# Armed America: A Portrait of Gun Owners in Their Homes



## Bob Loblaw (Mar 9, 2006)

https://funtasticus.com/20080313/armed-america-portraits-of-gun-owners-in-their-homes/

Of note is the first picture as well as the last in the series. The man with the AK47 and black Men's Wearhouse special seems to be saying "I BETTER LIKE THE WAY I LOOK"


----------



## capitalart (Apr 2, 2007)

Wow, what does one do with those(rambo style) weapons?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Interesting photo analogy...reminds me why I cancelled my NRA membership several years back...and can you believe it; Charlton Heston didn't even write to say he would miss me! :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

They always find the nuttiest gun owners for these things. There's a whole slew of normal people who own guns, they just don't get put in the public eye and you don't find them on gun forums.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

What-- not enough of these for you guys?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

capitalart said:


> Wow, what does one do with those(rambo style) weapons?


To answer the question, consider the AR-15-style rifle. It is:










1. a powerful cartridge, much more than handguns; capable of penetrating most soft body armor
2. controllable, much more than a handgun or a larger rifle. It has almost no kick and very little muzzle flash, which preserves the user's night vision
3. accurate, much more than a pistol and many or most rifles
4. lightweight, much lighter than most rifles and carbines
5. durable
6. reliable
7. portable and maneuverable in close quarters because of a pistol grip, shorter barrel and collapsible stock
8. high magazine capacity, usually 20 or 30 rounds
9. safe to use, not just to the user but to bystanders because of the tendency of the bullets it fires to lose energy quickly after hitting something
10. modular and versatile: it can easily be converted from iron sights, to red-dot sights to scopes; can mount accessories like powerful flashlights, grenade launchers, bayonets, forward pistol grips or bipods, etc.; the stock can be adjusted for different users

Etc., etc.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Keep in mind that those menacing looking assault rifles are nothing more than the same ordinary rifles that are used by farmers and ranchers all over the west, despite their appearance. Here's an example of a rifle similar to the ones pictured.

https://img208.imageshack.us/my.php?image=334lhn2.jpg

This rifle can carry just as many rounds in the magazine, in just as large of a caliber, and can fire those rounds every bit as quickly. The difference is that it simply isn't as "menacing" looking. Of course it wouldn't take but a few minutes to make it look like the ones in the pictures.

Cruiser


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

<delete>


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*firearm safety training works*

It was reassuring to see that _without exception_ the people knew to keep their fingers away from the trigger and not to point the weapon at people. There may be a few oddballs, but they demonstrate responsible handling.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Opens my window wide to air out one of the stalest fart debates in america's psyche.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

I bet the kids of all those gun owners will be properly exposed to weapons, and they won't be the ones who wind up accidentally shooting a friend while playing with a gun. I feel safer, not less safe after seeing those photos. Those pictures remind me of a couple of quotes by our Founding Fathers:

"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that
their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> What-- not enough of these for you guys?


Turkey, your post sent me a-googling. Too funny! That's not only a real rifle, it is California legal!

https://blog.riflegear.com/archive/...-ar-15---evil-black-rifle-meets-cute-and.aspx


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I had just assumed it was photoshopped. It couldn't be easy to get plastic, aluminum and steel all that same funky pink color.


----------



## mipcar (Dec 12, 2007)

Reading the comments from the link I find it a little amusing how there were several references to "Freedom"/"democracy" etc etc.
Now I am not well enough versed to get into deep debate about American history or politics and certainly we Aussies have more then a few skeletons in our countries closest as well but it seems to me that "freedom" was something not extended to your native American Indians, so to be claiming that as one of the many reasons for "over the top" gun ownership seems just a little bit hypocritical to me.

Mychael


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Don't get me started about what you dastardly Angles, Saxons and Jutes did to my poor Briton ancestors...

Hypocrite!


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I had just assumed it was photoshopped. It couldn't be easy to get plastic, aluminum and steel all that same funky pink color.


