too stupid to manage their own reproductive affairs is disgusting. Is this forum really such a den of rank misogyny?


Thanks, I understand better now. Like lack of driver education, lack of seat belts, using seat belts incorrectly or inconsistently and failure of said seat belt leads to traffic fatalities and the passenger/driver has no agency to buckle up.

In my home state it is illegal to drive or ride in a car without a seat belt. Funny that.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Bjorn

Shaver said:


> Very cool Bjorn my friend.
> 
> However, and please forgive me this tease, have you considered using babies for target practice? Double tap and headshot.


Thank you S.

Not unless we run out of the English and the severely retarded. Trying to keep the master race *clean* you know 

We shall reciprocally forgive and forget...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Shaver

Oh dear. One of the members who delights in the murder of babies, unable to adequately defend his vile position, has run bleating to the moderators. Pathetic.

Meanwhile on the Dilation and Evacuation forum.........


----------



## Bjorn

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> I forget, Swedes don't "do" irony....
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


What is that?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

Bjorn said:


> What is that?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Bjorn, I have had a hard week at work and I am blowing off some steam. You gave me a much needed deep cathartic laugh. Thanks, I really needed that.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Bjorn

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> Bjorn, I have had a hard week at work and I am blowing off some steam. You gave me a much needed deep cathartic laugh. Thanks, I really needed that.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


Me and Inga are glad to oblige 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Mike Petrik

Shaver said:


> Oh dear. One of the members who delights in the murder of babies, unable to adequately defend his vile position, has run bleating to the moderators. Pathetic.


Seriously? The fact that the mod apparently contacted you is a bit discouraging.


----------



## Shaver

Mike Petrik said:


> Seriously? The fact that the mod apparently contacted you is a bit discouraging.


Please be reassured, Mike, that is not the case. The moderators may kindly tolerate me but do not indulge me. The evidence is on the member's profile page.


----------



## Clintotron

Re: OP
I’m a common sense firearm enthusiast with a healthy respect for the reason for the 2A. I shall be investing in my collection this year and will gladly discuss the personal aspects of this topic via PM.
Laissez les bon temps rouler!
Clint


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Mike Petrik

Shaver said:


> Please be reassured, Mike, that is not the case. The moderators may kindly tolerate me but do not indulge me. The evidence is on the member's profile page.


Thanks for the clarification, Shaver.


----------



## Shaver

Shaver said:


> Oh dear. One of the members who delights in the murder of babies, unable to adequately defend his vile position, has run bleating to the moderators. Pathetic.
> 
> Meanwhile on the Dilation and Evacuation forum.........


It would be delicious if the tittle-tattling snitch was himself sanctioned as consequence of his inappropriate complaint.

As the adage would have it: if you can't stand the heat then stay out of the Interchange.


----------



## vpkozel

I am continuously amazed at how thin skinned and whiny some people are.


----------



## vpkozel

Tiger said:


> One other important point: The Second Amendment specifies that the central (federal) government cannot infringe on the right of citizens to bear arms. States have always had the right to do so!
> 
> It is unfortunate that we have eviscerated the Constitution and destroyed the notion of federalism. Once we realize that the Bill of Rights applied solely to the general government and not the States, much clarity can be achieved. Of course, the distortion of federalism known as the "incorporation doctrine" has probably done more to ruin the Constitution than anything since the mischief of Hamilton and Marshall...


While it is accurate that the BOR initially held only to the Federal Government, all state laws and constitutions had to be in compliance with it. In that respect, it is the floor of all rights guaranteed the US citizens, not the ceiling. And now, expanded to US persons.

A state could not ever have banned its citizens from having weapons (or forced it to quarter troops, or banned free press, etc.), even prior to incorporation, as that would have been unconstitutional.

You also have said that there were no legal nor constitutional changes after the Civil War, yet acknowledge that many states had to amend their constitutions to rejoin the union.

How can you square that with your original statements?



Tiger said:


> There was the option, of course, of separating peacefully...


They tried to do that. The US then violated SC sovereignty by sending in a ship to resupply Fort Sumter. Once things heated up from there, the US then invaded VA.


----------



## Tiger

vpkozel said:


> While it is accurate that the BOR initially held only to the Federal Government, all state laws and constitutions had to be in compliance with it. In that respect, it is the floor of all rights guaranteed the US citizens, not the ceiling. And now, expanded to US persons.
> 
> A state could not ever have banned its citizens from having weapons (or forced it to quarter troops, or banned free press, etc.), even prior to incorporation, as that would have been unconstitutional.
> 
> You also have said that there were no legal nor constitutional changes after the Civil War, yet acknowledge that many states had to amend their constitutions to rejoin the union.
> 
> How can you square that with your original statements?
> 
> They tried to do that. The US then violated SC sovereignty by sending in a ship to resupply Fort Sumter. Once things heated up from there, the US then invaded VA.


It's not a question of compliance; the Bill of Rights restricted the power of the federal government. It simply did not apply to the States. Again, a cursory look at the Tenth Amendment - and history - proves this! Two different spheres of political power...

"A state could not ever have banned its citizens from having weapons (or forced it to quarter troops, or banned free press, etc.), even prior to incorporation, as that would have been unconstitutional." This is absolutely incorrect; States retained every power not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the States. Many States had laws that were fine for them to pass (as long as those laws did not violate State constitutions), but not for the federal government to do so.

States were forced to amend their constitutions during Reconstruction - in itself an act of autocracy on the part of the federal government. Compulsion does not square with liberty. For instance, if a State had to outlaw secession in its constitution because it was forced to do so, that does not make secession illegal or unconstitutional. The State's liberty ceased to exist under these conditions (as imposed during Reconstruction).

I agree; it was the Union that prohibited the Southern States from seceding peacefully!


----------



## Tiger

One other thing - the States all had bills of rights/declarations of rights long before the federal constitution did. It was the push by the Anti-federalists during the ratification period that cemented in the notion that there ought to be a federal bill of rights as well...


----------



## Mike Petrik

vpkozel said:


> While it is accurate that the BOR initially held only to the Federal Government, all state laws and constitutions had to be in compliance with it. In that respect, it is the floor of all rights guaranteed the US citizens, not the ceiling. And now, expanded to US persons.
> 
> A state could not ever have banned its citizens from having weapons (or forced it to quarter troops, or banned free press, etc.), even prior to incorporation, as that would have been unconstitutional.


Nope. Before the Civil War it was understood that individual liberties were generally protected against state police and regulatory powers only by state constitutions. The BOR represented neither a floor nor a ceiling, but was simply irrelevant. US constitutional encumbrances were introduced after the Civil War via the 14th Amendment, which protected individual liberties to some murky extent via a due process requirement. The precise liberties embraced by such protection were not articulated. In an effort to answer this question the Court gradually migrated from an arguably principled by unworkably ambiguous "ordered liberty" standard to a legally dubious by fairly workable incorporation theory. One could argue that the Court's adoption of incorporation was an exercise of judicial restraint insomuch as it replaced a standard that, while possibly more in keeping with original intent, granted the Court a discretion that was practically unlimited and therefore too easily abused.


----------



## FLMike

Dhaller said:


> Why has this veered off into abortion, the most pointless topic of discussion currently available? It's not as though the procedure involves a gun.
> 
> I will say that the recent spotlight on the need to be able to defend oneself vs. shooters in the USA has made me revisit practical carry.
> 
> My EDC since 2008 has been a Glock 19 (gen 3, 15+1, loaded with Speer +p 9mm Gold Dots), holstered in a Milt Sparks VM2 (horsehide and sharkskin). It's a compact, and a well-regarded concealed carry piece at the time... but boy does it seem heavy and immense now in the era of micro-compacts.
> 
> The bad thing is, I often simply forego carry because... what a hassle.
> 
> So I'm looking at two replacement guns, the Glock 43 and the Sig P938. Both have about a 3" barrel and are single-stack (6+1 or 7+1, depending on the gun), and I'd use magazine extenders for a better grip.
> 
> The Glock of course is striker-fired "safe action" and can reliably feed +P ammunition; just an idiot-proof, durable gun. The Sig is essentially a mini-1911. 1911 fans of course LOVE the 1911, but that's never really been me - still, I shoot really accurately with Sigs (well, everyone does!)
> 
> But these are just "luxurious" to carry, practically beneath notice; you can even pocket-carry. Still, a 3" barrel? Granted, most actual handgun combat occurs within 14 yards, so a 75 yard grouping isn't really an issue, but... definitely a compromise.
> 
> Sig is twice the price, of course.
> 
> Anyone carry a micro-compact? Thoughts/impressions?
> 
> DH


Glock 43, hands down. Best sub-compact single stack 9mm on the market. It's either that or a S&W 642 for me.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

FLMike said:


> Glock 43, hands down. Best sub-compact single stack 9mm on the market. It's either that or a S&W 642 for me.


My good friend, a retired Green Beret Lt.C. swears by the Glock. Since his life depended on it, I will take his word for it.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Tiger

Mike Petrik said:


> Nope. Before the Civil War it was understood that individual liberties were generally protected against state police and regulatory powers only by state constitutions. The BOR represented neither a floor nor a ceiling, but was simply irrelevant. US constitutional encumbrances were introduced after the Civil War via the 14th Amendment, which protected individual liberties to some murky extent via a due process requirement. The precise liberties embraced by such protection were not articulated. In an effort to answer this question the Court gradually migrated from an arguably principled by unworkably ambiguous "ordered liberty" standard to a legally dubious by fairly workable incorporation theory. One could argue that the Court's adoption of incorporation was an exercise of judicial restraint insomuch as it replaced a standard that, while possibly more in keeping with original intent, granted the Court a discretion that was practically unlimited and therefore too easily abused.


Precisely so, Mike. Thank you!


----------



## 127.72 MHz

FLMike said:


> Glock 43, hands down. Best sub-compact single stack 9mm on the market. It's either that or a S&W 642 for me.


While I love tradition such as a BHP and 1911's, the Glock 17 began to change my tune. (Actually started with a semi-rare 17L, (long slide) ) Then about 12k rounds through a G19 police buy back changed my view forever. The fact that so many manufactures have imulated Glock is another testament to their design.

I have never tried the subcompacts, a 19 stores easily enough for me. Single stacks? Thin is cool but capacity trumps it for me. (And the fact that I can still, just barely, palm a basketball)
Smith J frames, includiing the 642, have proven themselves since the 50's. No jamming with a wheel gun.

*** *This post is not an admission of me owning or having possession of any firearms. Many shooting ranges have loaner firearms and it is entirely plausable that this is where I have enjoyed the shooting sports.
The post was purely for discussion purposes. Any meaning drawn from the post is the sole responsibility of the reader.*


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

Lucido said:


> I have adequately explained and outlined my position on abortion.
> 
> I reported one of your posts to the moderators for your disgusting language and rank misogyny. It has nothing to do with the fact that we disagree on the morality of abortion.


Sir,

You need to stop whinging and start throwing punches, if you have something to say. Engage in the debate, parry the blows and counter attack.

This isn't a realm for Social Justice Warrior moral outrage.

Engage and let your ideas be hardened in the forge.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Shaver

Lucido said:


> I have adequately explained and outlined my position on abortion.
> 
> I reported one of your posts to the moderators for your disgusting language and rank misogyny. It has nothing to do with the fact that we disagree on the morality of abortion.


Misogyny? Disgusting language?

As well as being a pitiful squealer it appears that you are also something of a fantasist.

It may very well have escaped your notice but there are two moderators currently active in this thread - are you suggesting that your evaluation of my contribution to this debate is more accurate than theirs?


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Lucido said: 
I have adequately explained and outlined my position on abortion.

I reported one of your posts to the moderators for your disgusting language and rank misogyny. It has nothing to do with the fact that we disagree on the morality of abortion.

*Yes* *indeed you have explained your position on human life. No one forced you to spount your version of morality or amorality. 
To be clear:
Not only do you believe that it is acceptable for a woman to use abortion as a means of birth control, but "You don't care."
You seem to be proud of your position.

You call oposition to your views misogyny? That is rich pal,..*...
*
I believe what you profess is, at very least, insensitive to the gravity of the taking of human life. Your cavalier attitude to those who have correctly pointed out that we were discussing the taking of a human life makes a statement about the moral compass that guides you.

The crybaby thing, well perhaps that is just who you are.

Realpolitik; You got your feelings hurt.*


----------



## vpkozel

Mike Petrik said:


> Nope. Before the Civil War it was understood that individual liberties were generally protected against state police and regulatory powers only by state constitutions. The BOR represented neither a floor nor a ceiling, but was simply irrelevant. US constitutional encumbrances were introduced after the Civil War via the 14th Amendment, which protected individual liberties to some murky extent via a due process requirement. The precise liberties embraced by such protection were not articulated. In an effort to answer this question the Court gradually migrated from an arguably principled by unworkably ambiguous "ordered liberty" standard to a legally dubious by fairly workable incorporation theory. One could argue that the Court's adoption of incorporation was an exercise of judicial restraint insomuch as it replaced a standard that, while possibly more in keeping with original intent, granted the Court a discretion that was practically unlimited and therefore too easily abused.


This is not accurate.

And while I have heard them referred to as many things, I have never heard the BOR referred to as irrelevant. And it is quite clear that the states did not think them irrelevant, as they insisted upon them as a condition of ratification.

As Mr. Madison describes it better than I could in Federalist 44.

"This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. ''The indiscreet zeal of the adversaries to the Constitution has betrayed them into an attack on this part of it also, without which it would have been evidently and radically defective. To be fully sensible of this, we need only suppose for a moment that the supremacy of the State constitutions had been left complete by a saving clause in their favor. In the first place, as these constitutions invest the State legislatures with absolute sovereignty, in all cases not excepted by the existing articles of Confederation, all the authorities contained in the proposed Constitution, so far as they exceed those enumerated in the Confederation, would have been annulled, and the new Congress would have been reduced to the same impotent condition with their predecessors. In the next place, as the constitutions of some of the States do not even expressly and fully recognize the existing powers of the Confederacy, an express saving of the supremacy of the former would, in such States, have brought into question every power contained in the proposed Constitution.

In the third place, as the constitutions of the States differ much from each other, it might happen that a treaty or national law, of great and equal importance to the States, would interfere with some and not with other constitutions, and would consequently be valid in some of the States, at the same time that it would have no effect in others. In fine, the world would have seen, for the first time, a system of government founded on an inversion of the fundamental principles of all government; it would have seen the authority of the whole society every where subordinate to the authority of the parts; it would have seen a monster, in which the head was under the direction of the members."

The USSC also ruled on the Supremacy Clause in these antebellum cases:

_McCulloch v. Maryland_ *17 u.s. 316 (1819)*

_Gibbons v. Ogden_ *22 u.s. 1 (1824)*

_Worcester v. Georgia_ *31 u.s. 515 (1832)*

_Ableman v. Booth_ *62 u.s. 506 (1858)*

In each holding that the state laws and constitutions were superseded by the federal ones.


----------



## vpkozel

Tiger said:


> It's not a question of compliance; the Bill of Rights restricted the power of the federal government. It simply did not apply to the States. Again, a cursory look at the Tenth Amendment - and history - proves this! Two different spheres of political power...


2 different spheres as long as they stay separate. If they contradict, then the state loses. This was established long before the Civil War.



> "A state could not ever have banned its citizens from having weapons (or forced it to quarter troops, or banned free press, etc.), even prior to incorporation, as that would have been unconstitutional." This is absolutely incorrect; States retained every power not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to the States. Many States had laws that were fine for them to pass (as long as those laws did not violate State constitutions), but not for the federal government to do so.]


Can you provide an instance where this occurred and the state law won out?



> States were forced to amend their constitutions during Reconstruction - in itself an act of autocracy on the part of the federal government. Compulsion does not square with liberty. For instance, if a State had to outlaw secession in its constitution because it was forced to do so, that does not make secession illegal or unconstitutional. The State's liberty ceased to exist under these conditions (as imposed during Reconstruction).


Why they did something is not germane. That they did it is the point. You said that there were no legal or constitutional changes - which is not accurate. There apparently was also a USSC after the war that ruled that secession was not legal - which I learned about as part of this discussion, so thank you for helping me learn something 



> I agree; it was the Union that prohibited the Southern States from seceding peacefully!


Glad we are in agreeance,


----------



## Bjorn

Shaver said:


> Misogyny? Disgusting language?
> 
> As well as being a pitiful squealer it appears that you are also something of a fantasist.
> 
> It may very well have escaped your notice but there are two moderators currently active in this thread - are you suggesting that your evaluation of my contribution to this debate is more accurate than theirs?


Hm. Not a fantasist, maybe.

Remember that I can also see the posts people made in this thread and then deleted themselves because they changed their mind.

(This is not moderation, btw, and the interchange is free, but maybe not a complete fantasist. )

I'll go back to guns now. We can all agree those are fun, even though you are all obviously Flat Earthers so we shall have to stay out of ballistics. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Tiger

vpkozel said:


> This is not accurate.
> 
> And while I have heard them referred to as many things, I have never heard the BOR referred to as irrelevant. And it is quite clear that the states did not think them irrelevant, as they insisted upon them as a condition of ratification.
> 
> As Mr. Madison describes it better than I could in Federalist 44.
> 
> "This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. ''The indiscreet zeal of the adversaries to the Constitution has betrayed them into an attack on this part of it also, without which it would have been evidently and radically defective. To be fully sensible of this, we need only suppose for a moment that the supremacy of the State constitutions had been left complete by a saving clause in their favor. In the first place, as these constitutions invest the State legislatures with absolute sovereignty, in all cases not excepted by the existing articles of Confederation, all the authorities contained in the proposed Constitution, so far as they exceed those enumerated in the Confederation, would have been annulled, and the new Congress would have been reduced to the same impotent condition with their predecessors. In the next place, as the constitutions of some of the States do not even expressly and fully recognize the existing powers of the Confederacy, an express saving of the supremacy of the former would, in such States, have brought into question every power contained in the proposed Constitution.
> 
> In the third place, as the constitutions of the States differ much from each other, it might happen that a treaty or national law, of great and equal importance to the States, would interfere with some and not with other constitutions, and would consequently be valid in some of the States, at the same time that it would have no effect in others. In fine, the world would have seen, for the first time, a system of government founded on an inversion of the fundamental principles of all government; it would have seen the authority of the whole society every where subordinate to the authority of the parts; it would have seen a monster, in which the head was under the direction of the members."
> 
> The USSC also ruled on the Supremacy Clause in these antebellum cases:
> 
> _McCulloch v. Maryland_ *17 u.s. 316 (1819)*
> 
> _Gibbons v. Ogden_ *22 u.s. 1 (1824)*
> 
> _Worcester v. Georgia_ *31 u.s. 515 (1832)*
> 
> _Ableman v. Booth_ *62 u.s. 506 (1858)*
> 
> In each holding that the state laws and constitutions were superseded by the federal ones.


You completely misunderstand the concepts made by both Mike and I. The Supremacy Clause is not applicable here; for two reasons. First, the bill of rights does not *grant* power to the federal government at the expense of the States, but rather *restricts* federal power in favor of ensuring State power. (For example, Congress is prohibited from abridging speech. Clearly, States are not - simple tenth amendment logic. The Supremacy Clause does not apply!) Secondly, the Supremacy Clause applies only when federal law is constitutional.

Citations of the Marshall Court seem futile here, as no one was a bigger nationalist than he, and it is well-known that he viewed the Constitution far differently than the majority of the framers and all of the ratification conventions. Marshall's own view of the Constitution differed greatly during the Virginia ratification convention compared to his positions when he joined the Court. There's a reason he fought so strenuously with Jefferson (a strict constructionist). The scholarship here is plentiful, as those of us in this field know. Your citations are not revelations.


----------



## Shaver

Bjorn said:


> Hm. Not a fantasist, maybe.
> 
> Remember that I can also see the posts people made in this thread and then deleted themselves because they changed their mind.
> 
> (This is not moderation, btw, and the interchange is free, but maybe not a complete fantasist. )
> 
> I'll go back to guns now. We can all agree those are fun, even though you are all obviously Flat Earthers so we shall have to stay out of ballistics.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Occasionally I self censor and remove posts within moments of their submission. Would any member feel obliged to complain in such circumstance?

To the best of my recollection I have altered one post within this thread at a later date. I do not believe that the modification removed any disgusting language, nor misogyny, it merely advanced my position more articulately.

Either way the grassing-up took place days after this edit and so I stand by my claim: a fantasist.

You are free to restore any post of mine to its original state, excepting spelling corrections which I would prefer were permitted to remain.


----------



## Bjorn

Shaver said:


> Whilst I concede to having altered one post at a later date I do not believe that the modification removed any disgusting language.
> 
> You are free to restore any post of mine to its original state.


More people than you posting here, and I can't really turn the feature off, unfortunately.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Tiger

vpkozel said:


> 2 different spheres as long as they stay separate. If they contradict, then the state loses. This was established long before the Civil War.
> 
> Can you provide an instance where this occurred and the state law won out?
> 
> Why they did something is not germane. That they did it is the point. You said that there were no legal or constitutional changes - which is not accurate. There apparently was also a USSC after the war that ruled that secession was not legal - which I learned about as part of this discussion, so thank you for helping me learn something
> 
> Glad we are in agreeance,


Let's try for the last time, as I fear your lack of historical knowledge is preventing you from understanding the context. Please forgive me if that seems immodest; it is not my intent. The point is, without knowing the history behind this, you cannot properly understand the political implications.


The "Bill of Rights" was added to the Constitution to ensure that the limitations on federal power ("The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." - James Madison) were made more explicit. In fact, after Congress approved those first ten amendments, they were sent to the State legislatures for ratification with the following preface: _*"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added..."* _Thus, the Bill of Rights was unequivocally designed to apply to the general (federal) government only, not the States. To state the contrary is demonstrably false - agreed?
To wit, State laws that restricted, for instance, religion, press, or speech *did* exist (see subsequent bullet point), and they were *not* violations of the Bill of Rights, *because the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States!*
As per Professor Thomas Woods, "When the States authorized the use of public funds to support various churches, no one in the early republic considered it a violation of the First Amendment, which was universally understood not to apply to the States." As per Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Abigail Adams in 1804, "While we deny that Congress has a right to control the freedom of the press, we have ever asserted the right of the States, and their exclusive right to do so." States routinely limited speech, until - and I hate to bring Supreme Court rulings into this - _Gitlow_ v. _New York_ (1925), where the Court "incorporated" First Amendment protections of speech against the States. I can cite numerous examples, but it would be overkill.
If you believe States being forced at (literally) gunpoint to ratify changes to their constitutions is legitimate, than we view political liberty very differently.
Are you referring to _Texas_ v. _White_ (1869)? Where a nationalist Court with a few Lincoln appointees post-war ruled that secession was illegal, without providing a scintilla of evidence as to why? Really? Do you realize that I could spend the next hour providing evidence and logic that wold prove that secession is legal and constitutional? You may wish to read Professor Brion McClanahan's analysis of the case to which you refer. It literally proves nothing!


----------



## Mike Petrik

vpkozel said:


> This is not accurate.
> 
> And while I have heard them referred to as many things, I have never heard the BOR referred to as irrelevant. And it is quite clear that the states did not think them irrelevant, as they insisted upon them as a condition of ratification.
> 
> As Mr. Madison describes it better than I could in Federalist 44.
> 
> "This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. ''The indiscreet zeal of the adversaries to the Constitution has betrayed them into an attack on this part of it also, without which it would have been evidently and radically defective. To be fully sensible of this, we need only suppose for a moment that the supremacy of the State constitutions had been left complete by a saving clause in their favor. In the first place, as these constitutions invest the State legislatures with absolute sovereignty, in all cases not excepted by the existing articles of Confederation, all the authorities contained in the proposed Constitution, so far as they exceed those enumerated in the Confederation, would have been annulled, and the new Congress would have been reduced to the same impotent condition with their predecessors. In the next place, as the constitutions of some of the States do not even expressly and fully recognize the existing powers of the Confederacy, an express saving of the supremacy of the former would, in such States, have brought into question every power contained in the proposed Constitution.
> 
> In the third place, as the constitutions of the States differ much from each other, it might happen that a treaty or national law, of great and equal importance to the States, would interfere with some and not with other constitutions, and would consequently be valid in some of the States, at the same time that it would have no effect in others. In fine, the world would have seen, for the first time, a system of government founded on an inversion of the fundamental principles of all government; it would have seen the authority of the whole society every where subordinate to the authority of the parts; it would have seen a monster, in which the head was under the direction of the members."
> 
> The USSC also ruled on the Supremacy Clause in these antebellum cases:
> 
> _McCulloch v. Maryland_ *17 u.s. 316 (1819)*
> 
> _Gibbons v. Ogden_ *22 u.s. 1 (1824)*
> 
> _Worcester v. Georgia_ *31 u.s. 515 (1832)*
> 
> _Ableman v. Booth_ *62 u.s. 506 (1858)*
> 
> In each holding that the state laws and constitutions were superseded by the federal ones.


Oh my. I hope you are not a lawyer. Seriously. The BOR was not relevant as to state powers. Just federal. Yes, the constitution is the supreme law of the land but all you have to do is read it to see that until the 14th Amendment the BOR limited only the powers of Congress, not the states. What I am saying is unremarkable and uncontroversial among anyone who has seriously studied the constitution, let alone taught it in law school as I have. Geesh.

Tiger and I have had our respectful and entertaining disagreements on some reasonably complicated constitutional issues, but on something this easy and fundamental we are in complete agreement.


----------



## Tiger

Mike Petrik said:


> Oh my. I hope you are not a lawyer. Seriously. The BOR was not relevant as to state powers. Just federal. Yes, the constitution is the supreme law of the land but all you have to do is read it to see that until the 14th Amendment the BOR limited only the powers of Congress, not the states. What I am saying is unremarkable and uncontroversial among anyone who has seriously studied the constitution, let alone taught it in law school as I have. Geesh.
> 
> Tiger and I have had our respectful and entertaining disagreements on some reasonably complicated constitutional issues, but on something this easy and fundamental we are in complete agreement.


...and if I ever needed an attorney who was intelligent, kindhearted, and ethical, I would hire Mr. Petrik in a flash!


----------



## vpkozel

Tiger said:


> You completely misunderstand the concepts made by both Mike and I. The Supremacy Clause is not applicable here; for two reasons. First, the bill of rights does not *grant* power to the federal government at the expense of the States, but rather *restricts* federal power in favor of ensuring State power. (For example, Congress is prohibited from abridging speech. Clearly, States are not - simple tenth amendment logic. The Supremacy Clause does not apply!) Secondly, the Supremacy Clause applies only when federal law is constitutional.
> 
> Citations of the Marshall Court seem futile here, as no one was a bigger nationalist than he, and it is well-known that he viewed the Constitution far differently than the majority of the framers and all of the ratification conventions. Marshall's own view of the Constitution differed greatly during the Virginia ratification convention compared to his positions when he joined the Court. There's a reason he fought so strenuously with Jefferson (a strict constructionist). The scholarship here is plentiful, as those of us in this field know. Your citations are not revelations.


The Bill of Rights does restrict Federal Power, but it is part of the Constitution. Therefore it applies to the states whenever there are disagreements as to what takes precedence. Hence the floor and ceiling analogy.

I understand that YOU feel this way about Marshall and his court, but do you have any links to historians that back your point of view that he erred in ruling? I have read almost nothing that criticizes Marbury as a flawed ruling, except for what you have written here.

And, it is quite curious that you want to discount the BOR on one hand and use it to bolster your case on the other.

Edit - just saw that your other reply does have cites. Will have to look at that later....


----------



## vpkozel

Mike Petrik said:


> Oh my. I hope you are not a lawyer. Seriously. The BOR was not relevant as to state powers. Just federal. Yes, the constitution is the supreme law of the land but all you have to do is read it to see that until the 14th Amendment the BOR limited only the powers of Congress, not the states. What I am saying is unremarkable and uncontroversial among anyone who has seriously studied the constitution, let alone taught it in law school as I have. Geesh.
> 
> Tiger and I have had our respectful and entertaining disagreements on some reasonably complicated constitutional issues, but on something this easy and fundamental we are in complete agreement.


I can assure you that I have indeed studied the Constitution and its debates in depth.

I am also not trying to say that the BOR was specifically created to limit the power of the states as well Federal governments. But, where there would be a conflict between these 2 areas, the federal constitution - any part of it - would win out.

That is quite clear.


----------



## Tiger

vpkozel said:


> The Bill of Rights does restrict Federal Power, but it is part of the Constitution. Therefore it applies to the states whenever there are disagreements as to what takes precedence. Hence the floor and ceiling analogy.
> 
> I understand that YOU feel this way about Marshall and his court, but do you have any links to historians that back your point of view that he erred in ruling? I have read almost nothing that criticizes Marbury as a flawed ruling, except for what you have written here.
> 
> And, it is quite curious that you want to discount the BOR on one hand and use it to bolster your case on the other.
> 
> Edit - just saw that your other reply does have cites. Will have to look at that later....


You clearly do not understand the historical and political purpose of the Bill of Rights. It is too frustrating and futile for me to continue discussing this.

I did not discount the Bill of Rights; I simply understand its purpose. That you don't is the root of your inability to argue effectively and accurately on this topic.

You may wish to read Jefferson's opinion of _Marbury_, and Madison's opinion of _McCulloch_...


----------



## Tiger

vpkozel said:


> I can assure you that I have indeed studied the Constitution and its debates in depth.
> 
> I am also not trying to say that the BOR was specifically created to limit the power of the states as well Federal governments. But, where there would be a conflict between these 2 areas, the federal constitution - any part of it - would win out.
> 
> That is quite clear.


Again, you are wrong. Congress is prohibited from, say, abridging speech. States could do so, because regulating speech was not a federal power, so there is no conflict! How can there be a conflict of powers when one entity (the federal government) has *no power* in that sphere?

You may have "studied the Constitution," but you sure as hell have not studied the history surrounding it.

May I ask what you do for a living?


----------



## Mike Petrik

vpkozel said:


> The Bill of Rights does restrict Federal Power, but it is part of the Constitution. Therefore it applies to the states whenever there are disagreements as to what takes precedence.


These two sentences are so incoherent they belie a response. First, the word "but" makes no sense in the first sentence. Second, the word "[t]herefore" notwithstanding, the second sentence does not follow logically from the first. Again, the fact that federal laws, if valid, are supreme over conflicting state laws, does not mean that laws that expressly limit only federal powers also somehow magically limit state powers. The magic had to be supplied, which is what the 14th Amendment did, even if its boundaries are sufficiently ambiguous such that reasonable people can debate the merits of Supreme Court jurisprudence on the matter.


----------



## Shaver

Lucido said:


> This, Shaver, is the one and only post I reported. I did so within an hour or so of my first post on this thread. The feedback I have received from gentleman that runs this site is that he is investigating and discussing with the moderation team.
> 
> If you do not see the problem with telling women that they should utilise 'two other orifices' to avoid a pregnancy then I fear you are too far gone for anyone to help you. I sincerely hope that you have chosen not to reproduce as I can't bear the thoughts of you imprinting your toxic world view onto an impressionable young mind.
> 
> @Mr. B. Scott Robinson You seem to be laboring under the delusion that I am a social justice warrior and/or not taking part in the debate. I can tell you that I am not a SJW, not particularly prone to moral outrage and I have robustly outlined my positions on this thread.
> 
> It is both yours and Shavers rank misogyny that I take offence with, not your opposition to abortion on whatever moral grounds you think you have.


Fine words and I stand by them, Lucy.

I believe that we had already established, earlier in this thread, your error in choosing to distort the meaning of my statement? Yet here you are again still harping on.

Have you considered dialling 999? Perhaps the emergency services would be willing to assist you......


----------



## Mike Petrik

vpkozel said:


> I can assure you that I have indeed studied the Constitution and its debates in depth.
> 
> I am also not trying to say that the BOR was specifically created to limit the power of the states as well Federal governments. But, where there would be a conflict between these 2 areas, the federal constitution - any part of it - would win out.
> 
> That is quite clear.


A state law that does X is not in conflict with a federal law or a constitutional provision that says that Congress cannot do X. It is as simple as that.


----------



## Shaver

Lucido said:


> Do you want to take this opportunity to clarify what you meant by 'reminding women that they have two other orifices' ?
> 
> You can drop the nicknames and suggestions that I call the emergency services. It's a an awfully silly and roundabout way to make an ad hominem argument.


Why, upon my soul! Contextomy.

I'm sorry Lucy, I am not making the ad hominem. It's simply that you have been bleating on about this for days now, have had several responses to your requests for clarification, are currently awaiting an outcome from the owner of the forum on this issue and yet - still - you are back here gnawing the bone.


----------



## Shaver

Lucido said:


> Spare me the verbosity Shaver. It's a silly and transparent affectation that you seem to cling to in lieu of genuine eloquence.
> 
> I'm asking you to clarify what you meant by the post I quoted above. I'll reproduce the entire thing below lest you want to dance around again it by claiming I'm quoting you out of context.


And this from the whiner who accuses others of ad hominem.

The statement is abundantly clear. Which part of it are you struggling with?


----------



## Shaver

Let us do everyone a favour, members and moderators alike, and take your problem off the fora. Please direct any further comment you may have on this matter to me via PM.


----------



## Shaver

Lucido said:


> Another ad hominem? You're on a roll.
> 
> Oh no, I understood you all right. Your meaning is quite obvious. The problem is that you're _still _dancing around it and claiming I have misunderstood while not elaborating on what it is that I'm supposedly missing.
> 
> The ball is in your court Shaver. The content of your posts paint you as a singularly unpleasant individual with a healthy dash of misogyny to boot. If that is not the case then I would ask that you clarify what you meant by the post in question.


Ask me via PM.


----------



## Shaver

Lucido said:


> I don't think so Shaver.
> 
> I believe this is the fourth time now I'm asking you to explain your post.
> 
> You have claimed that I have misunderstood and I am giving you the opportunity to elaborate and tell me what it is that you think I'm missing.
> 
> If you stand behind your words then you should be perfectly fine with doing the above publicly on the thread.
> 
> Or you can take your ball and run home.


That's right Lucy. I'm running home, crying, defeated by you.

Via PM please.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Lucido said:


> I don't think so Shaver.
> 
> I believe this is the fourth time now I'm asking you to explain your post.
> 
> You have claimed that I have misunderstood and I am giving you the opportunity to elaborate and tell me what it is that you think I'm missing.
> 
> If you stand behind your words then you should be perfectly fine with doing the above publicly on the thread.
> 
> Or you can take your ball and run home.


I cannot help but be amused by a man who is perfectly fine with killing unborn babies but who clutches his pearls at insensitive frankness.


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Lucido said:


> I'm afraid not, Shaver.
> 
> You made your post publicly and should be willing to stand behind it in the same way.
> 
> You have claimed that:
> 
> - Women that do not use birth-control are 'lazy' and 'stupid'
> - Women should be willing to 'utilise other orifices' to avoid a pregnancy
> 
> Both statements are crude, misogynistic and offensive to anyone with a sense of decency but if I have misunderstood you are free to elaborate and explain what it is that you feel I'm missing.
> 
> Or you can keep going with the ad-hominems, childish name-calling and obfuscation.
> 
> I've given you what, five opportunities now?


You have given him five opportunities,...As if to imply that you are some kind of authority?

_*For Pete's sake you are not in charge anything and you make the rules for no one.*_

*You came here and made flippant insensitive remarks about the taking of a human life by replying "I don't care" when asked if you believe women should use abortion as a means of birth control. *

Your remarks and cavalier attitude towards the taking of human life are rude and offensive and you have the gall to make such accusations aganist someone else. Once again, a clear view into the compass that guides you.

You are a big enough boy to dish it out but when you are called on it and debated into a corner you crybaby to moderators and call Shaver misogynistic,.....

You are the height of hypocrisy.

Just as you are not afraid there are many others who are not afraid of your type either pal.

Now go and tell Bjorn or another moderator that.


----------



## 127.72 MHz

You are indeed happy to debate.

Abortion, the death penalty, these are sensitive issues. They are sensitive issues because human life, the taking of human life, is involved.

*Regardless of how one feels about the morality or legality of abortion, to trivialize an event that results in a life, a beating heart, being stopped unnaturally by the hand of another human is a serious subject.*

When presented with the fact that a sizable percentage of women that seek abortions in the U.S. are doing so over and over again, using abortion as a means of birth control, your response was: * "I don't care."*

Your response is plainly rude and offensive. And, *YOU DON'T CARE*.

Perhaps you are so daft as to not know that a comment like "I don't care" when talking about the taking of a human life is rude. But I suspect you are bright enough to know full well how you come across. I also believe it speaks volumes about your character, *personally*. And I can plainly see by your words that,....*You don't care*. I believe you may actually enjoy it. Life's experience has shown me a few like you.

But you know what you said and you know how it came across. *At anytime, without abandoning your position, you could have mentioned that it was a poor choice of words knowing the context was about the flippant ending of a human life, but you have not.*

In fact you are as eager as ever to debate. Debate no matter how offensive you have been.

*Then, when you become offended, and dare I say, morally outraged, you squeal like an 8 year old little girl to a moderator.*

*What I have outlined here is a cause and effect example of Hypocrisy. 
*
And I am also sure that* You Don't Care! And that my claim that you are a hypocrite is baseless,....

You will not stand for what you see as blatant misogyny and offensive and crude suggestions of how women should use their bodies.

But you will stand for trivializing a human being ending the life of another human being, even if it is done habitually.
*
It would be possible for you to be in favor of abortion remaining legal in the U.S. even though you realize that it is not a trivial event. *You could recognize that some people are offended when a fetus, a mass of flesh and blood with a beating heart that looks precisely like a human being, is disposed of like a used condom after sex. * You could recognize that abortion is an event to be viewed seriously, because human life is precious.
*
Just teasing! You have left no doubt that you are not that kind of guy.*

Remember, do not reflect on what you have said or it's context. That would show weakness.

Hit back hard and claim that you been offended, morally outraged even. (And by all means throw in the phrase dejour and cry Misogynist too!)  Maybe you can recruit the MeToo Movement!

Furthermore myself or anyone else who disagrees with you is 100% incorrect and claims about your conduct are baseless.

*You hypocrite!*


----------



## 127.72 MHz

We do disagree and you are not being honest. You are a child and this is your playground.

You seek to offend and cry when you are offended, a hypocrite.


----------



## 127.72 MHz

That you do not recognize the incoherence of a position where you seek to offend and then feign victim when you are offended.

No one is that daft.

In short, failure to recognize the simple fact that your behavior is hypocritical.

If you wish to be respected then show a degree of respect.

Seriously, let's move on. you are not going to change who you are and what you stand for. And neither am I.

I do not believe that you are interested in conciliation, you are interested in winning a debate and impressing yourself with how rude you can be. 

Shaver just showed you how to take your rudeness to a different plane. You could not handle it,....


----------



## 16412

Tiger said:


> Let's try for the last time, as I fear your lack of historical knowledge is preventing you from understanding the context. Please forgive me if that seems immodest; it is not my intent. The point is, without knowing the history behind this, you cannot properly understand the political implications.
> 
> 
> The "Bill of Rights" was added to the Constitution to ensure that the limitations on federal power ("The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." - James Madison) were made more explicit. In fact, after Congress approved those first ten amendments, they were sent to the State legislatures for ratification with the following preface: _*"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added..."* _Thus, the Bill of Rights was unequivocally designed to apply to the general (federal) government only, not the States. To state the contrary is demonstrably false - agreed?
> To wit, State laws that restricted, for instance, religion, press, or speech *did* exist (see subsequent bullet point), and they were *not* violations of the Bill of Rights, *because the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States!*
> As per Professor Thomas Woods, "When the States authorized the use of public funds to support various churches, no one in the early republic considered it a violation of the First Amendment, which was universally understood not to apply to the States." As per Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Abigail Adams in 1804, "While we deny that Congress has a right to control the freedom of the press, we have ever asserted the right of the States, and their exclusive right to do so." States routinely limited speech, until - and I hate to bring Supreme Court rulings into this - _Gitlow_ v. _New York_ (1925), where the Court "incorporated" First Amendment protections of speech against the States. I can cite numerous examples, but it would be overkill.
> If you believe States being forced at (literally) gunpoint to ratify changes to their constitutions is legitimate, than we view political liberty very differently.
> Are you referring to _Texas_ v. _White_ (1869)? Where a nationalist Court with a few Lincoln appointees post-war ruled that secession was illegal, without providing a scintilla of evidence as to why? Really? Do you realize that I could spend the next hour providing evidence and logic that wold prove that secession is legal and constitutional? You may wish to read Professor Brion McClanahan's analysis of the case to which you refer. It literally proves nothing!


This really isn't true at all. The bill of rights came about because people of one church denomination in a town were preventing people who belonged to another church denomination from having their church in town. The Bill Of Rights removes power from governments federal, state, county and city.


----------



## drlivingston

Damn Russian trolls taking over the Interchange.


----------



## 16412

Lucido, people who pursue abortion, and defend it, and sodomy should be stoned to death, for they are serious pollution that pollutes others. The world is bad enough. We don't need it to be worse. In fact, it is terrible now. The world needs to be cleaned up. You have less right than a baby to life, because of your choices. Babies live and polluters die if justice is to be served.


----------



## Bjorn

WA said:


> Lucido, people who pursue abortion, and defend it, and sodomy should be stoned to death, for they are serious pollution that pollutes others. The world is bad enough. We don't need it to be worse. In fact, it is terrible now. The world needs to be cleaned up. You have less right than a baby to life, because of your choices. Babies live and polluters die if justice is to be served.


That always seems to go so well, *cleaning up*.

Are you seriously concerned with sodomy?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Bjorn

127.72 MHz said:


> You have given him five opportunities,...As if to imply that you are some kind of authority?
> 
> _*For Pete's sake you are not in charge anything and you make the rules for no one.*_
> 
> *You came here and made flippant insensitive remarks about the taking of a human life by replying "I don't care" when asked if you believe women should use abortion as a means of birth control. *
> 
> Your remarks and cavalier attitude towards the taking of human life are rude and offensive and you have the gall to make such accusations aganist someone else. Once again, a clear view into the compass that guides you.
> 
> You are a big enough boy to dish it out but when you are called on it and debated into a corner you crybaby to moderators and call Shaver misogynistic,.....
> 
> You are the height of hypocrisy.
> 
> Just as you are not afraid there are many others who are not afraid of your type either pal.
> 
> Now go and tell Bjorn or another moderator that.


Not moderating this.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Shaver

Bjorn said:


> Not moderating this.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Is anybody?


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

A very vibrant discussion to say the least. I will make this my last post on this subject and then bow out.

I have been trained by my government how to use a weapon to take a human life. I hope I never need to pull that trigger, but I am fully prepared to do it if called on, without hesitation, but possibly with some remorse. For a thoughtful and reflective person, killing someone can be a heavy psychological burden to carry throughout life. I care deeply about this because I understand the cost first hand in a very non-abstract fashion. I have the proper training and the emotional strength to kill. This is a shadow, and a burden of responsibility, that follows me day and night.

I ponder the following questions in my brain on a regular basis.....

I wonder how many politicians would be eager to send our troops to war if it were their sons on the front line being burdened with determining who lives and who dies on a daily basis?

I wonder how many of those who appear almost gleeful in their support of abortion would be as enthusiastic if they were brought into a surgical suite, placed in front of a reluctant patient, donned with a surgical gown and then handed a suction hose and told to "Go get 'em son"?