It's a DuraCoat finish by Armory Airbrush. People do this all the time with cammo, matching barrel to action to stock, etc.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

Liberty Ship said:


> It's a DuraCoat finish by Armory Airbrush. People do this all the time with cammo, matching barrel to action to stock, etc.


And, actually, it is very well thought out. If you go to the link I posted and study the parts, you will see that it is equipped with an ambidextrous safety. I had not thought of that, but it is a necessity if you install the Monster Man grip to make it Kali legal. The pic you posted does show a safety lever on the starboard side, but I didn't think this through until I studied the parts.


----------



## adrian07 (Aug 3, 2007)

Bob Loblaw said:


> https://funtasticus.com/20080313/armed-america-portraits-of-gun-owners-in-their-homes/


I can see a couple of silenced pistols in the second photo, aren't silencers illegal in America or am I missing something??


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

Silencers and full auto are legal. You just have to register them and yourself as an owner with the Federal government and pay a special tax. Not really worth the hassle, in my opinion. But, then again, it does put you at a disadvantage to have to take the time to don hearing protection in a home or automobile defensive situation where you can seriously damage your hearing without a silencer.


----------



## etp777 (Nov 27, 2007)

Nope adrian. At least not at Federal level. Have to be on a proper form 3/4 for a registered class 3/DD, but perfectly legal federal wise (just a bit more complicated and expensive to get than regular firearms). Certain states outlaw their ownership, yes, but certain areas (at municipal level generally, not state, unless you count DC), also outlaw handguns ownership in general.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

I wouldn't group silencers with full-auto. Full-auto is a lot harder to get because you can only buy old guns, which has also made them extremely expensive.

As to mipcar's point, yes out country has a bit of a sordid history, but if you look at the situation for Christians (because that's how the settlers looked at things), I think you'd have to agree that the founders did pretty well by freedom. It makes sense to extend this principle to all people now that we know better.

I don't get what's so over the top. The guys committing crimes with guns aren't typically the guys with thousands of dollars in high-end guns. The guys who commit crimes usually buy guns illegally, and they buy the cheapest stuff that kills. There are a few exceptions to this, but very very few.


----------



## etp777 (Nov 27, 2007)

I grouped them with full auto because they're governed by the same tax law (why you govern sale and interstate transport of a weapon with TAX law, is another whole discussion  ). But they're governed by the same body of law. National Firearms act of 1934 is primary one, Gun Control Act of 1968, and various other tax code have been added later.


----------



## adrian07 (Aug 3, 2007)

Thanks for the info on silencers  

I am falling in love with America even more... Proud people + Right to own guns = The freest and most powerful nation on earth.


----------



## etp777 (Nov 27, 2007)

It's far from perfect, but after being to europe, africa, and now the middle east, it's still my choice as best place for me to live.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

That's not a gun THIS here's a gun!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Howard said:


> That's not a gun THIS here's a gun!


...and the DI sings in the distance, "this is my weapon, this is my gun. One is for fighting, the others for fun! Sound-off, 1, 2..... :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Howard;724753That's not a gun THIS here's a gun![/quote said:


> If I might differ, THIS is a gun. It's a .50 Cal. semi-automatic rifle made by a small company in Tennessee. It is currently in use by the U. S. Army for special ops and sniper duty. I have no doubt that more than a few terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan have found themselves on the business end of this bad boy. MSRP is in excess of $8,000 per unit for civilian purchasers, although I have a feeling that anyone who buys one will end up on somebody's watch list. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> https://img72.imageshack.us/my.php?image=82a1fq5.gif
> 
> Cruiser


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

mipcar said:


> "freedom" was something not extended to your native American Indians, so to be claiming that as one of the many reasons for "over the top" gun ownership seems just a little bit hypocritical to me.


You're 100% right that America has neglected freedom to many races and groups in the past. However that's exactly the reason that they _need_ gun ownership protected.

If the Indians would have been equally armed like the white Christians, they would have been treated better. Since they started out using stone age weapons against gun powder, they were subjugated. Towards the end, during the various Indian wars, they did well combining thier horsemanship with modern weapons but by that time it was too late and they didn't have the numbers to compete with white settlers and the federal government.