How many of those who support capital punishment would queue up at a prison on the day of a scheduled execution eager to be the lucky person given the unique opportunity to administer the lethal injection?

Should we as citizens hide behind the skirts of the state and allow it to clinically and anonymously end human life as a form of societal retribution for a crime often committed decades prior?

My point is that stopping a beating heart is relatively easy to chat about in blogs and to support at the voting booth when that power is delegated to the state or an anonymous medical provider. However, when you are the one with the gun, scalpel, needle or switch in your hand, I can only hope that the idea of "sanctity of human life" might take on a bit more nuance.

I sincerely espouse a belief that all responsible adults, men and women, should take agency for their life using preemptive and thoughtful actions to improve the probability that they will have a meaningful and happy outcome. I suggest radical thinking like...don't smoke. Wear your seat belt. Use at least two forms of birth control. Get some exercise. Drink in moderation. Start saving money at an early age. Don't clean a loaded gun. Choose good friends. Don't marry the first woman you sleep with.... 

To close the door on this, I have established friendships with and loved dozens of responsible women who are willing and eager to discuss how they take responsibility for their reproductive heath through thoughtful use of birth control. However, I have never personally met a single one who was eager to volunteer that they had an abortion. Not a single one. Never. Ever.

I mentioned at the opening that if I were ever called on to take a human life, I would most likely feel remorse. I propose that it is possible that there is a invisible river of remorse flowing through the hearts of millions in our society and that should make any thoughtful and reflective person sad.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Shaver

drlivingston said:


> Damn Russian trolls taking over the Interchange.


There's a faint whiff of proxies on the breeze.


----------



## Tiger

WA said:


> This really isn't true at all. The bill of rights came about because people of one church denomination in a town were preventing people who belonged to another church denomination from having their church in town. The Bill Of Rights removes power from governments federal, state, county and city.


???


----------



## Mike Petrik

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> A very vibrant discussion to say the least. I will make this my last post on this subject and then bow out.
> 
> I have been trained by my government how to use a weapon to take a human life. I hope I never need to pull that trigger, but I am fully prepared to do it if called on, without hesitation, but possibly with some remorse. For a thoughtful and reflective person, killing someone can be a heavy psychological burden to carry throughout life. I care deeply about this because I understand the cost first hand in a very non-abstract fashion. I have the proper training and the emotional strength to kill. This is a shadow, and a burden of responsibility, that follows me day and night.
> 
> I ponder the following questions in my brain on a regular basis.....
> 
> I wonder how many politicians would be eager to send our troops to war if it were their sons on the front line being burdened with determining who lives and who dies on a daily basis?
> 
> I wonder how many of those who appear almost gleeful in their support of abortion would be as enthusiastic if they were brought into a surgical suite, placed in front of a reluctant patient, donned with a surgical gown and then handed a suction hose and told to "Go get 'em son"?
> 
> How many of those who support capital punishment would queue up at a prison on the day of a scheduled execution eager to be the lucky person given the unique opportunity to administer the lethal injection?
> 
> Should we as citizens hide behind the skirts of the state and allow it to clinically and anonymously end human life as a form of societal retribution for a crime often committed decades prior?
> 
> My point is that stopping a beating heart is relatively easy to chat about in blogs and to support at the voting booth when that power is delegated to the state or an anonymous medical provider. However, when you are the one with the gun, scalpel, needle or switch in your hand, I can only hope that the idea of "sanctity of human life" might take on a bit more nuance.
> 
> I sincerely espouse a belief that all responsible adults, men and women, should take agency for their life using preemptive and thoughtful actions to improve the probability that they will have a meaningful and happy outcome. I suggest radical thinking like...don't smoke. Wear your seat belt. Use at least two forms of birth control. Get some exercise. Drink in moderation. Start saving money at an early age. Don't clean a loaded gun. Choose good friends. Don't marry the first woman you sleep with....
> 
> To close the door on this, I have established friendships with and loved dozens of responsible women who are willing and eager to discuss how they take responsibility for their reproductive heath through thoughtful use of birth control. However, I have never personally met a single one who was eager to volunteer that they had an abortion. Not a single one. Never. Ever.
> 
> I mentioned at the opening that if I were ever called on to take a human life, I would most likely feel remorse. I propose that it is possible that there is a invisible river of remorse flowing through the hearts of millions in our society and that should make any thoughtful and reflective person sad.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


A very thoughtful post, BSR, thank you. I would only note that I actually know quite a few men and women who married the first person they slept with. In some cases the former actually preceded the latter, if you can imagine such a thing. In each case these couples are very happily married. The disintegration of marriage in modern society has less to do with the sequence of these things as such as it does with society's understanding of their interrelationship.


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Bjorn said:


> Not moderating this.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Why should you? You can hold your head high and see a fetus as an entinty to be disposed of as medical waste if that fetus is under 18 weeks into it's gestation.

But when it hits that 18th week, plus one day, the fetus becomes a human being. Of course another court in another country may see a child in uterio as medical waste at 20 weeks, or for that matter at 32 weeks, and then you can claim the intellectual high ground and rationaize that the people who performed this "medical procedure" were "Just following orders,....."

Using a court's decision to rationialize a position that defies all logic gives you all you need to spout your psudo-intellectual opinion as to when human life begins.

Such a clever fellow you are Bjorn.


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Lucido said:


> I'm not quite sure you understand what 'dishonest' means. Which is baffling and troubling, but we're not here to debate your grasp of the English language I suppose.
> 
> In any event, I do not seek to offend anyone. We simply have very different views on a controversial topic. Looking at the nonsense that has been thrown my way on this thread by you and others, I have been very restrained.


Oh yes and by all means now you can condesend to call into question my grasp of the english language.

And talk about how much nonsense has been thrown *your* way,....What a sacrifice for your cause you have made for throwing yourself into the breach with the fanatics.

Yes indeed, you and poor Bjorn have been victimized. There has got to be some monetary damages in there somewhere or you two,....


----------



## Bjorn

127.72 MHz said:


> Why should you?
> 
> Such a clever fellow you are Bjorn.


1. just pointing out, and
2. I know, it's positively mind-boggling how clever I am. Thank you! As is the majority in most evolved civilized democracies, keeping abortion a choice for those who need it and a choice firmly in the control of the woman. 

I do know there are some countries where abortion is illegal, and I know roughly which countries that are and what their level of development and level of equality and quality-of-life for women they have.

So please continue to cry a huge river for people never born, and I shall remain firmly on the side of women and their freedom.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Bjorn

127.72 MHz said:


> Oreach with the fanatics.
> 
> Yes indeed, you and poor Bjorn have been victimized. There has got to be some monetary damages in there somewhere or you two,....


Awarding large amounts of monetary damages for imaginary damages is, by and large, not an occurrence outside of the US, in my experience.

And don't kid yourself, the complete lack of actual arguments on your side (besides orifices, anti-evolutionism, anti-science, anti-college education, anti-women, anti-global warming, anti-social welfare and general flat-earthism) has probably convinced no one of anything besides the fact that (without owning up to any underlying political, ideological or religious agenda in this (which by the way, probably could have made for an actual argument)) you lot feel that I and Lucy are a heartless unfeeling bunch. Well boo-hoo

But if you feel the need to part way with money I am all ears. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Bjorn

Damn. I forgot anti-sodomy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## drlivingston

Bjorn said:


> Damn. I forgot anti-sodomy.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Damn... I had a perfect gif. Alas, it was not worth the infraction.


----------



## vpkozel

This thread is so on its way to closed....


----------



## Bjorn

drlivingston said:


> Damn... I had a perfect gif. Alas, it was not worth the infraction.


Ha!

I can see deleted posts!

Saved it 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Bjorn said:


> 1. just pointing out, and
> 2. I know, it's positively mind-boggling how clever I am. Thank you! As is the majority in most evolved civilized democracies, keeping abortion a choice for those who need it and a choice firmly in the control of the woman.
> 
> I do know there are some countries where abortion is illegal, and I know roughly which countries that are and what their level of development and level of equality and quality-of-life for women they have.
> 
> So please continue to cry a huge river for people never born, and I shall remain firmly on the side of women and their freedom.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Bjorn,

By all means do continue to trivialize the graviety of abortion. It makes a loud and clear statement about you, *personally*.

And yes, after I learning of a fetus that I have scanned being aborted, I did not exactly say "Boo hoo" but I have wept. Perhaps you can gain some pleasure from that. Make light of it, point and laugh even!

And do not kid yourself pal, what you have been presented with was not done by those who lack advanced college degrees, who have authored and co-authored peer reviewed articles in the physical and natural sciences. You just have no other compelling arguments to present.

You have not been a hero for you cause, you have been insensitive and plainly rude. Not once, but over and over again. You have battled with the fanatics and proven that being ugly is a virtue for your cause... yeah, right.

If you are interested in an attempt to get some monetary damages from it please contact The Me Too movement and claim that you were damaged by the misogynists,....


----------



## Bjorn

127.72 MHz said:


> Bjorn,
> 
> Please do continue to trivialize the graviety of abortion. It makes a loud and clearm statement about you, personally.
> 
> And yes, after I learning of a fetus that I have scanned being aborted, I did not exactly say "Boo hoo" but I have wept. Perhaps you can gain some plesure from that.
> 
> And do not kid yourself pal, what you have been presented with was not done by those who lack college educations or strong backgrounds in the physical and natural sciences. You just have no other compelling arguments to present.
> 
> If you are interested in an attept to get soem mknontary damages from it please contact The Me Too movement and claim that you were damaged by the misogynists,....


Are we afraid of the me too-movement as well? Is sexual harassment in the bill of rights?

Being pro choice is not trivializing. Removing the choice from the woman is.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Who is "We?" Do you have a mouse in your pocket?

In case you missed a clear point, I have stated that I believe abortion should remain legal in the U.S.. But that does not mean I have license to flippantly poke fun of those who grieve for the ignorance of millions of poor women who utilize free or nearly free abortion services as a means of birth control.

You have trivialized the loss of life event by your real time actions and deeds, not your political position.


----------



## Bjorn

127.72 MHz said:


> Who is "We?" Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
> 
> In case you missed a clear point I have stated that I believe abortion should remain legal in the U.S.. But that does not mean I have license to flippantly poke fun of those who greeve for the ignorance of millions of poor women who utilize free or nearly free abortion services asna means of birth control.
> 
> You have trivialized the loss of life event by your real time actions and deeds, not your political position.


They don't grieve for ignorance, they think they should decide. And I'll poke fun at that because I think it's dishonest to claim being pro life. It isn't your life. It's anti-choice. It's anti-women's choice. And it adversely affects those women who are weakest in society, most. You think they don't hurt enough by an abortion that they need *guys* sitting around judging them? It's just misogyny. Or religion. Pick one but get off the fence.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Again, I support legal abortion in the U.S.

In your mind people who oppose you are all misogynists or religious zealots. One or the other, no middle ground.

And me, someone who supports legal abortion but also feels it is a serious event not to be trivialized or made fun of,.....I am on the fence of either being a misogynist or a religious fanatic too.

Okay, run with it,...


----------



## Bjorn

127.72 MHz said:


> Again, I support legal abortion in the U.S.
> 
> In your mind people who oppose you are all misogynists or religious zealots.
> 
> And me, someone who supports legal abortion but also feels it is a serious event not to be trivialized or made fun of,.....I am on the fence of either being a misogynist or a religious fanatic too.
> 
> Okay, run with it,...


I don't think neither me nor Lucy made fun of 'abortion'.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## 127.72 MHz

You have trivialized abortion. That is precisely what you have done.

Look back at your "Boo Hoo" comment. Reflect. Look back at your comments, there is a plethora of examples throughout this thread.

It is not your political position that I oppose but your sarcastic attitude towards an event that results in the loss of human life.

Remember, those who oppose your position or attitude must either lack education or be religious zealots,....Right?


----------



## Tiger

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> A very vibrant discussion to say the least. I will make this my last post on this subject and then bow out.
> 
> I have been trained by my government how to use a weapon to take a human life. I hope I never need to pull that trigger, but I am fully prepared to do it if called on, without hesitation, but possibly with some remorse. For a thoughtful and reflective person, killing someone can be a heavy psychological burden to carry throughout life. I care deeply about this because I understand the cost first hand in a very non-abstract fashion. I have the proper training and the emotional strength to kill. This is a shadow, and a burden of responsibility, that follows me day and night.
> 
> I ponder the following questions in my brain on a regular basis.....
> 
> I wonder how many politicians would be eager to send our troops to war if it were their sons on the front line being burdened with determining who lives and who dies on a daily basis?
> 
> I wonder how many of those who appear almost gleeful in their support of abortion would be as enthusiastic if they were brought into a surgical suite, placed in front of a reluctant patient, donned with a surgical gown and then handed a suction hose and told to "Go get 'em son"?
> 
> How many of those who support capital punishment would queue up at a prison on the day of a scheduled execution eager to be the lucky person given the unique opportunity to administer the lethal injection?
> 
> Should we as citizens hide behind the skirts of the state and allow it to clinically and anonymously end human life as a form of societal retribution for a crime often committed decades prior?
> 
> My point is that stopping a beating heart is relatively easy to chat about in blogs and to support at the voting booth when that power is delegated to the state or an anonymous medical provider. However, when you are the one with the gun, scalpel, needle or switch in your hand, I can only hope that the idea of "sanctity of human life" might take on a bit more nuance.
> 
> I sincerely espouse a belief that all responsible adults, men and women, should take agency for their life using preemptive and thoughtful actions to improve the probability that they will have a meaningful and happy outcome. I suggest radical thinking like...don't smoke. Wear your seat belt. Use at least two forms of birth control. Get some exercise. Drink in moderation. Start saving money at an early age. Don't clean a loaded gun. Choose good friends. Don't marry the first woman you sleep with....
> 
> To close the door on this, I have established friendships with and loved dozens of responsible women who are willing and eager to discuss how they take responsibility for their reproductive heath through thoughtful use of birth control. However, I have never personally met a single one who was eager to volunteer that they had an abortion. Not a single one. Never. Ever.
> 
> I mentioned at the opening that if I were ever called on to take a human life, I would most likely feel remorse. I propose that it is possible that there is a invisible river of remorse flowing through the hearts of millions in our society and that should make any thoughtful and reflective person sad.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


Superb post...thank you!


----------



## Tiger

Bjorn said:


> Are we afraid of the me too-movement as well? Is sexual harassment in the bill of rights?
> 
> Being pro choice is not trivializing. Removing the choice from the woman is.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Why should a woman have any more choice than a man re: pregnancy, when both play a role in conception?


----------



## FLMike

127.72 MHz said:


> ...... you have been insensitive and plainly rude.


This is funny. For the record, I fall squarely on the pro-life and pro-right to bear arms side of the debates in this thread. But, I've seen only one participant in the thread resort to repeated name-calling and sarcastic personal attacks.....and while shouting in bold font, no less. (Hint: it's not Bjorn or Luci.)


----------



## 127.72 MHz

And of course you have no ax to gride either right Mike?

Hint: That was rhetorical.

Shouting is capitols, bold is for emphasis hot shot.


----------



## Bjorn

127.72 MHz said:


> You have trivialized abortion.
> 
> Look back at your "Boo Hoo" comment. Reflect.
> 
> It is not your political position that I oppose but your sarcastic attitude towards an event that results in the loss of human life.
> 
> That is precisely what you have done.


That's not abortion. That's a boo-hoo at pro life. They don't own the issue. The woman does.

If you went over the posts above and came up with me being insensitive to sensibility and fact, then that's odd at best.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Bjorn

Tiger said:


> Why should a woman have any more choice than a man re: pregnancy, when both play a role in conception?


Because it's her body.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Bjorn said:


> That's not abortion. That's a boo-hoo at pro life. They don't own the issue. The woman does.
> 
> If you went over the posts above and came up with me being insensitive to sensibility and fact, then that's odd at best.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Right, keep telling yourself that.


----------



## Dhaller

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> My good friend, a retired Green Beret Lt.C. swears by the Glock. Since his life depended on it, I will take his word for it.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


Well, the operator types all EDC the Glock 43 nowadays because they were issued Glock 19s in active duty (and there is wisdom in sticking with a design ethos as you change guns over the years).

I recall a funny moment with five former CIA contractors all doing an EDC pocket dump. They had different specific backgrounds (couple of SEALs, a Ranger, etc) but all spec ops guys, and they ALL carried a Glock 43... so it's definitely the carry of choice for folks accustomed to Glocks.

And in fairness, I've mostly shot Glocks, so I'll probably stick with the brand. I plan on going to the range to compare a few next week.

DH


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

Dhaller said:


> Well, the operator types all EDC the Glock 43 nowadays because they were issued Glock 19s in active duty (and there is wisdom in sticking with a design ethos as you change guns over the years).
> 
> I recall a funny moment with five former CIA contractors all doing an EDC pocket dump. They had different specific backgrounds (couple of SEALs, a Ranger, etc) but all spec ops guys, and they ALL carried a Glock 43... so it's definitely the carry of choice for folks accustomed to Glocks.
> 
> And in fairness, I've mostly shot Glocks, so I'll probably stick with the brand. I plan on going to the range to compare a few next week.
> 
> DH


My buddies said they could bury it on a Latin American beach, come back a year later, dig it up and fire away.

That is life saving reliability.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## FLMike

127.72 MHz said:


> And of course you have no ax to gride either right Mike?
> 
> Hint: That was rhetorical.
> 
> Shouting is capitols, bold is for emphasis hot shot.


More name calling.....


----------



## Bjorn

Dhaller said:


> Well, the operator types all EDC the Glock 43 nowadays because they were issued Glock 19s in active duty (and there is wisdom in sticking with a design ethos as you change guns over the years).
> 
> I recall a funny moment with five former CIA contractors all doing an EDC pocket dump. They had different specific backgrounds (couple of SEALs, a Ranger, etc) but all spec ops guys, and they ALL carried a Glock 43... so it's definitely the carry of choice for folks accustomed to Glocks.
> 
> And in fairness, I've mostly shot Glocks, so I'll probably stick with the brand. I plan on going to the range to compare a few next week.
> 
> DH


If you shoot military style, fast at 10 yards max, and like the idea of using the cheapest option that was purchased by an army committee, with tolerances for allowing plenty of dirt inside the mechanism to avoid failures, then go Glock. But it's a pure handicap for sports shooting. IMO.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## 127.72 MHz

FLMike said:


> More name calling.....


If you call hot shot "Name calling" then please accept my apologies.


----------



## Bjorn

FLMike said:


> More name calling.....


At least you're hot. I'm no better than a commy, apparently.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Bjorn said:


> If you shoot military style, fast at 10 yards max, and like the idea of using the cheapest option that was purchased by an army committee, with tolerances for allowing plenty of dirt inside the mechanism to avoid failures, then go Glock. But it's a pure handicap for sports shooting. IMO.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Lot's of competors in my area who compete in IDPA matches do quite well with Glocks. 
The Professionals with factory sponsors, well they shoot custom creations anyway.


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Bjorn said:


> At least you're hot. I'm no better than a commy, apparently.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Again, assumption and presumptions,....


----------



## Bjorn

127.72 MHz said:


> Lot's of competors in my area who compete in IDPA matches do quite well with Glocks.
> The Professionals with factory sponsors, well they shoot custom creations anyway.


Too much money goes into making that trigger ok. Almost anything's better than factory Glock. There's CZ, Sig, Pardini.

I'm sure there's great guns from American makers like Kimber as well.

I just don't see the point of choosing Glock.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## FLMike

Dhaller said:


> I recall a funny moment with five former CIA contractors all doing an EDC pocket dump. They had different specific backgrounds (couple of SEALs, a Ranger, etc) but all spec ops guys, and they ALL carried a Glock 43... so it's definitely the carry of choice for folks accustomed to Glocks.
> DH


This was within the past three years?


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Bjorn said:


> Too much money goes into making that trigger ok. Almost anything's better than factory Glock. There's CZ, Sig, Pardini.
> 
> I'm sure there's great guns from American makers like Kimber as well.
> 
> I just don't see the point of choosing Glock.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


The point of choosing Glock. Posted previously in this thread.

I believe the trigger breaking differently on a Glock is overplayed. Yes, if one is looking for a custom pistol with a trigger that breaks super crisp, in short, a several thousand dollar pistol then a box stock Glock is not for you. Making a glock trigger break that way is challenging, but Les Baer and other custom makers have to go to great lengths to have triggers set up for competition.

While I love tradition such as a BHP and 1911's, the Glock 17 began to change my tune. (Actually started with a semi-rare 17L, (long slide) ) Then about 12k rounds through a G19 police buy back changed my view forever. The fact that so many manufactures have imulated Glock is another testament to their design.

I have never tried the subcompacts, a 19 stores easily enough for me. Single stacks? Thin is cool but capacity trumps it for me. (And the fact that I can still, just barely, palm a basketball)
Smith J frames, includiing the 642, have proven themselves since the 50's. No jamming with a wheel gun.

*** *This post is not an admission of me owning or having possession of any firearms. Many shooting ranges have loaner firearms and it is entirely plausable that this is where I have enjoyed the shooting sports.
The post was purely for discussion purposes. Any meaning drawn from the post is the sole responsibility of the reader.*


----------



## Bjorn

127.72 MHz said:


> The point of choosing Glock. Posted previously in this thread.
> 
> While I love tradition such as a BHP and 1911's, the Glock 17 began to change my tune. (Actually started with a semi-rare 17L, (long slide) ) Then about 12k rounds through a G19 police buy back changed my view forever. The fact that so many manufactures have imulated Glock is another testament to their design.
> 
> I have never tried the subcompacts, a 19 stores easily enough for me. Single stacks? Thin is cool but capacity trumps it for me. (And the fact that I can still, just barely, palm a basketball)
> Smith J frames, includiing the 642, have proven themselves since the 50's. No jamming with a wheel gun.
> 
> *** *This post is not an admission of me owning or having possession of any firearms. Many shooting ranges have loaner firearms and it is entirely plausable that this is where I have enjoyed the shooting sports.
> The post was purely for discussion purposes. Any meaning drawn from the post is the sole responsibility of the reader.*


Tried for example a Sig X-line?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Shot a pal's 226. Yes, it is a dream.


----------



## Shaver

FLMike said:


> This is funny. For the record, I fall squarely on the pro-life and pro-right to bear arms side of the debates in this thread. But, I've seen only one participant in the thread resort to repeated name-calling and sarcastic personal attacks.....and while shouting in bold font, no less. (Hint: it's not Bjorn or Luci.)


I love you Mike, you know that I do, but if you believe that there are no other participants in this thread guilty of repeated name calling and personal attacks then I am obliged to question your judgement.


----------



## Shaver

The following account of D&E is part of sworn testimony given in US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (Madison, WI, May 27, 1999, Case No. 98-C-0305-S), by Dr. Martin Haskell, an abortionist:

"And typically when the abortion procedure is started we typically know that the fetus is still alive because either we can feel it move as we're making our initial grasps or if we're using some ultrasound visualization when we actually see a heartbeat as we're starting the procedure. It's not unusual at the start of D&E procedures that a limb is acquired first and that that limb is brought through the cervix and even out of the vagina prior to disarticulation and prior to anything having been done that would have caused the fetal demise up to that point."

"When you're doing a dismemberment D&E, usually the last part to be removed is the skull itself and it's floating free inside the uterine cavity…So it's rather like a ping-pong ball floating around and the surgeon is using his forcep to reach up to try to grasp something that's freely floating around and is quite large relative to the forcep we're using. So typically there's several misdirections, misattempts to grasp. Finally at some point either the instruments are managed to be place around the skull or a nip is made out of some area of the skull that allows it to start to decompress. And then once that happens typically the skull is brought out in fragments rather than as a unified piece…"

TL: DR - baby dismembered piece by piece, whilst still alive.

We who oppose this include women. How then are we misogynysts?


----------



## FLMike

Shaver said:


> I love you Mike, you know that I do, but if you believe that there are no other participants in this thread guilty of repeated name calling and personal attacks then I am obliged to question your judgement.


Oh yeah, I think someone called you misogynist. Not sure if it was the noun or adjective form, though.


----------



## Bjorn

Shaver said:


> The following account of D&E is part of sworn testimony given in US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (Madison, WI, May 27, 1999, Case No. 98-C-0305-S), by Dr. Martin Haskell, an abortionist:
> 
> "And typically when the abortion procedure is started we typically know that the fetus is still alive because either we can feel it move as we're making our initial grasps or if we're using some ultrasound visualization when we actually see a heartbeat as we're starting the procedure. It's not unusual at the start of D&E procedures that a limb is acquired first and that that limb is brought through the cervix and even out of the vagina prior to disarticulation and prior to anything having been done that would have caused the fetal demise up to that point."
> 
> "When you're doing a dismemberment D&E, usually the last part to be removed is the skull itself and it's floating free inside the uterine cavity&#8230;So it's rather like a ping-pong ball floating around and the surgeon is using his forcep to reach up to try to grasp something that's freely floating around and is quite large relative to the forcep we're using. So typically there's several misdirections, misattempts to grasp. Finally at some point either the instruments are managed to be place around the skull or a nip is made out of some area of the skull that allows it to start to decompress. And then once that happens typically the skull is brought out in fragments rather than as a unified piece&#8230;"
> 
> We who oppose this include women. How then are we misogynysts?


I am aware of the contents of the procedure. That's not an argument in itself.

The last part of your statement I don't really follow. How does women being pro-life affect pro-life arguments being essentially misogynistic? That's basically like saying nothing you say can be racist because you have a colored friend... ?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Bjorn

https://www.google.se/amp/www.indep...atriz-hern-ndez-cruz-prison-a7827891.html?amp

Activists say the sentence is simply the latest in a series of cases in which women are sent to jail, frequently for 30 or 40 years, after suffering miscarriages. Lawyers for the teenager are to file an appeal.

Some countries are such shitholes.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Shaver

Bjorn said:


> I am aware of the contents of the procedure. That's not an argument in itself.
> 
> The last part of your statement I don't really follow. How does women being pro-life affect pro-life arguments being essentially misogynistic? That's basically like saying nothing you say can be racist because you have a colored friend... ?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


And there we have it a precis- the incoherent nonsense required to subscribe to this position


----------



## Shaver

FLMike said:


> Oh yeah, I think someone called you misogynist. Not sure if it was the noun or adjective form, though.


Ok. You are clearly a busy man who doubtless has not had opportunity to read every post this week. I'll overlook it on this occasion.


----------



## Tiger

Bjorn said:


> Because it's her body.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Actually, it's the unborn child's body. A woman (or man) has the right to do what they wish to their own bodies, _but not to someone else's body_.

But I ask you and Lucido to ponder these scenarios: Assume a man and woman have a sexual encounter, and pregnancy occurs. If the woman wishes to abort, but the man wants to have the child, I assume you believe the "choice" rests with the woman, i.e., the man has no "choice." However, if the man wants to abort, but the woman wants the child, I assume you still believe the "choice" rests with the woman, and again, the man not only has no "choice" in the matter, but he may be held legally/financially responsible for the child (I'll assume that the two of you are now prepared to call the baby - once it's born - a child, and cease the definitional distortions).

If those are indeed your positions, please cease calling yourselves "pro-choice" and for "reproductive freedom." You clearly don't believe that everyone involved has a choice or freedom in the matter; in fact, you only want one of the three humans to have such rights.


----------



## Bjorn

I suppose there comes a time to look at what one thinks and verify that one still has a reasoned basis for it, and then either own up to being wrong or continue to press the idea on the basis of habit. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Shaver

Bjorn said:


> I suppose there comes a time to look at what one thinks and verify that one still has a reasoned basis for it, and then either own up to being wrong or continue to press the idea on the basis of habit.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Why Bjorn, are you on the verge of acknowledging reason? I will be extraordinarily impressed if you concede your previous error.


----------



## Bjorn

Tiger said:


> Actually, it's the unborn child's body. A woman (or man) has the right to do what they wish to their own bodies, _but not to someone else's body_.
> 
> But I ask you and Lucido to ponder these scenarios: Assume a man and woman have a sexual encounter, and pregnancy occurs. If the woman wishes to abort, but the man wants to have the child, I assume you believe the "choice" rests with the woman, i.e., the man has no "choice." However, if the man wants to abort, but the woman wants the child, I assume you still believe the "choice" rests with the woman, and again, the man not only has no "choice" in the matter, but he may be held legally/financially responsible for the child (I'll assume that the two of you are now prepared to call the baby - once it's born - a child, and cease the definitional distortions).
> 
> If those are indeed your positions, please cease calling yourselves "pro-choice" and for "reproductive freedom." You clearly don't believe that everyone involved has a choice or freedom in the matter; in fact, you only want one of the three humans to have such rights.


IMO, as well as most reasoned medical expertise, a fetus does not constitute a human being (yet). So no, that choice lies with the woman. I do realize this is a point of contention, and no easy correct time frame can be reached. I am prepared to accept the time frame set by the law in most jurisdictions.

As for the man, he should have no further legal say in the matter after ejaculation. Anyone moaning over THAT point, prepare to ridiculed. Because that's a ridiculous point. Those laws exist to make sure the father contributes financially to provide for his child. All those against may line up for "Deadbeat" t-shirts. And cargo shorts.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Tiger

Bjorn said:


> I am aware of the contents of the procedure. That's not an argument in itself...


If the entity being aborted is indeed human (and Shaver's post quoting Dr. Haskell can't be viewed any other way by intelligent and civilized people), then all those abortion supporters on this thread are clearly in support of infanticide (and Lucido enthusiastically so; he may wish to spend less time worried about orifices and more on the logic and implications of his position on abortion).

I ask all of you: If infanticide is indeed acceptable, up to what age can we kill children with impunity? Pre-school? Puberty? Or, in keeping with the original topic of this thread, until they're old enough to legally acquire a Glock and defend themselves?


----------



## vpkozel

Tiger said:


> Actually, it's the unborn child's body. A woman (or man) has the right to do what they wish to their own bodies, _but not to someone else's body_.


You beat me to it.

Look, the bottom line is this. If you truly believe that aborting a baby is OK at any point, then you really have no leg to stand on, because no one would consider it humane to abort a baby a day before it is born.

If you are pro choice, and don't believe the above, then you must have an arbitrary line at which you are comfortable getting rid of a human life. That is possibly defensible, except for the fact that technology is only going to push that time closer to conception - never will it move farther away.

Using this logic, there can be no doubt that you are supporting the killing of what will in the future be considered to be a human life. And much like the killing of "undesirables", enslavement of other humans, etc., you will be on the wrong side of history.

The bottom line is that a fetus becomes a human at some point, and call me crazy, but I think it prudent to err on the side of caution.


----------



## Tiger

Bjorn said:


> IMO, as well as most reasoned medical expertise, a fetus does not constitute a human being (yet). So no, that choice lies with the woman. I do realize this is a point of contention, and no easy correct time frame can be reached. I am prepared to accept the time frame set by the law in most jurisdictions.
> 
> As for the man, he should have no further legal say in the matter after ejaculation. Anyone moaning over THAT point, prepare to ridiculed. Because that's a ridiculous point. Those laws exist to make sure the father contributes financially to provide for his child. All those against may line up for "Deadbeat" t-shirts. And cargo shorts.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Medical expertise is _certainly not on your side_. In the United States, abortions can take place in the third trimester - are you in agreement with that? Isn't that murder? How could it not be?

You may attempt to ridicule as you wish, however you of course completely dodged the issues I raised. Not a surprise, although I am heartened by the fact that you referred to "support for his (the father's) _child_."

Perhaps we're making progress?


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Bjorn said:


> IMO, as well as most reasoned medical expertise, a fetus does not constitute a human being (yet). So no, that choice lies with the woman. I do realize this is a point of contention, and no easy correct time frame can be reached. I am prepared to accept the time frame set by the law in most jurisdictions.
> 
> As for the man, he should have no further legal say in the matter after ejaculation. Anyone moaning over THAT point, prepare to ridiculed. Because that's a ridiculous point. Those laws exist to make sure the father contributes financially to provide for his child. All those against may line up for "Deadbeat" t-shirts. And cargo shorts.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


You opinion is fine.

But when you state that "Most reasoned medical expertise" is in agreement that a "fetus does not constitute a huamn being," you are incorrect.

You can not point to a simple majority of medical practitioners who agree with this position.

Then you start with "Law" and "Most jurisdictions." Law and most jurisditions have no credentialed background to make any such determinations in the bological sciences, period.

Replying on this as an argument to rationalize the ending of a human life is sheer ignorance.


----------



## Bjorn

Tiger said:


> If the entity being aborted is indeed human (and Shaver's post quoting Dr. Haskell can't be viewed any other way by intelligent and civilized people), then all those abortion supporters on this thread are clearly in support of infanticide (and Lucido enthusiastically so; he may wish to spend less time worried about orifices and more on the logic and implications of his position on abortion).
> 
> I ask all of you: If infanticide is indeed acceptable, up to what age can we kill children with impunity? Pre-school? Puberty? Or, in keeping with the original topic of this thread, until they're old enough to legally acquire a Glock and defend themselves?


I think that post can be viewed many other ways. It's not an argument, it's sentiment. You think you could do a doctorate at an actual university on the correct time of a fetus is to be considered a human being based in part on the writings Shaver quoted? Or would you be tossed out due to not fulfilling any basic premise of valid scientific argument? My moneys on out.

Do you consider your sperm little human beings? Or is actual conception necessary? Is it human when it reaches the egg? Or later? How late? 6 weeks? 18?

Lucy did not bring the orifices into play. Nor the unions, the downfall of western civilization due to sodomy and abortion, climate change being fake, nor the need to beat children to make them better citizens.

Lucy also stated an opinion, and gave his reasons for them. As did I. I am comfortable in the company of Lucy. Do you agree with your cohorts?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## vpkozel

Just a quick question for all of you pro-choice folks. If a woman can choose to end a life with no judgement, shouldn't she also be able to stay in an abusive relationship with no judgement or intervention?


----------



## SG_67

Bjorn said:


> I think that post can be viewed many other ways. It's not an argument, it's sentiment. You think you could do a doctorate at an actual university on the correct time of a fetus is to be considered a human being based in part on the writings Shaver quoted? Or would you be tossed out due to not fulfilling any basic premise of valid scientific argument? My moneys on out.
> 
> Do you consider your sperm little human beings? Or is actual conception necessary? Is it human when it reaches the egg? Or later? How late? 6 weeks? 18?
> 
> Lucy did not bring the orifices into play. Nor the unions, the downfall of western civilization due to sodomy and abortion, climate change being fake, nor the need to beat children to make them better citizens.
> 
> Lucy also stated an opinion, and gave his reasons for them. As did I. I am comfortable in the company of Lucy. Do you agree with your cohorts?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


The sperm fertilizes the egg and a zygote forms. What is that thing? Is it just a clump if cells? Is it biologically unique in any way?


----------



## Bjorn

127.72 MHz said:


> You opinion is fine.
> 
> But when you state that "Most reasoned medical expertise" is in agreement that a "fetus does not constitute a huamn being," you are incorrect.
> 
> You can not point to a simple majority of medical practitioners who agree with this position.
> 
> Then you start with "Law" and "Most jurisdictions." Law and most jurisditions have no credentialed background to make any such determinations in the bological sciences, period.
> 
> Replying on this as an argument to rationalize the ending of a human life is sheer ignorance.


Do you then believe that legislators arrive at these time periods on their own, with no science to back them up? Because they don't. That's an obvious.

I don't consider medical practitioners expertise, but I do consider the research backing for example the Swedish time periods 'expertise'.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Bjorn

vpkozel said:


> Just a quick question for all of you pro-choice folks. If a woman can choose to end a life with no judgement, shouldn't she also be able to stay in an abusive relationship with no judgement or intervention?


Abuse, as in assault or battery is a crime listed under crimes against life and health in most countries, and thus is not subject to the assaulted party's consent to be prosecuted. It's deemed sufficiently important for society at whole to fall under the right of the state to prosecute.

So an assaulted woman may indeed chose to remain in a relationship with a man who beats her, but the man will be prosecuted by the state anyway.

The reasons for this is clear. As is the right of a women to her own body.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Bjorn said:


> Do you then believe that legislators arrive at these time periods on their own, with no science to back them up? Because they don't. That's an obvious.
> 
> I don't consider medical practitioners expertise, but I do consider the research backing for example the Swedish time periods 'expertise'.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Yet when one can go to another country and get a different answer from other juiorists I believe it leaves much to be questioned.

When I can diagnose a cardiac defect in a fetus while looking at something that appears precisely like a human being, that is close enough for me.


----------



## Bjorn

SG_67 said:


> The sperm fertilizes the egg and a zygote forms. What is that thing? Is it just a clump if cells? Is it biologically unique in any way?


That was my question to tiger.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Shaver

Bjorn said:


> I think that post can be viewed many other ways. It's not an argument, it's sentiment. You think you could do a doctorate at an actual university on the correct time of a fetus is to be considered a human being based in part on the writings Shaver quoted? Or would you be tossed out due to not fulfilling any basic premise of valid scientific argument? My moneys on out.
> 
> Do you consider your sperm little human beings? Or is actual conception necessary? Is it human when it reaches the egg? Or later? How late? 6 weeks? 18?
> 
> Lucy did not bring the orifices into play. Nor the unions, the downfall of western civilization due to sodomy and abortion, climate change being fake, nor the need to beat children to make them better citizens.
> 
> Lucy also stated an opinion, and gave his reasons for them. As did I. I am comfortable in the company of Lucy. Do you agree with your cohorts?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


To the best of our knowledge Lucy is the only one of our number who ran to Andy requesting that opinions he disliked be subject to investigation.

That's feeble.


----------



## Bjorn

127.72 MHz said:


> Yet when one can go to another country and get a different answer from other juiorists I believe it much to be questioned.
> 
> When I can diagnose a cardiac defect in a fetus while looking at something that looks precisely like a human being, that is close enough for me.


I understand your sentiment, but that's what it is. If some jurisdiction stated that at conception, no abortion can be legal, I take exception to that. If a jurisdiction stated that an 9 month old baby was ok to abort since it had not itself exited the womb, I take exception to that. A reasonable time must be chosen, both other extremes are clearly indefensible unless one relies on metaphysics rather than science.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Tiger

Bjorn said:


> I think that post can be viewed many other ways. It's not an argument, it's sentiment. You think you could do a doctorate at an actual university on the correct time of a fetus is to be considered a human being based in part on the writings Shaver quoted? Or would you be tossed out due to not fulfilling any basic premise of valid scientific argument? My moneys on out.
> 
> Do you consider your sperm little human beings? Or is actual conception necessary? Is it human when it reaches the egg? Or later? How late? 6 weeks? 18?
> 
> Lucy did not bring the orifices into play. Nor the unions, the downfall of western civilization due to sodomy and abortion, climate change being fake, nor the need to beat children to make them better citizens.
> 
> Lucy also stated an opinion, and gave his reasons for them. As did I. I am comfortable in the company of Lucy. Do you agree with your cohorts?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


For those of you supporting abortion, the onus is on you to determine when the unborn "entity" becomes human. From what it appears, some believe that the "right" to abort should not be restricted in any way. If so, then at some point, you are supporting murder of an unborn child. It can't be any other way, and verbal manipulations can't conceal this brutality.

If medical science determined that life began at the start of the second trimester of the gestation period, would you then restrict a woman's "right to choose" to the first trimester? Please advise.

The "orifice" line was a bit of sarcasm; it would be appreciated if you stayed on topic. As for my beliefs, do you really think I have not been lucid (as distinct from "Lucido")? Hope that wasn't too caustic for the delicate sensibilities you've displayed!


----------



## SG_67

Bjorn said:


> That was my question to tiger.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I supose I should just lay my cards on the table.

I'm actually pro choice. Not because of any other reason than that we live in a republic and this is a matter of controversy and disagreement amongst lawmakers. My bias is always more toward the liberty of he individual. This makes me pro choice.

It does not mean, however, that the woman is absolved of moral responsibility and if she goes through with an abortion, she has killed anothe human being.

So I will give you your position if you simply admit that abortion is the killing of life.


----------



## vpkozel

Bjorn said:


> Abuse, as in assault or battery is a crime listed under crimes against life and health in most countries, and thus is not subject to the assaulted party's consent to be prosecuted. It's deemed sufficiently important for society at whole to fall under the right of the state to prosecute.
> 
> So an assaulted woman may indeed chose to remain in a relationship with a man who beats her, but the man will be prosecuted by the state anyway.
> 
> The reasons for this is clear. As is the right of a women to her own body.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


But it is her choice to stay and let her body be treated that way. Who are YOU to say differently?


----------



## Shaver

Lucido said:


> Shaver, you've crawled out from under your rock I see?
> 
> I'm disappointed by your failure to stand behind the vile post that I reported to the moderation team.
> 
> I have *repeatedly *explained that I have not reported the post due to your pro-life stance.
> 
> I reported your post because:
> 
> - You referred to women as 'lazy' and 'stupid' for not taking birth control
> - You made the disgusting suggestion that women should 'utilise other orifices' to avoid a pregnancy.
> 
> Are you going to offer an explanation or continue with the childish ad hominems, side-stepping, mental gymnastics and carpering from the sidelines?


Shhh.

I know you crave attention but PM if you wish to converse.


----------



## Bjorn

Tiger said:


> For those of you supporting abortion, the onus is on you to determine when the unborn "entity" becomes human. From what it appears, some believe that the "right" to abort should not be restricted in any way. If so, then at some point, you are supporting murder of an unborn child. It can't be any other way, and verbal manipulations can't conceal this brutality.
> 
> If medical science determined that life began at the start of the second trimester of the gestation period, would you then restrict a woman's "right to choose" to the first trimester? Please advise.
> 
> The "orifice" line was a bit of sarcasm; it would be appreciated if you stayed on topic. As for my beliefs, do you really think I have not been lucid (as distinct from "Lucido")? Hope that wasn't too caustic for the delicate sensibilities you've displayed!


Why is that onus distributed to us? Aren't you required to voice an opinion on when a fetus becomes a human being to support your position?

I have never seen the argument made that abortion rights should have no limitations in time, are you sure that arguments actually been made? I've never seen that. Sounds bogus to me...

If we (legislators) moved the time period to 8 or 12 weeks due to actual research and not the opinions of various frauds and western-style Mullahs, then yes, I would most certainly respect that.

What sentence do you propose for a rape victim who gets an abortion in the second trimester in a state subscribing to your interpretation of the world? Prison? A large fine? Please advice.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Shaver

Lucido said:


> Stand behind your post Shaver, and do so in the same arena where you made it.
> 
> Publicly.
> 
> Or I'll give you another out - remove/delete your post, admit that it was a vile thing to say and we can keep discussing the topic at hand like adults.


Shhh! There's a good lad.

PM.


----------



## Bjorn

vpkozel said:


> But it is her choice to stay and let her body be treated that way. Who are YOU to say differently?


And there is indeed no law prohibiting her to stay, nor any possible legal recourse for me to stop her unless she was deemed not in her right mind by a court of law. What's your point?

She is indeed free to stay with hubby. She just can't keep hubby out of jail, because he committed a crime. ?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Shaver

Lucido said:


> Not a chance.
> 
> You made the post publicly and _should_ be perfectly capable of defending it the same way.
> 
> That's your MO though, isn't it? Make a disgusting remark, see if you can get away with it and claim to be misunderstood the moment someone pulls you up. Not the first time I've seen you do it I'm afraid.
> 
> If you can't offer a mitigating explanation then I suggest that you delete the post entirely.
> 
> You can drop the condescension by the way. We're all adults here.