If blacks in the South would have been allowed weapons (they largely weren't because of racist gun control laws) they would have had equality sooner. The history of gun control in the South originated with keeping slaves disarmed so they could not revolt, and extended to free blacks. Later, concealed carry laws were put in place 'for everyone' but only enforced against blacks. It's a lot easier to lynch someone who isn't carrying a pistol with them.

If coal miners in southern West Virginia wouldn't have had lots of guns, they may have never been able to unionize. There were various Mine Wars from 1912-1913, taking a break to fight in World War I, and then resuming in the early 20s. They reached a peak at Blair Mountain, the largest armed labor insurrection in American history and the only time the US govt has used military aircraft against it's own citizens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

Firearms level the playing field.


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

mipcar said:


> Reading the comments from the link I find it a little amusing how there were several references to "Freedom"/"democracy" etc etc.
> Now I am not well enough versed to get into deep debate about American history or politics and certainly we Aussies have more then a few skeletons in our countries closest as well but it seems to me that "freedom" was something not extended to your native American Indians, so to be claiming that as one of the many reasons for "over the top" gun ownership seems just a little bit hypocritical to me.
> 
> Mychael


So let me guess, Australia was abandoned when your ancestors got there?


----------



## capitalart (Apr 2, 2007)

PedanticTurkey said:


> To answer the question, consider the AR-15-style rifle. It is:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm sold...I wonder if the local gun store will have any left on stock?


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Actually, at the time Europeans arrived in the so-called New World, their technology was not superior to that of the locals. Inaccurate, slow to reload firearms were much less effective than the bows and arrows of the indigines. (Jan is indigine a word?) 

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

capitalart said:


> I'm sold...I wonder if the local gun store will have any left on stock?


Almost certainly, but you should spend a couple weeks reading up on the various manufacturers, variants and options before you buy one. Buying an AR-15 is a lot like building your own PC from parts; you'll want to know exactly what you want before you start buying stuff. Mine has a RRA lower with a 2-stage trigger, a 14.5" light-profile barrel with a permanently-attached flash hider, collapsible stock, "mid-length" gas system and a flat-top upper with a BUIS and an EOTECH. You shouldn't buy one until you know what all that stuff is.



Gurdon said:


> Actually, at the time Europeans arrived in the so-called New World, their technology was not superior to that of the locals. Inaccurate, slow to reload firearms were much less effective than the bows and arrows of the indigines. (Jan is indigine a word?)
> 
> Regards,
> Gurdon


Wow, you're...something...anyway. Horses, cannon, guns, and steel sabers and breastplates were no match for... bows and arrows and stone axes. Right. Is that what they're teaching in history classes these days?


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

"Whoever said the pen is mightier than the sword obviously never encountered automatic weapons"
_General Douglas Macarthur_


----------



## mipcar (Dec 12, 2007)

gnatty8 said:


> So let me guess, Australia was abandoned when your ancestors got there?


.

Re-read my post. I stated we also have our own dark history. Does not make it any more "right". My point was given those history I don't hide behind the "freedom" clause as a reason for owning guns.

Mychael


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

You're not making any sense. 

What do Indians (who, by the way, have pretty much always had the right to keep and bear arms under our laws) have to do with anything?


----------



## mipcar (Dec 12, 2007)

crazyquik said:


> You're 100% right that America has neglected freedom to many races and groups in the past. However that's exactly the reason that they _need_ gun ownership protected.
> 
> **I do not feel "protected" by the fact various governments have the ability to annihilate one another,I would feel a lot safer if they couldn't. **
> 
> ...


Now, having said all that, I have enjoyed owning firearms myself. I was in a gun club at school and have owned rifles and shotguns.
However, there is no need for silenced firearms, there is no need for automatic weapons.

Fine be a gun enthusiast/owner just be upfront and admit it, don't try whitewashing everything with all the reasons under the sun, admit you just love guns. Spare us the sales pitch about "home defence" & "personal safety" & "freedom" ad nauseum.