Shhhh!

PM.


----------



## vpkozel

Bjorn said:


> And there is indeed no law prohibiting her to stay, nor any possible legal recourse for me to stop her unless she was deemed not in her right mind by a court of law. What's your point?
> 
> She is indeed free to stay with hubby. She just can't keep hubby out of jail, because he committed a crime. ?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Why should it be a crime if she allows it? That's the point.

Who are YOU to tell a woman what is and is not allowed with her body?


----------



## Bjorn

SG_67 said:


> It does not mean, however, that the woman is absolved of moral responsibility and if she goes through with an abortion, she has killed anothe human being.
> 
> So I will give you your position if you simply admit that abortion is the killing of life.


I can't really say that all abortions are the taking of human life, unless it's the taking of 'potential' human life. I dislike that avenue of thought.

Where does that logically end?

As anyone who has co-experienced a miscarriage can tell you, the losing of potential life can be very hurtful and sad and horrible, but that is no reason to disenfranchise women.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## vpkozel

Bjorn said:


> I can't really say that all abortions are the taking of human life, unless it's the taking of 'potential' human life. I dislike that avenue of thought.
> 
> Where does that logically end?
> 
> As anyone who has co-experienced a miscarriage can tell you, the losing of potential life can be very hurtful and sad and horrible, but that is no reason to disenfranchise women.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Why would it be hurtful, sad, and horrible? It's just a collection of meanigless cells to be discarded at the owner's whim.

Edit - well, life can begin no earlier than conception. That is a fact.


----------



## vpkozel

Lucido said:


> It's not going to happen Shaver. Your silly diversions and attempts to shut down the conversation are not going to work.
> 
> Let it be public record that you can't or won't offer a mitigating explanation for your post.
> 
> Your posting paints you as a misogynistic troll, a petty name-caller, a woeful debater and all things considered a thoroughly unpleasant human being.


But notably, not a tattletale.


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Lucido said:


> Stand behind your post Shaver, and do so in the same arena where you made it.
> 
> Publicly. On the thread.
> 
> Or I'll give you another out - remove/delete your post, admit that it was a vile thing to say and we can keep discussing the topic at hand like adults.


You have not discussed the issue like an adult. Shaver took *your* offensiveness to a
level that *you* found distasteful, quite a feat given your posts, and you sought relief from a moderator.


----------



## Shaver

Lucido said:


> It's not going to happen Shaver. Your silly diversions and attempts to shut down the conversation are not going to work.
> 
> Let it be public record that you can't or won't offer a mitigating explanation for your post.
> 
> Your posting paints you as a misogynistic troll, a petty name-caller, a woeful debater and all things considered a thoroughly unpleasant human being.


Slow learner, eh?

Shhhhhh.


----------



## Tiger

Bjorn said:


> Why is that onus distributed to us? Aren't you required to voice an opinion on when a fetus becomes a human being to support your position?
> 
> I have never seen the argument made that abortion rights should have no limitations in time, are you sure that arguments actually been made? I've never seen that. Sounds bogus to me...
> 
> If we (legislators) moved the time period to 8 or 12 weeks due to actual research and not the opinions of various frauds and western-style Mullahs, then yes, I would most certainly respect that.
> 
> What sentence do you propose for a rape victim who gets an abortion in the second trimester in a state subscribing to your interpretation of the world? Prison? A large fine? Please advice.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I assume most of the pro-life posters (or "anti-abortion," if you prefer) believe life begins at inception. As many have noted, advances in medical science certainly skew much further in that direction than in the other.

There are many people - and I'm pretty certain Lucido is one - that believes the "right" to abortion should not be restricted in any way. (Perhaps he can remind us of his position.) Far from bogus, this is the position of most pro-abortion people in the U.S. - Sweden may differ.

Would it be a reasonable compromise to allow for abortion only in the case of rape, incest, or the life of the mother? That would probably do away with about 98% of all abortions.


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Bjorn said:


> I can't really say that all abortions are the taking of human life, unless it's the taking of 'potential' human life. I dislike that avenue of thought.
> 
> Where does that logically end?
> 
> As anyone who has co-experienced a miscarriage can tell you, the losing of potential life can be very hurtful and sad and horrible, but that is no reason to disenfranchise women.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Thank goodness that you do not like *something* about the process.


----------



## Tiger

Bjorn said:


> I can't really say that all abortions are the taking of human life, unless it's the taking of 'potential' human life. I dislike that avenue of thought.
> 
> Where does that logically end?
> 
> As anyone who has co-experienced a miscarriage can tell you, the losing of potential life can be very hurtful and sad and horrible, but that is no reason to disenfranchise women.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


A monument to illogic, distortion, and desecration of language. This is the type of "thought" that makes spending time in this thread futile...


----------



## Shaver

Lucido said:


> Like I said, the record preserves both your odious post and your subsequent inability to defend it
> 
> Is this the first time on this forum that someone has pulled you up on your disgusting world view?


Shhh.

PM.


----------



## 127.72 MHz

↑
But notably, not a tattletale.



Lucido said:


> Ugh. What are you, eight years old?


He does have a point,....About you not being able to stand the heat.


----------



## Bjorn

Tiger said:


> A monument to illogic, distortion, and desecration of language. This is the type of "thought" that makes spending time in this thread futile...


It would be really helpful if you actually made an argument rather than unsupported general statements.

Desecration of language?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Bjorn

Tiger said:


> There are many people - and I'm pretty certain Lucido is one - that believes the "right" to abortion should not be restricted in any way. (Perhaps he can remind us of his position.) Far from bogus, this is the position of most pro-abortion people in the U.S. - Sweden may differ.
> 
> Would it be a reasonable compromise to allow for abortion only in the case of rape, incest, or the life of the mother? That would probably do away with about 98% of all abortions.


I have seen exactly zero arguments that abortion rights should be extended all through pregnancy - again, you should produce someone making that statement.

Like I stated before, I'm ok with the right to abort ending at some point in time. Limiting it to certain cases, that still disenfranchises women. I don't support that. It also inviolates the basic premises of usual pro-life arguments, so there's no support for it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Tiger

Bjorn said:


> It would be really helpful if you actually made an argument rather than unsupported general statements.
> 
> Desecration of language?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I have, Bjorn. Even a cursory look at what I've written will display this. You, on the hand, have used legerdemain in both your justifications of your position and your willingness to misrepresent that of others.

You must be a politician...


----------



## Dhaller

Lucido said:


> It's not going to happen Shaver. Your silly diversions and attempts to shut down the conversation are not going to work.
> 
> Let it be public record that you can't or won't offer a mitigating explanation for your post.
> 
> Your posting paints you as a misogynistic troll, a petty name-caller, a woeful debater and all things considered a thoroughly unpleasant human being.


Please just block Shaver.

That's what I did, and AAAC is measurably better for me now.

Why he hasn't been banned - a clear and obvious troll, has never made a single actual useful post re. the purpose of the forum (clothing) - I cannot fathom, but he's here to stay. Just block him.

DH


----------



## Bjorn

Tiger said:


> I have, Bjorn. Even a cursory look at what I've written will display this. You, on the hand, have used legerdemain in both your justifications of your position and your willingness to misrepresent that of others.
> 
> You must be a politician...


What others position have I misrepresented? And remember, all the posts are available above. Including the really awkward ones.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Tiger

Bjorn said:


> I have seen exactly zero arguments that abortion rights should be extended all through pregnancy - again, you should produce someone making that statement.
> 
> Like I stated before, I'm ok with the right to abort ending at some point in time. Limiting it to certain cases, that still disenfranchises women. I don't support that. It also inviolates the basic premises of usual pro-life arguments, so there's no support for it.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


"Zero arguments"? Read your pal's response above, or come visit New York City.

I didn't realize that not being "disenfranchised" trumps human life. Of course, without the latter, the former is meaningless...


----------



## Tiger

Bjorn said:


> What others position have I misrepresented? And remember, all the posts are available above. Including the really awkward ones.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Mine, but I would rather not go down that path, for the sake of everyone else.


----------



## Dhaller

127.72 MHz said:


> Shot a pal's 226. Yes, it is a dream.


The 226 is my single favorite pistol. If I OCed that would be my carry, I think (that, or the H&K USP).

DH


----------



## Shaver

Dhaller said:


> Please just block Shaver.
> 
> That's what I did, and AAAC is measurably better for me now.
> 
> Why he hasn't been banned - a clear and obvious troll, has never made a single actual useful post re. the purpose of the forum (clothing) - I cannot fathom, but he's here to stay. Just block him.
> 
> DH


If you believe that I have never made a single useful post then you are in a minority. I am one of the most 'liked' members of our community and a member who has posted more images of himself and his attire than almost anyone else active currently.

We both know why you blocked me.


----------



## Tiger

Lucido said:


> Yep. Abortion on demand.
> 
> I dislike the argument that abortion should be available only in the case of rape or incest. If you happen to be pro-life and believe that a zygote is a life then surely it is not responsible for how it was conceived.
> 
> Makes for an an awfully hypocritical stance in my opinion.


You either do not know the meaning of the word "zygote" or you are so blinded by your abortion dogma that you believe a child in the second or third trimester is a zygote. Perhaps that helps to ease your conscience...


----------



## Bjorn

Tiger said:


> "Zero arguments"? Read your pal's response above, or come visit New York City.
> 
> I didn't realize that not being "disenfranchised" trumps human life. Of course, without the latter, the former is meaningless...


If the production of arguments in favor of abortion rights require me to go to NY city, that's a problem. But shouldn't they be available somewhere in example writing? On the internet perhaps.

And again, there's a time after conception when we haven't reached that point yet.

Has Lucy come out in favor of zero restrictions on abortion? Where?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## SG_67

Bjorn said:


> I can't really say that all abortions are the taking of human life, unless it's the taking of 'potential' human life. I dislike that avenue of thought.
> 
> Where does that logically end?
> 
> As anyone who has co-experienced a miscarriage can tell you, the losing of potential life can be very hurtful and sad and horrible, but that is no reason to disenfranchise women.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


So when does life begin, in your personal opinion?


----------



## Dhaller

Bjorn said:


> Too much money goes into making that trigger ok. Almost anything's better than factory Glock. There's CZ, Sig, Pardini.
> 
> I'm sure there's great guns from American makers like Kimber as well.
> 
> I just don't see the point of choosing Glock.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


They're just such workhorses.

Back when ammo was SO expensive, I put about 10 thousand rounds of crap ammo - Wolf, Blazer, just Russian junk rounds, etc - through my Glock 19, and it never missed a beat. No jams, nothing.

There's a reason Glock pistols are the subject of so many comically extreme stress tests: I've seen them thrown from airplanes (and recovered, firing reliably with no problem), buried for a year and then dug up and fired, etc. It's an end-of-the world gun, something Mad Max has tucked away.

So if you have ONE pistol, it should probably be a Glock, and if you have many, you should have at least one, though it will never be your favorite. That's my basic view, anyway.

DH


----------



## Bjorn

SG_67 said:


> So when does life begin, in your personal opinion?


In terms of abortion, I am ok with it being legal up to the end of the 18th week, as is where I live. That's not an answer to your question, but it kind of falls outside of the scope of this debate.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Bjorn

Dhaller said:


> They're just such workhorses.
> 
> Back when ammo was SO expensive, I put about 10 thousand rounds of crap ammo - Wolf, Blazer, just Russian junk rounds, etc - through my Glock 19, and it never missed a beat. No jams, nothing.
> 
> There's a reason Glock pistols are the subject of so many comically extreme stress tests: I've seen them thrown from airplanes (and recovered, firing reliably with no problem), buried for a year and then dug up and fired, etc. It's an end-of-the world gun, something Mad Max has tucked away.
> 
> So if you have ONE pistol, it should probably be a Glock, and if you have many, you should have at least one, though it will never be your favorite. That's my basic view, anyway.
> 
> DH


In Sweden, guns need to be locked up so well that id most likely never get to it to neutralize any threat in terms of home invasion. In sports shooting, 100% reliability is less needful than tight tolerances.

But I see your point.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Dhaller

Bjorn said:


> In Sweden, guns need to be locked up so well that id most likely never get to it to neutralize any threat in terms of home invasion. In sports shooting, 100% reliability is less needful than tight tolerances.
> 
> But I see your point.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Yes, sports shooting is an entirely different question, one for which a Glock is seldom the answer.

It's pretty hard to follow in this out-of-control thread, but my original discussion was about a gun for practical concealed carry.

My current daily carry is a Glock 19, but it's just too big - hence the original consideration was Glock 43 vs. Sig P938, both micro-compacts.

So sole purpose of the gun is to have it on hand to eliminate a human threat within 15 yards or so. No "sport shooting" here! 

DH


----------



## Tiger

Dhaller said:


> Please just block Shaver.
> 
> That's what I did, and AAAC is measurably better for me now.
> 
> Why he hasn't been banned - a clear and obvious troll, has never made a single actual useful post re. the purpose of the forum (clothing) - I cannot fathom, but he's here to stay. Just block him.
> 
> DH


That is both quite inaccurate and very unfair. You are free to block anyone you wish, but please don't distort a poster's record to justify your actions.


----------



## Dhaller

SG_67 said:


> So when does life begin, in your personal opinion?


I'm going to make one comment on this topic: "life" is a technical consideration, and not subject to opinion.

Without going into the science, life begins at conception, ie. you now have a viable, self-replicating proto-organism. It's not *human* (yet), but it's alive.

Founding a discussion of abortion on "what life is" or "when life begins" is the problem. Abortion is a procedure for practical reproduction management - that's all. There's plenty of evidence (mostly from the banning of abortion in Romania) that abortion is a useful procedure which produces net social good (in terms of indices such as crime statistics). For that reason, I certainly feel the procedure should be legal and available.

My two cents on an otherwise pointless-to-discuss issue.

DH


----------



## Tiger

Bjorn said:


> If the production of arguments in favor of abortion rights require me to go to NY city, that's a problem. But shouldn't they be available somewhere in example writing? On the internet perhaps.
> 
> And again, there's a time after conception when we haven't reached that point yet.
> 
> Has Lucy come out in favor of zero restrictions on abortion? Where?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


You are unaware of the ponderous number of abortionists who support a "right to choose" at any point of the pregnancy? I find this astonishing! Have you not heard of partial birth abortions? Late term abortions? That at one point in the U.S., abortion was legal in the third trimester, as long as the mother's "life," "health," or "emotional well-being" was being threatened?

You may wish to ask Lucy for his position on unfettered abortion, although he may be too busy haunting Shaver to respond...


----------



## Bjorn

Dhaller said:


> Yes, sports shooting is an entirely different question, one for which a Glock is seldom the answer.
> 
> It's pretty hard to follow in this out-of-control thread, but my original discussion was about a gun for practical concealed carry.
> 
> My current daily carry is a Glock 19, but it's just too big - hence the original consideration was Glock 43 vs. Sig P938, both micro-compacts.
> 
> So sole purpose of the gun is to have it on hand to eliminate a human threat within 15 yards or so. No "sport shooting" here!
> 
> DH


I'd consider the SIG superior, but if it's at that range then I could go with the Glock 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Bjorn

Tiger said:


> You are unaware of the ponderous number of abortionists who support a "right to choose" at any point of the pregnancy? I find this astonishing! Have you not heard of partial birth abortions? Late term abortions? That at one point in the U.S., abortion was legal in the third trimester, as long as the mother's "life," "health," or "emotional well-being" was being threatened?
> 
> You may wish to ask Lucy for his position on unfettered abortion, although he may be too busy haunting Shaver to respond...


Late term abortion is not generally available without sufficient cause where I live, so it's generally not performed unless there is severe problems with the foetus or a direct lethal health threat to the mother.

So that is not a right to choose at any point. Again, I would not argue for that.

Do you argue against late term abortion in cases of severe foetal anomaly or life endangerment? It's hard to tell.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## vpkozel

While I do not share Bjorn’s opinion on this topic, I do think that before we criticize anyone’s writing or jump to contextual conclusions that we remember that he and some other members are not writing in their native language. 

And I dare say that he is doing a better job than we would be if we were having this debate in Swedish....


----------



## Shaver

vpkozel said:


> While I do not share Bjorn's opinion on this topic, I do think that before we criticize anyone's writing or jump to contextual conclusions that we remember that he and some other members are not writing in their native language.
> 
> And I dare say that he is doing a better job than we would be if we were having this debate in Swedish....


Europeans are as fluent in the English language as most Americans - more so in many instances.



Edit: for the avoidance of doubt - this is absolutely not a comment on vp's ability, which we have evidence to indicate is exemplary.


----------



## SG_67

Bjorn said:


> In terms of abortion, I am ok with it being legal up to the end of the 18th week, as is where I live. That's not an answer to your question, but it kind of falls outside of the scope of this debate.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


How so? Don't worry about what the law says. Why 18 weeks? What happens after 18 weeks?

Citing the law is an intellectual cop out. We're talking about the essence of human life. Is the festus magically human at 19 weeks?


----------



## vpkozel

Shaver said:


> Europeans are as fluent in the English language as most Americans - more so in many instances.
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: for the avoidance of doubt - this is absolutely not a comment on vp's ability, which we have evidence to indicate is exemplary.


Um, thanks. I think 

I have lived in Europe and while I speak pretty fluent Czech - or at least did - and my French was decent, there is a very different level required for the written word. That is all I was trying to get across.


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Bjorn said:


> In terms of abortion, I am ok with it being legal up to the end of the 18th week, as is where I live. That's not an answer to your question, but it kind of falls outside of the scope of this debate.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


When a fetus becomes a human being has been central to virtually every moral and legal debate on the subject from day one.

It's one of your position's central issues to be rationalized away.

But what about outside of Sweden? Does your opinion change if a U.S. state has declared 22 or 24 weeks gestation still legal for abortion? Does your ethical opinion change depending on your geographic location?

https://www.whattoexpect.com/wom/pr...you-get-an-abortion-in-the-united-states.aspx

Viability outside the uterus has been a standard lawmakers have clung to for their guidance.

The saddest part of this issue has been clearly demonstrated in this thread. The most fervent partisans of abortion feel the need to trivialize a serious event just because some lawmaking body has made it legal. This means they will insult those who see the act itself as a very serious event. after all, the law is one their side, right?

Look back at Luci saying: "I don't care." when posed with the question of poor women using abortion as their means of birth control, over and over again. (And this is just one example.)

This is a sensitive issue and many of those who support abortion do so with a "In your face" style of rhetoric. I have wondered if these individual's moral compass is dictated by whatever the laws are where they live. From what I have seen here perhaps it is valid.


----------



## SG_67

Dhaller said:


> I'm going to make one comment on this topic: "life" is a technical consideration, and not subject to opinion.
> 
> Without going into the science, life begins at conception, ie. you now have a viable, self-replicating proto-organism. It's not *human* (yet), but it's alive.
> 
> Founding a discussion of abortion on "what life is" or "when life begins" is the problem. Abortion is a procedure for practical reproduction management - that's all. There's plenty of evidence (mostly from the banning of abortion in Romania) that abortion is a useful procedure which produces net social good (in terms of indices such as crime statistics). For that reason, I certainly feel the procedure should be legal and available.
> 
> My two cents on an otherwise pointless-to-discuss issue.
> 
> DH


I wonder how crime stats would be affected if we executed people for offenses as minor as public spitting?

The notion of a "net public good" makes no sense. There are many brutal and repressive ways to produce a net good. I suppose we have to ask what the definition of good may be.

Abortion is legal in Chicago yet we led the country in murders a few years ago.


----------



## FLMike

Dhaller said:


> I'm going to make one comment on this topic: "life" is a technical consideration, and not subject to opinion.
> 
> Without going into the science, life begins at conception, ie. you now have a viable, self-replicating proto-organism. It's not *human* (yet), but it's alive.
> 
> Founding a discussion of abortion on "what life is" or "when life begins" is the problem. Abortion is a procedure for practical reproduction management - that's all. There's plenty of evidence (mostly from the banning of abortion in Romania) that abortion is a useful procedure which produces net social good (in terms of indices such as crime statistics). For that reason, I certainly feel the procedure should be legal and available.
> 
> My two cents on an otherwise pointless-to-discuss issue.
> 
> DH


I'm still curious about the former CIA operator EDC pocket dump that produced all G43s. I'm intrigued since the model has only been out for less than three years. When did you witness this?


----------



## Dhaller

FLMike said:


> I'm still curious about the former CIA operator EDC pocket dump that produced all G43s. I'm intrigued since the model has only been out for less than three years. When did you witness this?


Last November, at Wex Gunworks in Delray Beach, FL.

It's a fun thing with the right kind of folks!

(I can see an AAAC pocket dump: Kent comb, keys to some "trad" car, Filson wallet, Case penknife, etc...)

DH


----------



## Dhaller

SG_67 said:


> I wonder how crime stats would be affected if we executed people for offenses as minor as public spitting?
> 
> The notion of a "net public good" makes no sense. There are many brutal and repressive ways to produce a net good. I suppose we have to ask what the definition of good may be.
> 
> Abortion is legal in Chicago yet we led the country in murders a few years ago.


Well, let's look at some actual data.

First, we see that number of abortions in the USA declined significantly during the Clinton years (from 1.3 million per year to about 850k, or a 35% drop), then held steady during the Bush years, and again dropped sharply during the Obama years (from 850k to about 600k, a 30% drop). This is as expected since, historically, abortion rates fall during Democratic administrations and increase or hold steady during Republican ones. But the abortion rates fell essentially by half during the last quarter century, courtesy of four terms of Democratic administrations, so we are not talking about a worsening problem, but an improving one.

With Trump now in office, we can expect abortion rates to hold steady or rise, so we might expect something like 2.5 million to 3 million abortions in the next four years.

Now, there are currently about a half-million children in foster care *right now*; median age is 8, and 43% of the kids are white (ie. adoptable). If we had a Conservative Evangelical fantasy of "zero abortion" occur *right now*, the foster system would see a 500% surge over the next four years, along with a radical shift of median age from 8 to 1 or 2 years of age, and a radical shift to many more children of color (I'm not calculating it, but you'd see white - adoptable - kids drop below maybe 30% of total foster cases.)

Now, let me hazard a guess that *your* likelihood of adopting one of these children converges to zero (correct me if I'm wrong)... but maybe you can recommend some of the 3 million families which would be needed to absorb all these foster cases? That's what I thought.

Abortion, frankly, is a critical tool for managing the influx of foster kids into a system already taxed, at times, to the point of failure (we've all heard horror stories). It's not simply that the kids are unwanted by their mothers - they are unwanted by you, as well.

DH


----------



## Dhaller

(I do know several Evangelican Conservatives whose strong opposition to abortion I can respect, because they adopt unwanted children.

My friend Russ, who owns an aerospace metals company and is all-in for Trump in multiple dimensions, has adopted five children - AND sends them all to private school at considerable expense. When he says he opposes abortion, he puts his time and money where his mouth is.)

DH


----------



## drlivingston




----------



## Shaver

Dhaller said:


> (I do know several Evangelican Conservatives whose strong opposition to abortion I can respect, because they adopt unwanted children.
> 
> My friend Russ, who owns an aerospace metals company and is all-in for Trump in multiple dimensions, has adopted five children - AND sends them all to private school at considerable expense. When he says he opposes abortion, he puts his time and money where his mouth is.)
> 
> DH


I have chosen not to have childen and so, clearly, I would not consider adoption.

However I have owned a few dogs. Rather than clean up their mess I housetrained them. Do you see?


----------



## 16412

[QUOTE="Lucido, post: 1861001, member: 238832" ]-You referred to women as 'lazy' and 'stupid' for not taking birth control
- You made the disgusting suggestion that women should 'utilise other orifices' to avoid a pregnancy.
[/QUOTE]

Are you claiming that some women are not lazy and stupid? Even some men are that. Perhaps you should be banned if you are so sensitive.

The second point I don't like, either. But it is better than murder. This is another reason to be ban. The immorality is extremely high when you think murder is better.


----------



## 16412

When abortion became "legal" many people who dearly wanted children couldn't. Many people today go outside the country to find children to adopt. So dhaller, your little theory is amiss.

Another reason for abortion is over population. But, so many of these people are against capital punishment. 

At the moment of conception the child has all the information it needs to develop fully. Therefore, the child's life begins at conception. Killing it is murder. 

It is a strange world we live in.


----------



## Dhaller

WA said:


> It is a strange world we live in.


Well, we can agree on that!

Folks adopt outside the USA because, frankly, they're dodging black kids. People are fine with, say, Chinese kids (I'm aware of ministries which work with Christian families to adopt kids in China, and I know several families who felt that was their calling... but I'd be hard pressed to visualize them raising black kids. Granted, I'm in the South East, where racism is still a feature of daily life, but it seems to be a national problem.)

No, there's no way half a million black and latino kids are being absorbed by the adoption market, not when there are millions of Chinese and other kids available; China is a veritable font of adoptable, non-brown kids.

(90% of US adopters seek white children, yet only 43% of kids in foster care are white - that leaves 10% of adopters to absorb 57% of foster kids. That math just ain't happening, sadly.)

On your other points, I agree that life begins at conception (no, agree is too weak a word: I'm a biophysicist, so I know for a fact that it does.) I would also say at that point it's not a *human* life - it's not even an organism then, really - but it will *be* a human life. It's kind of arguable when a fetus actually becomes "human"; I would argue at the point of theoretical viability, maybe end of second trimester (the earliest point of fairly survivable preemie births).

So a third trimester abortion I would consider "killing a human being". It's not murder, really - murder is a legal term, specifically referring to the unlawful killing of a human being, and this is, in fact, lawful (to a point). If it were up to me, there would be no third-trimester abortions except in the case of necessity to save the mother's life. But I have no say in the matter, save perhaps at the ballot box.

I, personally, consider abortion a very unfortunate procedure, and I have little respect for those who use it as a means of birth control... but frankly, if the alternative is a child entering the world with no father, a mother who doesn't want it, entering into foster care? There is no future in that, really; barring a concerted movement by folks keen on adopting ALL babies - black, brown, disabled, etc - then I feel abortion needs to remain available as a reproductive management solution.

DH


----------



## 16412

Thanks for the reply. 
Some people are not finished developing till after age 25. If adults do not help a small child it will die. You can get hung up with many theories but, conception is really where it all begins. Theories are most often like a dog barking up the wrong tree. They are around for a while and entertain us, then they become, "People actually believed that?" Sometimes theories distract and confuse people, but without conception there is nothing.


----------



## SG_67

Dhaller said:


> Well, let's look at some actual data.
> 
> First, we see that number of abortions in the USA declined significantly during the Clinton years (from 1.3 million per year to about 850k, or a 35% drop), then held steady during the Bush years, and again dropped sharply during the Obama years (from 850k to about 600k, a 30% drop). This is as expected since, historically, abortion rates fall during Democratic administrations and increase or hold steady during Republican ones. But the abortion rates fell essentially by half during the last quarter century, courtesy of four terms of Democratic administrations, so we are not talking about a worsening problem, but an improving one.
> 
> With Trump now in office, we can expect abortion rates to hold steady or rise, so we might expect something like 2.5 million to 3 million abortions in the next four years.
> 
> Now, there are currently about a half-million children in foster care *right now*; median age is 8, and 43% of the kids are white (ie. adoptable). If we had a Conservative Evangelical fantasy of "zero abortion" occur *right now*, the foster system would see a 500% surge over the next four years, along with a radical shift of median age from 8 to 1 or 2 years of age, and a radical shift to many more children of color (I'm not calculating it, but you'd see white - adoptable - kids drop below maybe 30% of total foster cases.)
> 
> Now, let me hazard a guess that *your* likelihood of adopting one of these children converges to zero (correct me if I'm wrong)... but maybe you can recommend some of the 3 million families which would be needed to absorb all these foster cases? That's what I thought.
> 
> Abortion, frankly, is a critical tool for managing the influx of foster kids into a system already taxed, at times, to the point of failure (we've all heard horror stories). It's not simply that the kids are unwanted by their mothers - they are unwanted by you, as well.
> 
> DH


The propensity for some to engage the straw man when discussing this topic is amazing. There is more straw here than on a cattle ranch in winter.

No one said they were an evangelical Christian. Certainly not me and I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. We're not talking about foster care or as you've put it, how minority children are less apt to be adopted.

There are other forms of population control. As minority children are less apt to be adopted and stress the system, your basic premise, why not force sterilize minority women? Seems like the logical solution. And why stop at abortion. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that a fetus and new born have potential. Let's further assume that by age, oh I don't know, let's just say 8 as we are just throwing around numbers, if a child is not adopted, he or she should be deemed unadoptable and eliminated. After all, a new born has the potential to become a genius and solve some societal issue. If by 8 a child has not shown such aptitude, and remains unadopted, then perhaps that potential is not there and he is more of a burden than its worth.

Those also seem like reasonable population control solutions. I sort of fancy the forced sterilization of minority men and women personally; it seems to address the problem at its essence and seems less messy and more elegant.

Again, a woman has a right to choose, sure. There is enough debate about that in our culture.

I'll give you that if you'll just admit that an abortion is the murder of a human life. I'm not sure why those on the pro choice side of the argument have such a hard time coming to grips with this, or at least addressing the possibility.


----------



## eagle2250

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> My buddies said they could bury it on a Latin American beach, come back a year later, dig it up and fire away.
> 
> That is life saving reliability.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


"Life saving reliability," perhaps, but that is a deplorable weapon's maintenance approach! LOL. 

Actually it was similar reliability test results that convinced me to opt for the Sig 516 Patrol Rifle, as my AR 15 platform of choice!


----------



## FLMike

eagle2250 said:


> "Life saving reliability," perhaps, but that is a deplorable weapon's maintenance approach! LOL.
> 
> Actually it was similar reliability test results that convinced me to opt for the Sig 516 Patrol Rifle, as my AR 15 platform of choice!


Good choice on the Sig.....my father in-law owns the same one. If anyone is looking for a well-made (using all mil-spec parts) yet very reasonably priced AR, check out Palmetto State Armory (PSA), a boutique maker out of Columbia, SC. I have been very happy with mine. They send out a "Daily Deals" email that often has some fantastic deals on other firearms, as well as optics, magazines, ammo, and other accessories.

(You may have even heard me shooting mine just up the road from you, at our ranch between Narcoossee Rd and Nova Rd! Below is a pic of my 14yo daughter shooting it a couple months ago.)


----------



## Tiger

Dhaller said:


> Well, let's look at some actual data.
> 
> First, we see that number of abortions in the USA declined significantly during the Clinton years (from 1.3 million per year to about 850k, or a 35% drop), then held steady during the Bush years, and again dropped sharply during the Obama years (from 850k to about 600k, a 30% drop). This is as expected since, historically, abortion rates fall during Democratic administrations and increase or hold steady during Republican ones. But the abortion rates fell essentially by half during the last quarter century, courtesy of four terms of Democratic administrations, so we are not talking about a worsening problem, but an improving one.
> 
> With Trump now in office, we can expect abortion rates to hold steady or rise, so we might expect something like 2.5 million to 3 million abortions in the next four years.
> 
> Now, there are currently about a half-million children in foster care *right now*; median age is 8, and 43% of the kids are white (ie. adoptable). If we had a Conservative Evangelical fantasy of "zero abortion" occur *right now*, the foster system would see a 500% surge over the next four years, along with a radical shift of median age from 8 to 1 or 2 years of age, and a radical shift to many more children of color (I'm not calculating it, but you'd see white - adoptable - kids drop below maybe 30% of total foster cases.)
> 
> Now, let me hazard a guess that *your* likelihood of adopting one of these children converges to zero (correct me if I'm wrong)... but maybe you can recommend some of the 3 million families which would be needed to absorb all these foster cases? That's what I thought.
> 
> Abortion, frankly, is a critical tool for managing the influx of foster kids into a system already taxed, at times, to the point of failure (we've all heard horror stories). It's not simply that the kids are unwanted by their mothers - they are unwanted by you, as well.
> 
> DH


You put the "unwanted child" problem squarely on people who did not cause the problem - potential foster parents - and even referred to adopters as "racist," yet never once did you assign blame to the people who are actually creating the problem!

I would never want people to be cruel to their pets, but that should not create an obligation for me to open a zoo in my home for all of the mistreated animals in my neighborhood. The animal abusers are the ones at fault; I am not.

Likewise, the preponderance of people of all races date and marry people of the same race, and it should not be surprising that they also wish to adopt children of their own race. For those that opt to do otherwise, good for them, but to accuse the vast majority of racism is disingenuous, even crass.

Unfortunately, there are people who will engage in sexual acts knowing the grave consequences that can occur, and are wholly unprepared either mentally, financially, in maturity, or in temperament to deal with those consequences - the creation of a life. Yet, they do it anyway, and then seek to kill the unborn child or ditch the baby in a foster home (or far worse). These are the people who deserve the opprobrium, not those of us who speak out against such ghastly behavior.


----------



## 127.72 MHz

SG_67 said:


> The propensity for some to engage the straw man when discussing this topic is amazing. There is more straw here than on a cattle ranch in winter.
> 
> No one said they were an evangelical Christian. Certainly not me and I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. We're not talking about foster care or as you've put it, how minority children are less apt to be adopted.
> 
> There are other forms of population control. As minority children are less apt to be adopted and stress the system, your basic premise, why not force sterilize minority women? Seems like the logical solution. And why stop at abortion. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that a fetus and new born have potential. Let's further assume that by age, oh I don't know, let's just say 8 as we are just throwing around numbers, if a child is not adopted, he or she should be deemed unadoptable and eliminated. After all, a new born has the potential to become a genius and solve some societal issue. If by 8 a child has not shown such aptitude, and remains unadopted, then perhaps that potential is not there and he is more of a burden than its worth.
> 
> Those also seem like reasonable population control solutions. I sort of fancy the forced sterilization of minority men and women personally; it seems to address the problem at its essence and seems less messy and more elegant.
> 
> Again, a woman has a right to choose, sure. There is enough debate about that in our culture.
> 
> I'll give you that if you'll just admit that an abortion is the murder of a human life. I'm not sure why those on the pro choice side of the argument have such a hard time coming to grips with this, or at least addressing the possibility.


The last two paragraphs are concise perfection,.....

"*Again, a woman has a right to choose, sure. There is enough debate about that in our culture.

I'll give you that if you'll just admit that an abortion is the murder of a human life. I'm not sure why those on the pro choice side of the argument have such a hard time coming to grips with this, or at least addressing the possibility."*

If proponents at least admitted the possibility, I believe the gravity of the event might lead to a level of respect, a small step in conciliation, to opponents. There has been very little respect for the serious nature of abortion in is thread by proponents.

As it stands I believe a large number of abortion supporters could care less if poor women habitually use abortion as their means of birth control,....Just as long as a court somewhere has told them it is legal,....

Bravo SG_67.


----------



## poppies

As someone who frequents various forums, I’m struck by the uniquely varied opinions and perspectives on this one. Much less of an echo chamber than one often finds.


----------



## 16412

Since age 19 I've thought Republicans are thinkers. Where as, democrats follow their leaders, and let their leaders think for them. It has been very rare to come across Democrats that knows what Republicans believe.

Republicans being thinkers explains why more Republicans have wealth and so many democrats are blue collar and less.

Will say that when a lot of Christians became Republicans, because the democrats walked out on them and started being against them, many "evangelicals" were and are still blue collar. So, not real thinkers, but followers. But not really following the republican party either. The Republicans, being conservative, are more apt to recognized Christian rights. The democrats are trying to stomp out Christianity and replace it with a phony Christianity. Something far from the Word of God. So, yeah, the Christians are against the democrats nowadays. Of course, the evangelicals are sort of conservative, anyway.


----------



## 127.72 MHz

^^ In the USA I think it is very insightful to watch the differences between the way conservatives protest verses liberals. It seems as though liberal protests often include destruction of property and looting. 

To make my political position clear, the only thing I find more willfully ignorant that a partisan Democrat is a partisan Republican. In the U.S.A. I believe we have legalized bribery,...The bribes are fenced through political "Contributions."


----------



## Odradek

Lucido said:


> Rape. Lack of sexual education. Lack of access to contraceptives. Using contraceptives incorrectly or inconsistently. Failure of said contraceptives.
> 
> Your assertion that women are too stupid to manage their own reproductive affairs is disgusting. Is this forum really such a den of rank misogyny?


Why has this forum been invaded by an Irish SJW who started reporting people at the drop of a hat ?

The current campaign in Ireland to legalise abortion under any circumstance has been proven to be funded by George Soros, and is rife with cultural Marxists.

The lunatics are now out in force.


----------



## Shaver

127.72 MHz said:


> ^^ In the USA I think it is very insightful to watch the differences between the way conservatives protest verses liberals. It seems as though liberal protests often include destruction of property and looting.
> 
> To make my political position clear, the only thing I find more willfully ignorant that a partisan Democrat is a partisan Republican. In the U.S.A. I believe we have legalized bribery,...The bribes are fenced through political "Contributions."


Remember when the basket of deplorables rioted after Obama's election?

No?

Me neither.

Liberals seek to eliminate free speech and abolish democracy.


----------



## Bjorn

Odradek said:


> Why has this forum been invaded by an Irish SJW who started reporting people at the drop of a hat ?
> 
> The current campaign in Ireland to legalise abortion under any circumstance has been proven to be funded by George Soros, and is rife with cultural Marxists.
> 
> The lunatics are now out in force.
> View attachment 20466


Unfortunately, the brave men and... well men... who opposed the Evil George Soros (aka Lex Luther) in this issue ventured too far and fell of the earth.

The cultural marxists (defined as marxists who give a damn about the Cannes Film Festival) rejoiced. Then they invented more regulation targeting the brave men and... well men... in the US coal industry by making up more stuff about global warming.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Bjorn

Shaver said:


> Remember when the basket of deplorables rioted after Obama's election?
> 
> No?
> Me neither.
> Liberals seek to eliminate free speech and abolish democracy.


Good thing we can see 'both sides' of white supremacy activists. I mean, maybe they just like Maltese crosses cause they dig beach beach buggies? Two sides to every fat Nazi coin.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Shaver

Bjorn said:


> Good thing we can see 'both sides' of white supremacy activists. I mean, maybe they just like Maltese crosses cause they dig beach beach buggies? Two sides to every fat Nazi coin.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Eh? What are you trying to say?


----------



## Bjorn

Shaver said:


> Eh? What are you trying to say?


That various negative activities goes on on both sides.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Shaver

Bjorn said:


> That various negative activities goes on on both sides.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Your point was, generously, rather clumsy. You haven't been glugging wine, have you?

Anyway, recently, only liberals seem to riot when they don't get what they want.

Or tear down monuments.

Or report people that they disagree with to the authorities for breaching their imaginary safe space.

However, if you are willing to go on record as suggesting that Trump supporters are Nazis, please, step up.. ...


----------



## Bjorn

Shaver said:


> Your point was, generously, rather clumsy. You haven't been glugging wine, have You?
> 
> Anyway, recently, only liberals seem to riot when they don't get what they want.
> 
> Or tear down monuments.
> 
> Or report people that they disagree with to the authorities for breaching their imaginary safe space.
> 
> However, if you are willing to go on record as suggesting that Trump supporters are Nazis, please, step up.. ...


1 It's evening time. Of course I've been glugging wine.

2 There's been a number of monuments tore down in Eastern Europe. If people wanna take down monuments, and it's done democratically, problem?

3 I don't see the point of debating moderation, if you don't break the rules then what's the harm of being reported?

4 I would like to go on record to claim that some white supremacists are Nazis. All white supremacists are morons. IMO.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Shaver

Bjorn said:


> 1 It's evening time. Of course I've been glugging wine.
> 
> 2 There's been a number of monuments tore down in Eastern Europe. If people wanna take down monuments, and it's done democratically, problem?
> 
> 3 I don't see the point of debating moderation, if you don't break the rules then what's the harm of being reported?
> 
> 4 I would like to go on record to claim that some white supremacists are Nazis. All white supremacists are morons. IMO.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Your honesty is disarming - well done you.



White Supremacy though.... whilst I have no opinion one way or the other.... Liberals do tend towards racism, albeit a soft racism of affirmative action, multiculturalism and so on and so forth.


----------



## Bjorn

Shaver said:


> Your honesty is disarming - well done you.
> 
> 
> 
> White Supremacy though.... whilst I have no opinion one way or the other.... Liberals do tend towards racism, albeit a soft racism of affirmative action, multiculturalism and so on and so forth.


Agreed

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Shaver

Bjorn said:


> Agreed
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I knew there was a reason I liked you.

Enjoy your wine my friend.


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Bjorn said:


> Good thing we can see 'both sides' of white supremacy activists. I mean, maybe they just like Maltese crosses cause they dig beach beach buggies? Two sides to every fat Nazi coin.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Are you implying that conservatives in the USA are white supremacists? Do you believe that maybe a simple majority of conservatives in the USA are white supremacists?

If you do on either count you have gone completely round the bend Bjorn.


----------



## 16412

There are some democrats that are white supremacists. Probably most white supremacists are democrats. The liberal media certainly doesn't want anybody thinking that. They put on a lot of white wash.


----------



## drlivingston

I have personally known white supremacists who represented both sides of the aisle. Living in Alabama, you don't have to travel far to find any number of hate groups / organizations. We might be the birthplace of the civil rights movement. But, we are also the nexus of many Klan and militia groups. Racism is not isolated to any one group. To be perfectly honest, most of the racists that I know (no, we do not hang out or play golf on weekends) are solidly in the liberal camp.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

Shaver said:


> Your honesty is disarming - well done you.
> 
> 
> 
> White Supremacy though.... whilst I have no opinion one way or the other.... Liberals do tend towards racism, albeit a soft racism of affirmative action, multiculturalism and so on and so forth.


Oh, the soft racism of low expectations...nothing keeps me warm at night like that warm and fuzzy feeling.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Dhaller

Most of the racists I know - and these are actual racists, folks who not only talk the talk, but live the life (for example, I know the publisher of Counter Currents) - are less "conservative" than "right wing"... there is a difference.

More formally, most of the racists I know in the USA are ethnonationalists.

When we casually talk about liberals being "left wing" and conservatives being "right wing", we're really using an imprecise political vulgate; American liberals and conservatives both live at a far remove from the actual "wings".

The aforementioned publisher, Greg Johnson, I have known since he was a PhD candidate in German philosophy at Catholic University in DC; he came to my attention when he coauthored a book on Giambattista Vico with an Emory professor friend of mine. We had a great friendship for many years, collaborating on a developing some courses in the philosophy of science (focused on readings of Lucretius), an investigation into Kant's opinion on the mystic Swedenborg, etc. One of my favorite intellectual friendships.

We lost touch for many years, and he came to my attention again perhaps 6-7 years ago as a full-on white nationalist and leading figure in the North American New Right. I'm still puzzled as to the ontogeny of the change.

I like using Greg as an example of the danger of making demographic assumptions about "conservatives" or "right wingers" or "racists" or even "Nazis" (and Greg, now a major Hitler apologist - in writing - qualifies): he is extraordinarily well-educated man, fluent in perhaps a dozen languages, an erudite literary and film critic, gay, with very refined tastes in food and decor. He is smart and funny. He is well-dressed. He is very, very dangerous.