No Aussie would/could give "home defence/personal protection" as a reason for gun ownership. We take sensible precautions to safeguard our homes and by and large get by alright. So it seems to me that either there is a serious case of paranoia in some western countries or they really have let crime get way out of hand.

I would own a gun again first and foremost as a hobby and recreational activity, anything after that is secondary, I know those photo's were not the best examples of gun ownership but I need to ask how many of those people actually use those weapons as a genuine hobby/club activity.

Mychael


----------



## mipcar (Dec 12, 2007)

PedanticTurkey said:


> You're not making any sense.
> 
> What do Indians (who, by the way, have pretty much always had the right to keep and bear arms under our laws) have to do with anything?


.

I was using the way White people took away the "Freedom" of the native American Indian to highlight the inconsistency of how some use the "preserving freedom" line as a reason/rational for owning a gun.

Mychael


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Please don't think people in the US can buy automatic weapons willy nilly. First, you'll be hard pressed to buy an automatic weapon here for under $10,000. Second, the gun has to be from before 1986. Third, the local head of law enforcement has to give permission and the BATF has your fingerprints on file and the gun is registered with them in your name. You also have to not be in a state than bans them. The gun has to be stored in an approved safe, and the BATF is allowed to inspect your residence once annually.


While I do think it's good to keep one gun in the home for protection, my reason for gun ownership is as a hobby. That said, I do think gang violence is pretty much out of hand. However, I think the most important reason that there needs to be a right to bear arms in every liberal democracy is to maintain the right to revolution, even though I have no plans on ever using that right.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Well, you're still not making any sense. What happened to the Indians has happened to innumerable groups of primitive people. The only thing that makes us different is that we feel bad about it today. You don't see Indian tribe X feeling guilty about how their ancestors wiped out Indian tribe Y, but it happened tens of thousands of times before white people ever sit foot here.

And as to silencers and automatic weapons, if they were useless the military wouldn't use them. But they do, don't they?


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

mipcar said:


> .
> 
> I was using the way White people took away the "Freedom" of the native American Indian to highlight the inconsistency of how some use the "preserving freedom" line as a reason/rational for owning a gun.
> 
> Mychael


It's because when the Europeans first came to this country they viewed non-Christians as having no natural rights. There actually was an early attempt to enslave the Native Americans, but they were too good at escaping into the woods so the slave trade came about, again justified by the theory that as non-Christians they don't have rights. As slaves started to convert to Christianity, we started to have problems.

My point is this: now we know better than to limit freedom based on religion. The lesson isn't to limit everybody's freedom, but rather to allow all people to have the freedoms that were formerly only for some.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Indians have historically been treated as quasi-foreigners, subject not to our laws but to their own. I really don't see what his point is.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Indians have historically been treated as quasi-foreigners, subject not to our laws but to their own. I really don't see what his point is.


He's saying Americans don't really believe in freedom as evidenced by what we did to the native people.


----------



## mipcar (Dec 12, 2007)

PedanticTurkey said:


> And as to silencers and automatic weapons, if they were useless the military wouldn't use them. But they do, don't they?


You made my point for me. They are "useless" in a civilian sense. In the context of gun ownership we are civilians. I don't need to play pretend that I am military by owning silencers and auto wepaons. Leave them for the military and special forces. They are useless in a civilian context.

Mychael


----------



## mipcar (Dec 12, 2007)

marlinspike;
My point is this: now we know better than to limit freedom based on religion. The lesson isn't to limit everybody's freedom said:


> Well put, I agree. I would also say we need to maintain our "privilege" not "right" to gun ownership. With it comes responsibility and restrictions. I would argue for my right of choice to be a gun owner if I so chose.
> 
> Mychael


----------



## Akajack (Jun 15, 2007)

Constitutional scholars believe that the provisions of the 2nd amendment were put in place so that the citizens would always be able to overthrow the government if needed. There is no protection for hunting/sport, etc. As a U.S. citizen you are the militia (as in many other countries) and having a weapon at hand for that purpose is protected. An argument can be made that the weapons you consider "useless" in a civilian sense are the ones that are the most protected for private ownership.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

mipcar said:


> You made my point for me. They are "useless" in a civilian sense. In the context of gun ownership we are civilians. I don't need to play pretend that I am military by owning silencers and auto wepaons. Leave them for the military and special forces. They are useless in a civilian context.
> 
> Mychael


What the other guy said: in the context of the constitutionally-protected right, we are not "private citizens," but "the militia," the body of private citizens ready to take up arms in a "military context."

If anything, automatic weapons are _more_ appropriate and more protected by our Constitution than sporting arms.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

marlinspike said:


> He's saying Americans don't really believe in freedom as evidenced by what we did to the native people.


I got that, but the choice of Indians as opposed to the usual slavery bit has me perplexed.


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

Akajack said:


> Constitutional scholars believe that the provisions of the 2nd amendment were put in place so that the citizens would always be able to overthrow the government if needed. There is no protection for hunting/sport, etc. As a U.S. citizen you are the militia (as in many other countries) and having a weapon at hand for that purpose is protected. An argument can be made that the weapons you consider "useless" in a civilian sense are the ones that are the most protected for private ownership.


Furthermore, members of the US military take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic. The founding fathers had just had their rights violated by a legitimate government and fell back on the natural rights argument to say that when a government engages in tyrannical acts that violate natural rights, it is no longer legitimate. To ensure that the citizenry would have the means to act upon such a conclusion is the entire point of the 2nd amendement. The 1986 law is, in my not so humble opinion, unconstitutional and should be struck as such. There is a case before the court now that could wind up doing just that.


----------



## mipcar (Dec 12, 2007)

Akajack said:


> Constitutional scholars believe that the provisions of the 2nd amendment were put in place so that the citizens would always be able to overthrow the government if needed.


Isn't that what the vote is for? To remove a government that does not perform.
Seems to me that in this day and age a good number of everyday citizens are struggling to just manage their daily lives , I don't really see them as revolutionary material.

I would also hope that in the developed countries they (government) have they sense to realize that there is no economic sense in pissing off the people so badly that they cause a revolution. Things like that generally put a country back many yrs in growth and prosperity. Modern man likes his comforts too much to risk stuffing it all up with civil unrest.

I just don't go with the "red under every bed" mentality. Countries like Australia, New Zealand, England and (I'm assuming) many other European countries seem to get by fine with their respective levels of gun control/ownership. I have to ask, what are Americans so afraid of that they feel the need to arm themselves "just in case"??.

Certainly there are some countries that have had unrest/strife and instability throughout much of their history up to the present day but although America has had it's up and downs it does not strike me as being that bad, so I ask again, what are you scared of??

Mychael


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

The founders recognized that a majority could be just as tyrannical as a minority. That's why we have a Constitution that rules over our government that no mere majority can change.


----------



## mipcar (Dec 12, 2007)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I got that, but the choice of Indians as opposed to the usual slavery bit has me perplexed.


.

Just the first example that came to mind. One probably would have served as well as the other.

Mychael


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

mipcar said:


> Isn't that what the vote is for? To remove a government that does not perform.


And what is to stop the government from ignoring votes? This isn't exactly unheard of.


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

mipcar said:


> What are you scared of??
> 
> Mychael


Why are you so concerned with U.S. gun laws? They don't infringe upon you or your rights in any way do they? Surely there must be some Australian law worth complaining about that might have more of an impact on your day to day life isn't there?


----------



## mipcar (Dec 12, 2007)

marlinspike said:


> And what is to stop the government from ignoring votes? This isn't exactly unheard of.


True, but like I said in this day and age economy rules. It would not be good economics to totally ignore the citizenship to the point where they felt the need to change things by force.

Mychael


----------



## mipcar (Dec 12, 2007)

gnatty8 said:


> Why are you so concerned with U.S. gun laws? They don't infringe upon you or your rights in any way do they? Surely there must be some Australian law worth complaining about that might have more of an impact on your day to day life isn't there?


.