To say "liberals" or "conservatives" are more or less commonly racist ignores, first, what "racist" actually means (hint: prejudice is not racism), and also belies an ignorance of racisms basic orthogonality with politics.

DH


----------



## Shaver

I am unable to pose this question to Dhaller directly as his totalitarianist character has obliged him to censor dissent i.e. he has 'blocked' me for fear that he is incapable of adequately defending his position. Rather pitiful really, but there you have it. Anyway, may I impose upon one of my fellow members to encourage Dhaller to expand upon his comment that one of his favourite intellectual friendships is now considered to be 'very, very dangerous' because he no longer agrees with him? My apologies in advance if this results in Dhaller blocking you too, I suspect that whilst he enjoys pontificating towards the void, still, he is uncomfortable with difficult questions.


----------



## Shaver

There are men on this forum who have not only earned my respect they have absolutely demanded it!

Dr Livingston - this forum would be a significantly poorer place without your presence. For the favour exhibited above, and more, please accept my sincerest gratitude.


----------



## drlivingston




----------



## Shaver

drlivingston said:


>


Have I ever mentioned how much I despise Corden?


----------



## drlivingston

Shaver said:


> Have I ever mentioned how much I despise Corden?


We all despise Corden. That is what makes him a perfect git... I mean gif.


----------



## Tiger

drlivingston said:


> View attachment 20504


I think most of us would enjoy Dhaller and Shaver engaging in a scintillating debate. I hope we're not deprived of that interaction!


----------



## drlivingston

Tiger said:


> I think most of us would enjoy Dhaller and Shaver engaging in a scintillating debate. I hope we're not deprived of that interaction!


Kind sir, you have read my mind. I despise the block feature. If I agreed with everyone on the fora, it would, indeed, be a boring place.


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Lucido said:


> Oh the irony. Don't make me laugh.


Shaver made you look like the fellow that you are.

Your post is about sour grapes plain and simple.


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Lucido said:


> Shaver took his ball and ran home rather than stand behind his disgusting opinions. That's without even going into the ad hominems, spiteful name-calling, obfuscation and childish pettiness that he engaged in.


I believe precisely the same thing could be accurately said about you.

Shaver has not gone anywhere,.....


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Lucido said:


> I'm sorry 127.72Mhz, but you obviously have serious problems with reading comprehension. You have my sympathies but there's no point arguing with you or that other idiot that was calling for the lapidation of ********* a few pages back.


Knowing who you have shown yourself to be, any insult you have for me is taken as a compliment.

Look back a post or two and review what you said about name calling and ad homin,...

If you liked me I would be disappointed.


----------



## drlivingston




----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

Dhaller said:


> Most of the racists I know - and these are actual racists, folks who not only talk the talk, but live the life (for example, I know the publisher of Counter Currents) - are less "conservative" than "right wing"... there is a difference.
> 
> More formally, most of the racists I know in the USA are ethnonationalists.
> 
> When we casually talk about liberals being "left wing" and conservatives being "right wing", we're really using an imprecise political vulgate; American liberals and conservatives both live at a far remove from the actual "wings".
> 
> The aforementioned publisher, Greg Johnson, I have known since he was a PhD candidate in German philosophy at Catholic University in DC; he came to my attention when he coauthored a book on Giambattista Vico with an Emory professor friend of mine. We had a great friendship for many years, collaborating on a developing some courses in the philosophy of science (focused on readings of Lucretius), an investigation into Kant's opinion on the mystic Swedenborg, etc. One of my favorite intellectual friendships.
> 
> We lost touch for many years, and he came to my attention again perhaps 6-7 years ago as a full-on white nationalist and leading figure in the North American New Right. I'm still puzzled as to the ontogeny of the change.
> 
> I like using Greg as an example of the danger of making demographic assumptions about "conservatives" or "right wingers" or "racists" or even "Nazis" (and Greg, now a major Hitler apologist - in writing - qualifies): he is extraordinarily well-educated man, fluent in perhaps a dozen languages, an erudite literary and film critic, gay, with very refined tastes in food and decor. He is smart and funny. He is well-dressed. He is very, very dangerous.
> 
> To say "liberals" or "conservatives" are more or less commonly racist ignores, first, what "racist" actually means (hint: prejudice is not racism), and also belies an ignorance of racisms basic orthogonality with politics.
> 
> DH


Wait, are you suggesting that the words "Prejudiced", "Racist" and I will add the largely forgotten word "Bigot" are not synonyms?

This is not what I gather from my reading the news....

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Shaver

Lucido said:


> Oh the irony. Don't make me laugh.


As everyone following this thread is aware I am prepared to allow you to flog the dead horse via PM.

My position is unassailable.


----------



## Dhaller

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> Wait, are you suggesting that the words "Prejudiced", "Racist" and I will add the largely forgotten word "Bigot" are not synonyms?
> 
> This is not what I gather from my reading the news....
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


While I understand the sarcasm of the reply, I actually think this is a nice opportunity to unpack these words a bit. Well, more precisely, lay out what I feel should be the operational definitions of these words (and it's 1am here and I'm planning a rain hike tomorrow, so I'm weighing precision versus brevity and choosing brevity!)

Bias: Bias is the application of a perceptual filter which biases (aha!) the inner statistical analysis of a situation. For example, if I notice someone is black (or if I believe I have noticed it), and it impacts my assessment of the person, that is bias. So, first, noticing someone is black is itself bias (I don't really *notice* someone is white, because that's a default assumption to *me* - I admit this is subjective - and I have no perceptual bias re. "white people". (Well, let me qualify that - once I've been in, say, Asia for a few weeks, the presence of someone white walking along the street will arrest my attention - I've adopted a temporary bias.) Bias is neither good nor bad; it's simply a means of organizing perceptual information.

Prejudice: If bias is a carrier wave, prejudice is a signal: it takes bias, and then assigns values or information to it: white people can't handle spicy food; black people dance well; asians are good at math; etc. Here's a prejudice I have: if I'm at a movie theater, and I hear a cell phone ring, when I turn around, I expect to see a black person answering it... kind of a minor thing, but there it is. So my perceptual bias for black folks is indexed to a prejudicial assumption about cell phone use in theaters (a value assessment I've pinned to bias). Why? I don't know - probably in cases where someone has answered a phone in a theater, and happened to be black, I *noticed that* (bias). Now, on the surface, there can seem to be "good" prejudices: if I had to suddenly recruit a player for my basketball team, and I had a choice among two players, one black, one asian, I would probably select the black player - a prejudice (black people are athletic) riding on a bias (noticing that one of my choices is someone black). That said, prejudice assigns values to perceptual categories ("black people", "wooden furniture", "German cars", etc) based on expectations rather than fact, which is never good in the long run. Prejudice is bad.

But it's not "actionably" bad, which is where racism comes into play.

Racism is *acting on* prejudice. If I'm sitting in a theater, and someone black sits near me, and because I assume they'll practice poor cellphone etiquette I go ask the usher to move me (assuming assigned seating, common in Atlanta theaters), *that* is racist: I would have actually acted on my prejudice. Racism is where prejudice begins taking forms which alter lives: denying a renter, not hiring a qualified candidate, shooting an unarmed suspect, etc.

Very generally, I would say prejudice is passive (really, an inner mental state) while racism is active (seeking to alter the world accordingly). So I would say merely *hating* a racial group isn't *racism*; one must act accordingly (perhaps even being a forum troll is enough, though I myself would err on the side of physical or economic aggression.)

And then a bigot simply applies this to categories other than race, so that a homophobe ( a bigot) might not be a racist; they're orthogonal terms.

I think it's a pretty interesting subject, nomenclature, but especially in the case of such loaded terms, they need to be treated as technical language.

DH


----------



## Shaver

Lucido said:


> Your 'position' is rank, blatant misogyny.
> 
> If you want to elaborate on your post and give me any reason to doubt my statement above then you are free to do so at any time. Publicly.
> 
> You won't of course. We both know that you can't defend the indefensible.
> 
> Instead you've resorted to ad hominems, childish name calling and every other silly little way you've tried to avoid defending it.
> 
> Insisting on taking the discussion to PM is just another way of trying to shut down the conversation.


Nope. Just trying to elude your tedious pettifoggery.

The opinion that I expressed, in the post which you seem to be fixated upon, is unequivocal. I have defended it and I stand by it.

What more do you want Lucy?


----------



## Bjorn

127.72 MHz said:


> Are you implying that conservatives in the USA are white supremacists? Do you believe that maybe a simple majority of conservatives in the USA are white supremacists?
> 
> If you do on either count you have gone completely round the bend Bjorn.


Well, firstly, I am not a liberal.

Secondly, the point made by someone was that trumps deplorable did not riot whereas leftist thugs do.

My answer was that the white supremacists who came out in support of trump and rioted against the leftists should have been resolutely denounced by the president. Their activities must be considered even more a danger to the public than the leftists. But it's all relative know.

That's not a conservative stance, it's populism.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Bjorn said:


> Well, firstly, I am not a liberal.
> 
> Secondly, the point made by someone was that trumps deplorable did not riot whereas leftist thugs do.
> 
> My answer was that the white supremacists who came out in support of trump and rioted against the leftists should have been resolutely denounced by the president. Their activities must be considered even more a danger to the public than the leftists. But it's all relative know.
> 
> That's not a conservative stance, it's populism.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I never said you were a liberal, not once.

Your answer did not address the question I posed to you.

Do you believe that a sizable percentage of conservatives are white supremists? (This is a yes or no question.)

If you do please state, roughly, what percentage of conservatives that you believe are white supremacists.


----------



## Bjorn

127.72 MHz said:


> I never said you were a liberal, not once.
> 
> Your answer did not address the question I posed to you.
> 
> Do you believe that a sizable percentage of conservatives are white supremists? (This is a yes or no question.)
> 
> If you do please state, roughly, what percentage of conservatives that you believe are white supremacists.


Well since I'm conservative myself, and not a white supremacist, nor are people I know: no.

But I'll humor you and go with 2%, just to see where you are going with this.

Do you belive a sizable percentage of liberals are anarchists or communists?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## 127.72 MHz

Bjorn said:


> Well since I'm conservative myself, and not a white supremacist, nor are people I know: no.
> 
> But I'll humor you and go with 2%, just to see where you are going with this.
> 
> Do you belive a sizable percentage of liberals are anarchists or communists?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


No need for you to humor me. (As if a condescending reply does any good.)

You attempting to nuance your reply is really just obfuscation.

You are not interested in an exchange of ideas you are interesting in winning a debate.

I'm done with you Bjorn.


----------



## Bjorn

127.72 MHz said:


> No need for you to humor me. (As if a condescending reply does any good.)
> 
> You attempting to nuance your reply is really just obfuscation.
> 
> You are not interested in an exchange of ideas you are interesting in winning a debate.
> 
> I'm done with you Bjorn.


I knew you were going nowhere with that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## 127.72 MHz

You went nowhere with your reply.


----------



## Shaver

Lucido said:


> You have never defended your position Shaver. Not once. I honestly don't think you are capable of doing so.
> 
> Like I said, hit and run trolling is your MO. See what you can get away with and backtrack furiously when called out on it.


Backtracking? I stand by the post.

As previously - what is it you want?

Do you know what you want Lucy? Or are you merely in thrall to an idée fixe?

At this point I'm prepared to say anything that will shut you up. You're boring.


----------



## Shaver

Lucido said:


> You know what I want Shaver.
> 
> Defend your post in public.


As I have repeatedly stated - they are fine words and I stand by them. Is that not enough?

Do you know what you want Lucy? Or are you merely in thrall to an idée fixe?

At this point I'm prepared to say anything that will shut you up. You're boring.


----------



## Shaver

Lucido said:


> It's not enough, no.
> 
> Your words are indicative of vile misogyny.
> 
> If I am mistaken you are welcome to clarify or offer a mitigating explanation at any time. To date you have refused to do so.


As previously, please do try to remember the conversation, no clarification is required - the statement was unequivocal.

Why would I consider mitigating an opinion I wholeheartedly endorse?

Round and round in circles we go. You are a silly fellow.


----------



## Dmontez

Lucido said:


> I see.
> 
> So for the record - you wholeheartedly endorse the idea of considering women 'lazy and stupid' for not taking birth control and recommend that they utilize other orifices (your words) to avoid falling pregnant?
> 
> Yes or no, please.


I'll Co-sign that for Shaver.


----------



## Shaver

Lucido said:


> I see.
> 
> So for the record - you wholeheartedly endorse the idea of considering women 'lazy and stupid' for not taking birth control and recommend that they utilize other orifices (your words) to avoid falling pregnant?
> 
> Yes or no, please.


These are not my words. Quote my original post in full and, as I have repeatedly assured you, I will endorse it.

Perhaps you will write any old thing but I would not have written my post if I did not mean it.


----------



## Shaver

Dmontez said:


> I'll Co-sign that for Shaver.


Thank you.

Lucy is missing a critical modifier, however, and one which I believe that you will consider properly refines the statement.


----------



## Shaver

My name is Shaver and I have a message to deliver to all those females who, too lazy and stupid to take birth control, believe that murdering babies is a healthcare issue (and worse their human right) I would remind them that they possess two other orifices.


----------



## Bjorn

Shaver said:


> My name is Shaver and I have a message to deliver to all those females who, too lazy and stupid to take birth control, believe that murdering babies is a healthcare issue (and worse their human right) I would remind them that they possess two other orifices.


Their bodies. Not yours.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Shaver

Bjorn said:


> Their bodies. Not yours.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


This is what passes for debate in Sweden?


----------



## Shaver

Lucido said:


> And you fail to see how that makes you a vile misogynist?


Perhaps you would care to explain it to me?

The least you could do, though, is to concede that (despite your endless assertions to the contrary) I am defending my position.


----------



## Shaver

Lucido said:


> I already have. Repeatedly.
> 
> Vile misogynist that you are, I suppose that there's something to be said for the fact that you've finally committed to defending your position. That's not really something to be proud of Shaver.


You are deranged.

I have stood by my position from the moment I published it.

Conversely apart from squeaking the word every once in a while you have provided no argument to promote your postion that I am a vile misogynist.

The boot is on the other foot now Lucy. I intend to pester you until you defend your position.


----------



## Shaver

Lucido said:


> - Your assertion that women who do not take birth control are 'lazy and stupid'
> - Suggesting that women that are 'too lazy and stupid' to take birth control should be willing to 'utilise other orifices' to avoid a pregnancy.
> 
> Pretty damning evidence Shaver. The best that can be said about you is while being a vile misogynist, you are at least an unrepentant and consistent one. I suppose there's something to be said for consistency, even if it did take 40 pages for us to get here.


It took _you_ 40 pages - although you still fail to appreciate the important modifier. The rest of us understood from the get go.

Still, apart from your little squeak of the word, there remains no explanation of my alleged misogyny. Unqualified phrases such as 'damming evidence' notwithstanding.

C'mon Lucy! Give it your best shot.


----------



## Shaver

Lucido said:


> Ugh. Are you struggling with reading comprehension now too?
> 
> See the two bullet points in my post above.
> 
> If you can manage to hold such viewpoints while simultaneously convincing yourself that you are a not a misogynist then I fear you may just have an Olympic medal in mental gymnastics. I feel sorry for you in a way though. The cognitive dissonance you live with must be very unpleasant.


If you are unable to adequately present your case, please, just say so.

Edit: you feel sorry for me? If only you were capable of empathising with murdered babies.


----------



## vpkozel

Lucido said:


> - Your assertion that women who do not take birth control are 'lazy and stupid'.


Just curiously, what adjectives would you use to describe them?

And, unless I am missing something, no one ever got preggers by using the other 2 orifices. Although, shaver was quite sloppy not to mention the manual option as well....


----------



## vpkozel

Bjorn said:


> Their bodies. Not yours.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


How logically inconsistent of you....


----------



## Shaver

vpkozel said:


> Just curiously, what adjectives would you use to describe them?
> 
> And, unless I am missing something, no one ever got preggers by using the other 2 orifices. Although, shaver was quite sloppy not to mention the manual option as well....


VP, increasingly I regret having been rude to you in the past. Please forgive me.


----------



## Dmontez

Shaver said:


> Thank you.
> 
> Lucy is missing a critical modifier, however, and one which I believe that you will consider properly refines the statement.





Shaver said:


> Laughable, isn't it? Boo hoo for a few wasted lives whilst permitting an industry of death.
> 
> To all those females who, too lazy and stupid to take birth control, believe that murdering babies is a healthcare issue (and worse their human right) I would remind them that they possess two other orifices.


I still co-sign it. This is not a misogynistic statement, but a common sense one.

If you are too lazy to use a contraceptive, and you do not want to have a child, then your best bet is use a different hole, because even pulling out at the right moment can be hard to do sometimes.


----------



## Shaver

Lucido said:


> Don't be obtuse.
> 
> I have repeatedly outlined my case. I'll do it again here since your powers of reading comprehension seem to have deserted you today.
> 
> 
> Your assertion that women who do not take birth control are 'lazy and stupid'
> Suggesting that women that are 'too lazy and stupid' to take birth control should be willing to 'utilise other orifices' to avoid a pregnancy.


You are repeatedly repeating my post.

This is not outlining a case - except perhaps my case.

Lucy, may I enquire, you do know what 'misogyny' means, don't you?


----------



## vpkozel

Shaver said:


> VP, increasingly I regret having been rude to you in the past. Please forgive me.


No worries at all, Shaver.


----------



## Shaver

Dmontez said:


> I still co-sign it. This is not a misogynistic statement, but a common sense one.
> 
> If you are too lazy to use a contraceptive, and you do not want to have a child, then your best bet is use a different hole, because even pulling out at the right moment can be hard to do sometimes.


It is common sense and it is not misogynistic.

Nevertheless I couldn't care less if a woman is too lazy and/or stupid to take birth control as long as she doesn't resort to murder to escape the consequence of her failings.


----------



## Shaver

Lucido said:


> Dislike, contempt and prejudice towards women.
> 
> Reducing women to using certain 'holes' rather than availing of their (legal) reproductive rights qualifies.


I dislike, have contempt for, and nurse a prejudice against, baby murderers. Their gender is irrelevant.

My name is Shaver and I have a message to deliver to all those males who, too lazy and stupid to use birth control, believe that murdering babies is a healthcare issue (and worse their human right) I would remind them that women possess two other orifices.


----------



## vpkozel

Lucido said:


> A woman who becomes pregnant is simply that: a pregnant woman.
> 
> Do you think that it is appropriate to tell a women to use anal or oral sex to avoid becoming pregnant? Is that something you would suggest to a woman that you cared about? Would you recommend that to your daughter? Your wife?


Isn't it quite misogynistic to describe a woman as only pregnant or not pregnant?

Surely someone as enlightened as you could come up with better adjectives than just one for a woman....


----------



## Dmontez

Lucido said:


> There are no other adjectives necessary within the context of this debate. That applies whether you take a pro-life or pro-choice stance. A woman is either pregnant, or not pregnant. What else do you need?


Using that argument could you not also say that a woman either has the intelligence to use birth control, or she does not have the intelligence to use birth control.


----------



## vpkozel

Lucido said:


> Do you like being deliberately obtuse, or is it just that you lack the ability to form a cogent argument?


Can you please make up your mind as to whether ad hominem attacks are to be used or not? Thus far it seems you only sanction their use for yourself.



> There are no other adjectives necessary within the context of this debate. That applies whether you take a pro-life or pro-choice stance. A woman is either pregnant, or not pregnant. What else do you need?


This is absolute nonsense. The entire context of the debate is unwanted pregnancies, because the numbers involved in abortions that threaten the life of the mother are so exceedingly rare as to never be the basis for a decision.

So, the question is not - as you are trying to make it - what do you call a woman that has a fetus inside her.

The question is - what adjectives would you use to describe a First World woman who has become pregnant without wanting to?

So, have at it.


----------



## vpkozel

Lucido said:


> I wouldn't use any.


Why on earth would you do that?


----------



## vpkozel

Lucido said:


> Because none are necessary.


That makes no sense whatsoever.


----------



## Shaver

Newspaper taxis appear on the shore waiting to take you away.

Climb in the back with your head in the clouds, and you're gone....

Lucy in the sky with diamonds!


----------



## vpkozel

Lucido said:


> Why?
> 
> What adjectives would you use, and can you explain why they would be helpful to the discussion?


Easily. In fact, it would be one that I bet you have used in this thread or certainly elsewhere in justifying your belief that killing a human is OK.

Raped.

Now, your turn.


----------



## Clintotron

vpkozel said:


> Isn't it quite misogynistic to describe a woman as only pregnant or not pregnant?
> 
> Surely someone as enlightened as you could come up with better adjectives than just one for a woman....


By far the most imbecilic thing I've read in some months. Holy smokes. Hahahaha

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Shaver

Lucido said:


> Do you want to provide an alternative definition Shaver?
> 
> Or you can keeping copying and pasting Beatles lyrics like a child.


Picture yourself on a train in a station
With plasticine porters with looking glass ties
Suddenly someone is there at the turnstile
The girl with the kaleidoscope eyes. .


----------



## Shaver

Lucido said:


> Yeah, I thought so.


Altogether now!

Lucy and the sky with diamonds


----------



## Shaver

Lucido said:


> Yeah, I thought so.


Well you seem to have lost your taste for explanation, now it is required of you, so I thought we could have a good old sing song to pass the time whilst you came up with a response.


----------



## Shaver

Lucido said:


> I have responded to, and provided an explanation for every argument that has been presented to me.


Yeah. Sure you have.

Mister city policeman sitting pretty little policemen in a row.

See how they fly like Lucy in the Sky, see how they run.

I'm crying, I'm crying


----------



## eagle2250

Lucido said:


> You have never defended your position Shaver. Not once. I honestly don't think you are capable of doing so.
> 
> Like I said, hit and run trolling is your MO. See what you can get away with and backtrack furiously when called out on it.