I'm not even complaining, what you all do over there in the end does not fuss me too much one way or the other. However this is an open forum and I am just participating with my opinion as does everyone else on here. This particular forum started about gun owners, it's just evolved as discussions do.. Had it been opened with "Australian laws,our top 10 whinges" then no doubt it would have gone along different lines. :icon_smile_wink:

Mychael


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

" We found them and tried them, under rule 303."- Breaker Morant. If you don't like american firearm culture, please, the next time the japanese invade New Guinea just have your aussie Playboy edition centerfolds swing bullroarers atop Ayres Rock while MEN AT WORK lipsinc their one hit song and 100 Steve Irwin imitator aussie gay men use deaf sign language to perform Waltzing Mathilda. To sum my position, your full of crap, the american equal to crikey.


----------



## mipcar (Dec 12, 2007)

Kav said:


> To sum my position, your full of crap, the american equal to crikey.


If your going to try to be insulting (usually what people do when they fail intelligent conversation lessons) then try to be correct. "Crikey" is actually an explanation for something sudden or amazing. Your last posting was neither.

What do you lot say over there?? "Have a NICE day" lol..

Cheers,
Mychael


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

mipcar said:


> Fine be a gun enthusiast/owner just be upfront and admit it, don't try whitewashing everything with all the reasons under the sun, admit you just love guns. Spare us the sales pitch about "home defence" & "personal safety" & "freedom" ad nauseum.


They guys that I know who are gun enthusiasts are upfront about it. Heck, often it's all they talk about. They go to gun shows and spend weekends on the firing range. But these folks don't represent the majority of people that I know who own a gun.

I am not a gun enthusiast. I have very little interest in firearms, although I do read and try to keep current on many subjects. At the same time, I own two guns, a .357 revolver and a short barrel .410 pump shotgun specifically designed for use in close quarters, ie. home defense.

I have a carry permit for the revolver, but very few people even know that I own it. Both guns are test fired and cleaned about once a year. And that's it. My sole reason for having either of them is personal or home defense. Most of the people I know who own a gun fall into this same category.

The very reason you never hear from us is because we are NOT gun enthusiasts. You don't hear us talking about guns and self defense etc. etc. We just quietly own a gun or two and rarely mention it. You might call us the silent majority of gun owners.

Cruiser


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

mipcar said:


> True, but like I said in this day and age economy rules. It would not be good economics to totally ignore the citizenship to the point where they felt the need to change things by force.
> 
> Mychael


It would be if a more powerful government gives you safe passage to Hawaii at the end of it all.


----------



## mipcar (Dec 12, 2007)

Cruiser said:


> I am not a gun enthusiast. I have very little interest in firearms, although I do read and try to keep current on many subjects. At the same time, I own two guns, a .357 revolver and a short barrel .410 pump shotgun specifically designed for use in close quarters, ie. home defense.
> Cruiser


Okay, but I still ask, home defense from what?? Is America such a dangerous place that everyone needs guns for home defense, if it's really that bad why do you even go out the door and into the streets everyday?

Sure I realize there are areas you would not sensibly go to,We have places like that as well but I am assuming your are speaking of mainstream/average Joe suburbia. So, home defense in case of what?? I'm really trying to understand the mindset here.

Mychael


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Well, we do have about 3 times as many murders per capita as Australia. Still, everywhere has at least one murder in a year, why take a chance that you don't have to take, no matter how small the odds?


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

We have more murders, but it's concentrated among a certain, uh, demographic. A lot of our crime is similarly concentrated. Compare that with, say, England, which has a much higher overall crime rate and much less concentration, making the average person there much more likely to be victimized.

Anecdotally, I've only had to use a gun to defend myself once, and I'm glad I had it.


----------



## mipcar (Dec 12, 2007)

marlinspike said:


> Well, we do have about 3 times as many murders per capita as Australia. Still, everywhere has at least one murder in a year, why take a chance that you don't have to take, no matter how small the odds?


.

I'm trying hard to ask questions and not offend anyone at the same time.
I don't know the demographics of America but aren't the greater proportions of murders committed by Black Americans and are often gang/drug related?

One also needs to consider as to why specifically the murder rate is what it is, granted higher population generally means higher numbers of anything but would murders be as high if there were no guns?

Is the murder rate in America the same as or higher then the murder rate in some other comparable 1st world developed western country of similar population numbers? If it's lower, that is good, if it's higher then it needs to be asked why and in that case I don't mean guns but the why of the people doing murder.

We have murders here, mostly stabbings (usually youth/alcohol/ethnic related), gun related murders are (by and large) gang related.
House break- ins with assaults usually happen to elderly people living alone who probably could not defend themselves with a gun even if they had one.

In other cases (not all but quite a few) of household break-ins where the residents are badly assaulted there often came to light that there was more to it then a simple random robbery, often it was youth or ethnic issues as the base cause of it.
What I am trying to say is that (in Australia) for the average law abiding "man in the street" there is no general feeling of need for "home defense" so I have a problem getting my head around that being such an issue for other countries.

Mychael


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Property crime tends to be directed against people with... property, and robberies tend to be of people with... money. Even if it's not _likely_ to happen to you, well, why take the chance when you can be prepared to defend yourself?

Since the late 1980s and early 1990s almost all the states in this country have been freely giving permits to carry concealed weapons to private citizens, and violent, as well as property crime, has gone down dramatically. The entire country feels much safer, and part of it is because we can defend ourselves (or we know that the criminals are afraid their target might be able to).

On the other hand gun ownership by minorities is much, much lower, than it is for whites, and the areas they tend to be concentrated in are much more restrictive on gun ownership and use, even though minorities are much more frequently the victims of crime.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

mipcar said:


> Okay, but I still ask, home defense from what?? Is America such a dangerous place that everyone needs guns for home defense


No, of course not. I don't plan on ever firing either of my guns at anything other than a paper target about once a year. But having said that I would rather have that shotgun in hand in that one in a million chance that someone is breaking into my home than not have it. Sort of like the airbag in your car. You probably don't plan to ever make use of it, but you want it there in the unlikely event the need should arise.

Cruiser


----------



## mipcar (Dec 12, 2007)

PedanticTurkey said:


> We have more murders, but it's concentrated among a certain, uh, demographic. A lot of our crime is similarly concentrated. Compare that with, say, England, which has a much higher overall crime rate and much less concentration, making the average person there much more likely to be victimized.


That's a good point, I saw your post after making my last one. I agree (with some hesitation) that as an individual walking along a street you might be able to protect yourself from a bashing if you had a handgun and (more importantly) be able to get access to it in time. The trouble is most assaults are unexpected and by then it would be too late to use your gun to protect yourself anyway and furthermore if you are in a country which allows you to carry a gun then likely your assailants (who clearly are not nice people anyway) would also probably being carrying guns and therefore negate any advantage you might have had in the first place.

Readers of this forum might be interested to know that I was arguing against having the guns laws tightened here in Australia, however and it's a big however I was arguing against an illogical argument from the anti-gun lobby. They were saying how a reduction in firearms would reduce the number of suicides, as a paramedic I was able to speak from personal experience and say that if someone is hell bent on self destruction then removing guns entirely would achieve little as they would only do it another way and in fact most suicides I've attended were medication overdose, followed by gassing in cars, followed by hanging.

Maintaining logic as my argument I find the home defense/self defense/national unrest arguments a bit thin. That's just me and I don't live there but it seems to me that you could only fire one gun at a time, some people seem to be preparing for all out invasion of their homes by the screaming hordes. Civil wars, wars of Independence,world wars all were a long time ago now. Many of our old adversaries are now happy and willing business and trading partners.

Mychael


----------



## mipcar (Dec 12, 2007)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Since the late 1980s and early 1990s almost all the states in this country have been freely giving permits to carry concealed weapons to private citizens,.


That is interesting, how many people would you estimate actually carry (legally) a concealed weapon? Excluding police security etc. Just the normal person on the street.

I guess it must vary a lot from state to state, town to town.