Lucido, this continuing bickering back and forth has absolutely nothing to do with the stated subject of this thread and it appears to be without any promise of an end. Shaver, quite some time back has repeatedly offered to enter into discussion s with you via PM's and you have refused. Should you ever take the time to read the AAAC Rules for member participation, you would find that Shaver was spot-on with his suggestion to continue your personal debate via PM's. Both of you should note that your bickering and disrupting this thread will no longer be tolerated.


----------



## FLMike

So I ordered a new Glock today.....


----------



## Shaver

Lucido said:


> Shaver, you've been reduced to quoting Beatles lyrics. I think it's safe to assume that you lack the ability to engage in any further debate.


Assume that you are not worth the effort and you may have achieved a level of clarity so far not evidenced by your contributions here.

goo goo g'joob.


----------



## Shaver

Lucido said:


> Eagle, I am happy to drop the topic if you feel as a moderator that it is inappropriate to the thread.


One might have expected that you would get the message after squealing to Andy and your wishes remaining unfulfilled.


----------



## Shaver

FLMike said:


> So I ordered a new Glock today.....


Mike, I envy you your legal access to firearms. Empty a clip for me this weekend.

Also, I was thinking of you recently - how is that pup of yours? He must be a mature fellow by now?


----------



## eagle2250

Gentlemen (Lucido and Shaver), the debate is over! Lucido, we allow a bit more latitude in discussions occurring in the Interchange. It results dynamic and interesting conversations, appropriate to the subjects under discussion, but it is not intended to allow for a thread to be derailed due to a members intransigence. Each of you has every right to hold your stated opinions...and that gentlemen is all to which you are entitled.


----------



## Shaver

eagle2250 said:


> Gentlemen (Lucido and Shaver), the debate is over! Lucido, we allow a bit more latitude in discussions occurring in the Interchange. It results dynamic and interesting conversations, appropriate to the subjects under discussion, but it is not intended to allow for a thread to be derailed due to a members intransigence. Each of you has every right to hold your stated opinions...and that gentlemen is all to which you are entitled.


My thanks, as ever, my much admired friend for your ongoing tolerance. I should like to promise you that I will behave in future but I would prefer not to make you a guarantee that I am unable to uphold. However, as was evidenced, albeit momentarily, in this thread I seek the right hand path more regularly these days.


----------



## FLMike

Shaver said:


> Mike, I envy you your legal access to firearms. Empty a clip for me this weekend.
> 
> Also, I was thinking of you recently - how is that pup of yours? He must be a mature fellow by now?


Thanks for asking. He would be nine this coming October, but we unfortunately lost him to cancer the summer before last (when he was just six). He is badly missed.


----------



## Shaver

FLMike said:


> Thanks for asking. He would be nine this coming October, but we unfortunately lost him to cancer the summer before last (when he was just six). He is badly missed.


Oh Mike, I'm so sorry. Now that you mention it I believe that I remember you sharing the information with us previously.

Since my Staffordshire was put to sleep I will stroke any dog that comes within my arm's reach! The moment I retire I intend to obtain another Jack Russell.


----------



## eagle2250

^^FLMike:
I am so sorry to hear of the passing of your dog. I suspect that like me, your dogs, be they hunters or just pets, become looked upon as one of the family from an emotional perspective and their loss is always difficult. I'm sure his companionship has left you with many fond memories.


----------



## vpkozel

Lucido said:


> 'Raped' is a verb (past tense) and 'rape' is a noun and verb.
> 
> In this case the woman would be considered a victim of a crime. That word (victim) is a noun too by the way.
> 
> Of course, I would still be firmly in favor of her right to chose to have an abortion if she wishes.


Verbs can function as adjectives though



> *Phrase Functions as an Adverb or Adjective*
> Some verb phrases have a single function which means it can act like an adverb or an adjective. The phrase would include the verb and any modifiers, complements, or objects.
> 
> Read more at https://examples.yourdictionary.com/verb-phrase-examples.html#KbuPMT8PjvRhhhUy.99


So in the sentence, "She was a raped woman." raped would be an adjective of the object woman.

Now that we are done with the inanities of obscure grammar comments, perhaps you can explain why you feel it is OK to separate women only into the 2 categories or pregnant or not pregnant.


----------



## Tiger

Lucido said:


> It also includes women who after conception do not want to go through with the pregnancy for any reason. _*It's the woman's body and it's her choice.*_


I'm absolutely certain that some of us have debunked this, both as to whose body it is that is subject to destruction, and that the concept of "reproductive choice" appears to be highly selective, i.e., only mothers have a choice, but not fathers.


----------



## Tiger

Lucido said:


> The potential father-to-be does not get a choice in the matter unless the woman wishes to take his position into account when making her decision.


Quite arbitrary, is it not?

If the father wants the child and the mother does not, the child perishes. If the father does not want the child but the mother does, the father is on the hook financially (or taxpayers are stuck with the bill that emanates from a complete abdication of personal responsibility). Seems to me that more than one person ought to have a choice, since more than one person is greatly affected!

Now what about that "body" thing - are you still confusing abortion with a nose job? You do realize that the child is a separate entity, don't you? Don't confuse the closet with the clothes...


----------



## drlivingston

How about the Braves this year? They looked a little shaky today against the Nationals.


----------



## Tiger

drlivingston said:


> How about the Braves this year? They looked a little shaky today against the Nationals.


Heck, I'm about ready to discuss lacrosse!


----------



## drlivingston

Tiger said:


> Heck, I'm about ready to discuss lacrosse!


Admittedly, I don't know the first damn thing about lacrosse. But, I would gladly welcome the diversion.


----------



## 16412

I am glad Trump has stood up to political correctness. Political correctness has made so many people weak.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

drlivingston said:


> How about the Braves this year? They looked a little shaky today against the Nationals.


As a native Atlantan, the past few years have been bleak. I really hoped they would finish above .500 last year, but they collapsed from exhaustion.

I am concerned that the Braves are morphing into one of those teams where the primary goal of management is solely filling seats and the quality of the product is merely an afterthought.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Bjorn

WA said:


> I am glad Trump has stood up to political correctness. Political correctness has made so many people weak.




Your continued participation in this thread is much appreciated.

In pursuing the original thread subject: I'm getting one of these:

Its a Ruger DP100 with some extra polish to parts and a slightly better sight. Anyone have any experience in ammo / maintenance issues?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## eagle2250

A Note For All Participants In This Thread.

As moderator Bjorn intimates, it is time to get back to the intended subject of this thread, "Is anyone here a gun enthusiast?" The ongoing debate regarding abortion is a different conversation and, in some cases, a distraction. The inception of the argument preceded many of us and it will be continuing well after most of us are but fading memories. While we righteously claim our right to each of our respective opinions, we frequently loose sight of the fact that every other AAAC member enjoys that same right. It is the nature of a debate (or conversation in the Interchange) to argue vigorously for our respective opinions, but it is not productive, nor is it appropriate to continue such disagreements 'ad nauseam.' Do yourselves and the rest of us a favor, when such an exchange occurs, simply agree to disagree and move on....and may every one of us prove wise enough to follow suit!

Thanking each of you in advance, 
Eagle


----------



## FLMike

eagle2250 said:


> ^^FLMike:
> I am so sorry to hear of the passing of your dog. I suspect that like me, your dogs, be they hunters or just pets, become looked upon as one of the family from an emotional perspective and their loss is always difficult. I'm sure his companionship has left you with many fond memories.


Thanks eagle. Yes, he was a member of the family and it was a tough loss for all of us. It's been nearly two years since we had to put him down, and my wife is just now allowing herself to entertain the thought of getting a new one. We'll see.


----------



## FLMike

Bjorn said:


> Your continued participation in this thread is much appreciated.
> 
> In pursuing the original thread subject: I'm getting one of these:
> Its a Ruger DP100 with some extra polish to parts and a slightly better sight. Anyone have any experience in ammo / maintenance issues?


Assuming you meant GP100, I used to own the standard model in 357 mag, stainless steel with a 6" barrel. That thing was a cannon. I really like the looks of that Match Champion, although I'm not crazy about the large branding on the side of the barrel.

I still own a Ruger 357, a 4" blue steel Security Six. I love that gun....so much so that it sleeps next to me every night (in my nightstand).


----------



## iam.mike

eagle2250 said:


> Do yourselves and the rest of us a favor, when such an exchange occurs, simply agree to disagree and move on....and may every one of us prove wise enough to follow suit!


A voice of reason. Thank you @eagle2250 for your help in keeping this thread on-topic.


----------



## 16412

Bjorn said:


> In pursuing the original thread subject: I'm getting one of these:
> 
> Its a Ruger DP100 with some extra polish to parts and a slightly better sight. Anyone have any experience in ammo / maintenance issues?


Why not a 44 mag.? You have all the power you need. When you would like to use it for similar to 45 you can put in the proper powder. For self defense, unless bear or mad moose, elk, etc., magnums are to much, so a swat instructor said. Some bullets keep going and going. You don't want the bullet to go through two houses and kill someone in a third.


----------



## FLMike

WA said:


> Why not a 44 mag.? You have all the power you need. When you would like to use it for similar to 45 you can put in the proper powder. For self defense, unless bear or mad moose, elk, etc., magnums are to much, so a swat instructor said. Some bullets keep going and going. You don't want the bullet to go through two houses and kill someone in a third.


You can shoot 38's with a 357 mag. That's what my bedside piece is loaded with....LSWCHP .38 +P.

And then there's the single-shot .410 (isn't that phrase part of a Robert Earl Keen lyric?) that was my son's first firearm, that I also have in the corner of my bedroom, as my son has long since moved on from it. That one is loaded with a really gnarly-looking self-defense load that was made for use in the Taurus Judge (a .410 revolver, of all things).

Between the Ruger .357/.38 wheel gun and the break-action .410, I think I have the boogeyman covered (home defense). However, I'm less vigilant about carrying when I'm out and about, other than having the S&W snubbie or Glock 43 in my truck console at all times.

I'd rather talk about my "pretty" guns, but unfortunately I haven't had the opportunity to go upland bird hunting in the last few years, so I'm sorry to say they have been neglected of late, save for a few clay shooting sessions.


----------



## eagle2250

^^
I have this unrequited hankering to pick up a Smith&Wesson Governor, loaded with alternating rounds of .45 ACP and 410Ga shells, for a nightstand weapon. One could sure put the fear of gawd into an intruder with that bad boy!


----------



## FLMike

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> I have this unrequited hankering to pick up a Smith&Wesson Governor, loaded with alternating rounds of .45 ACP and 410Ga shells, for a nightstand weapon. One could sure put the fear of gawd into an intruder with that bad boy!


Looks like the same premise as the Judge. If you ever "pull the trigger" (super cheesy, I know) on the Governor, here is the ammo I was talking about:

https://www.winchester.com/products/new-products/pages/pdx1-410.aspx

Three plated disc projectiles combined with 12 pellets of plated BB shot. Wouldn't care to be on the receiving end of that mix.


----------



## Bjorn

WA said:


> Why not a 44 mag.? You have all the power you need. When you would like to use it for similar to 45 you can put in the proper powder. For self defense, unless bear or mad moose, elk, etc., magnums are to much, so a swat instructor said. Some bullets keep going and going. You don't want the bullet to go through two houses and kill someone in a third.


(Yes GP100)

I can shoot several classes with the .357 since I can shoot .38:s.

The point on self-defense ammo is well taken. I'm thinking I'm in no need but I might keep a box around anyway. .38 then I guess.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Dhaller

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> I have this unrequited hankering to pick up a Smith&Wesson Governor, loaded with alternating rounds of .45 ACP and 410Ga shells, for a nightstand weapon. One could sure put the fear of gawd into an intruder with that bad boy!


A gun-nut woman I know actually had to put this to the test.

Her nightstand piece is a .357 magnum revolver, the sole intent of which is to make as much noise as possible... the theory is that if you're awakened by an intruder in the night, accurate shooting is less a deterrent than simply making noise and scaring the intruder off (I don't know the specifics of the load, but "loud" is the main thing.)

Now, she's a marine biologist, and was heavily involved with assessing the impact of the BP oil spill in the gulf, so in the early days of that she'd be out of town, on-site for weeks at a time (her house is in Atlanta). Unbeknownst to her, a robbing crew had noticed her absence and cased her house, and decided to break in *the day after she had come back home*. Little intel failure on their part.

She was awakened around 4am with this crew *entering her house through her bedroom window*. She awoke, grabbed the magnum, and discharged a shot straight into the ceiling (being temporarily blinded by their LED headlamps), and they leapt back out the window and took off running. Sometimes the intimidation factor of a weapon can have defensive value (one argument against very small handguns.)

DH


----------



## drlivingston

FLMike said:


> I still own a Ruger 357, a 4" blue steel Security Six. I love that gun....so much so that it sleeps next to me every night (in my nightstand).


If you listen to some people, they will tell you that if you keep a gun for protection, it should be kept unloaded in a locked box on the top shelf of your closet. :icon_scratch:


----------



## 127.72 MHz

FLMike said:


> You can shoot 38's with a 357 mag. That's what my bedside piece is loaded with....LSWCHP .38 +P.
> 
> And then there's the single-shot .410 (isn't that phrase part of a Robert Earl Keen lyric?) that was my son's first firearm, that I also have in the corner of my bedroom, as my son has long since moved on from it. That one is loaded with a really gnarly-looking self-defense load that was made for use in the Taurus Judge (a .410 revolver, of all things).
> 
> Between the Ruger .357/.38 wheel gun and the break-action .410, I think I have the boogeyman covered (home defense). However, I'm less vigilant about carrying when I'm out and about, other than having the S&W snubbie or Glock 43 in my truck console at all times.
> 
> I'd rather talk about my "pretty" guns, but unfortunately I haven't had the opportunity to go upland bird hunting in the last few years, so I'm sorry to say they have been neglected of late, save for a few clay shooting sessions.


My thoughts exactly,...


----------



## FLMike

drlivingston said:


> If you listen to some people, they will tell you that if you keep a gun for protection, it should be kept unloaded in a locked box on the top shelf of your closet. :icon_scratch:


That's fine, as long as you get a cooperative bad guy who will agree to wait until you unlock the box/safe, fetch the gun and load it before proceeding to do whatever nefarious business he broke into your house to do.


----------



## El_Abogado

This thread started over five years ago and it's still going? Wow.

I never liked the M9 (Beretta), both because of grip size and the difference in trigger pull between the first shot and each succeeding shot. No enthusiasm whatsoever. The new M17 (P320) with different grips is superior in every respect.

I'm always enthusiastic whenever I can shoot John Moses Browning's fine M1911 or M1911A1. I've a rebuilt "Black Army" 1911 from 1917 and a rebuilt 1942 1911A1 issued to the Navy in 1943. Both sport Vietnam-era slides and barrels.

But for defense, my enthusiasm never wanes when I'm running a Glock Model 19 or a 26.


----------



## FLMike

El_Abogado said:


> But for defense, my enthusiasm never wanes when I'm running a Glock Model 19 or a *26*.


Ah, the original "Baby Glock". Now, with competition from the G43. I love the G19, by the way. My father in-law has one and my son owns the 40 cal version, the G23. He's just a college freshman, so of course it stays home in the safe with me (and all the shooting privileges that come with that arrangement!).


----------



## Shaver

El_Abogado said:


> This thread started over five years ago and it's still going? Wow.
> 
> I never liked the M9 (Beretta), both because of grip size and the difference in trigger pull between the first shot and each succeeding shot. No enthusiasm whatsoever. The new M17 (P320) with different grips is superior in every respect.
> 
> I'm always enthusiastic whenever I can shoot John Moses Browning's fine M1911 or M1911A1. I've a rebuilt "Black Army" 1911 from 1917 and a rebuilt 1942 1911A1 issued to the Navy in 1943. Both sport Vietnam-era slides and barrels.
> 
> But for defense, my enthusiasm never wanes when I'm running a Glock Model 19 or a 26.


Guns, God and Government - topics for which our appetite may never dwindle.

Note to self - upload a pic of my firing a weapon in the morrow.


----------



## Dhaller

I was about to pull the trigger (so to speak) on the Glock 43, but then I got reports from the 2018 SHOT show about the Sig P365: same size as the G43 but 10+1 rather than 6+1. Yes, please.

However... early reports were pretty bad, with frequent failures to return to battery and problems with the slide locking back. Sig has apparently resolved the issues, hopefully avoiding a repeat of the P320 debacle, but I'll watch for a few months. Fingers crossed, because it has the potential to be an amazing gun for appendix carry (which is what I want to start doing, hence looking for a smaller gun than my current EDC which is a G19).

Pretty gun, too:


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

Shaver said:


> Guns, God and Government - topics for which our appetite may never dwindle.
> 
> Note to self - upload a pic of my firing a weapon in the morrow.


Shaver gives me an idea. Prior to posting on this forum, one should be required to post a photo or video of themselves with an actual firearm! 

My submission proving my bona fides....at the 52 second mark, I kill a pheasant and receive kudos from my daughter.






Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Shaver

Despite being an advocate for animal rights (my position on animal testing is as vigorously held as my position on foetal annihilation) I have no objection to hunting. As a lad I (may have) spent many a happy night, with my uncle Tommy, salmon poaching in the Scottish highlands - a passtime which is no longer viable as the penalties for offenders have become increasingly stern.


----------



## Clintotron

My Egyptian Maadi


Maadi again and a borrowed Saiga 12 gauge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

Clintotron said:


> My Egyptian Maadi
> 
> Maadi again and a borrowed Saiga 12 gauge.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Very cool!

You make me miss my SKS!

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Clintotron

I traded a guitar for a Glock 22. Then I traded that G22 for the mint condition Maadi AK above. Couldn’t be happier. It’s now in a bullpup configuration (AKX1S from CBRPS.com).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Clintotron

Anyone have experience with a Chiappa Rhino?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Shaver

Shaver said:


> Guns, God and Government - topics for which our appetite may never dwindle.
> 
> Note to self - upload a pic of my firing a weapon in the morrow.


Am I permitted to boast? I am? Excellent! Well, in which case, I am obliged to mention that I something of a crack shot with a 99.9% accuracy on the clay pigeon range.

British Warm overcoat
Tweed flat cap
Lambswool scarf
Ear defenders
Over/under shotgun

BOOM!


----------



## Shaver

Top notch!


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

Shaver said:


> Am I permitted to boast? I am? Excellent! Well, in which case, I am obliged to mention that I something of a crack shot with a 99.9% accuracy on the clay pigeon range.
> 
> British Warm overcoat
> Tweed flat cap
> Lambswool scarf
> Ear defenders
> Over/under shotgun
> 
> BOOM!


Nice!


----------



## 16412

Shaver said:


> Am I permitted to boast? I am? Excellent! Well, in which case, I am obliged to mention that I something of a crack shot with a 99.9% accuracy on the clay pigeon range.
> 
> British Warm overcoat
> Tweed flat cap
> Lambswool scarf
> Ear defenders
> Over/under shotgun
> 
> BOOM!


Where are your safety glasses?


----------



## Shaver

WA said:


> Where are your safety glasses?


As I am already blind then safety glasses are not required.

Which reminds me, I once dated a deaf lady who was a dab hand on the range but alarmed others by not wearing any ear defenders.


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

WA said:


> Where are your safety glasses?


Where is your gun photo? 

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

A few more to gild the lily.....














South Africa, Marlin XL7 .30-06. Burris scope. Sub $500 set up, sub MOA at 100 yards.









South Africa, Another with the Marlin.









Blalock Lakes, Newnan, Georgia. On the clays with my 12 bore, Made in Japan, Winchester 101, 26" barrels, skeet chokes. It is a bit short for me, but it snap shoots so smooth. I bought it from Kevins of Thomasville. I have shed 25lbs since this photo! I gave birth 3 weeks later to a litter of German Short Haired Pointers.










Practicing home defense in Pretoria, South Africa 2009 with my 101. I was wondering what the business end would look like to home invaders. You can see that it isn't loaded, at least the top barrel, so please don't be concerned by my apparent display of toxic masculinity.

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Shaver

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


>


This pic would be well purposed as an avatar image.

:icon_aportnoy:


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

Shaver said:


> This pic would be well purposed as an avatar image.
> 
> :icon_aportnoy:


[/QUOTE]
Quite. I used it on FB for a while but my mum thought it unbecoming a gentleman. 

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## Clintotron

Quite. I used it on FB for a while but my mum thought it unbecoming a gentleman. 

Cheers,

BSR[/QUOTE]

Ye olde maternal pressure. Song as olde as tyme...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## 16412

Mr. B. Scott Robinson said:


> Where is your gun photo?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> BSR


Can't post something I don't have. Some how I spent my money on other stuff. Always planned on buying several. If I ever go out to buy one I certainly want my gun rights available. Some people need guns, anyway. Their rights need to be defended. Honest enjoyment with honest behavior are rights that needs to be defended. It is not just guns, but other things to. Back in the seventies some people tried to shut down mountaineering in the national forest. People don't have the right to trompel over us. Their lack of understanding does not give them any right to take away other people's rights. The last sentence is the heart of conservatives around the world, something liberals will never understand.


----------



## Bjorn

Got my Ruger. Like it.










Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Oldsarge

Good choice, Bjorn. Ruger makes fine wheel guns.


----------



## derum

The three amigos


----------



## Mr. B. Scott Robinson

Bjorn said:


> Got my Ruger. Like it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Pretty!

Cheers,

BSR


----------



## ran23

I miss shooting a family Security Six. More of a S&W man myself.


----------



## FLMike

ran23 said:


> I miss shooting a family Security Six. More of a S&W man myself.


I have a blued steel Security Six with 4" barrel in the night stand right next to me at this very moment. Love that gun.


----------



## Shaver

Jealous. My firearms were confiscated by 5-0 many years back.

However:


Less said the better.


----------