Mychael


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I'm not sure why you think that most robberies take a person by surprise. In my experience the great majority of them have perpetrated by bad guys the victim saw coming (or should have seen coming) a mile away. I think the most common robbery tactic is simply to feign panhandling.

As you say, you can only fire one gun at a time. So what do you care if someone collects guns? I've got about ten.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

mipcar said:


> That is interesting, how many people would you estimate actually carry (legally) a concealed weapon? Excluding police security etc. Just the normal person on the street.
> 
> I guess it must vary a lot from state to state, town to town.
> 
> Mychael


I'm not sure, but I think the usual estimate is something like 3-4 million, or about 1-2% of the adult population is licensed.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

mipcar said:


> That is interesting, how many people would you estimate actually carry (legally) a concealed weapon? Excluding police security etc. Just the normal person on the street.
> 
> I guess it must vary a lot from state to state, town to town.
> 
> Mychael


It depends on the state. In Maryland, where I'm from, you can't get a permit unless there is a police record showing that you have had your life in danger in the past. Here in VA, you need a permit to carry concealed, but can carry open without a permit.
In my entire life, which includes 4 years in North Carolina and now some time in Virginia (the Southeastern states tend to be more gun friendly, though so is Vermont, but they're pro every right a person can think of), I have only known 3 people who have a permit, and none who actually utilize it for anything other than making it easier to avoid breaking the law when driving from their home to a range.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

mipcar said:


> Is the murder rate in America the same as or higher then the murder rate in some other comparable 1st world developed western country of similar population numbers? If it's lower, that is good, if it's higher then it needs to be asked why and in that case I don't mean guns but the why of the people doing murder.
> 
> We have murders here, mostly stabbings (usually youth/alcohol/ethnic related), gun related murders are (by and large) gang related.
> House break- ins with assaults usually happen to elderly people living alone who probably could not defend themselves with a gun even if they had one.


Well, I don't think there are any comparable countries. America is extremely diverse, but it also has a history of race-based hate, so it makes for a tenser place than elsewhere. There are places where guns are illegal (DC for instance). DC has the 5th highest murder rate of any major US city, even though the police these days are more or less everywhere (which is a big change that's been taking place over the years, and I would say the reason it doesn't rank higher on that list).

Violent crime in the US is mainly in urban areas, though urbanization has been expanding what is an urban area, and gang violence is extending beyong gang-on-gang violence.

Criminals typically get their guns illegally (though this doesn't rule out being bought from a store). Just like drug laws haven't stopped stoners from getting drugs, gun laws wouldn't stop criminals from getting guns.

There have been some interesting things in the news about this lately since there is a Supreme Court case that we're waiting for a decision on. US News ran two pieces in their last edition. In the second one, they have a DC cop (IIRC..DC law enforcement official at the very least) saying that they could confiscate guns from most of the people they've been taking them from even if there weren't a ban in place (because it was otherwise illegal for the person to have the gun).


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I fire two guns simutaneoulsy rather well. Any aficianando of THE SHADOW or THE PHANTOM, GHOST WHO WALKS, BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE LONE RANGER will eventually pick up a brace of .45s; either SAA's or 1911s and realise how easy it is while negating our silly 10 round magazine capacity laws. I am amused how firearms and mechanical watches periodicaly come up for criticism on this forum. To paraphrase my reply to that other thread, Men explored the world with mechanical watches and also fireams so that (PC correctness) Persons could glance at their electronic toys and complain how long it's taking them to go utterly nowhere of note." Said I didn't have much use for a Colt, never said I didn't know how to use one."- Tom Selleck in QUIGLEY DOWN UNDER


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

If you want to understand violence in this country and how it's not linked to guns, you really only need to look at these two figures:



Death rates by homicide per 100k males aged 15-19, 2004:

Black: 54.8
Hispanic: 25.8
Indian: 14.6
Asian: 7.3
Non-hispanic White: 3.3

Average: 15.3

Or (among many other links with similar information: 

Households with a gun:

Black: 20%
White (probably including Hispanic): 45%

So, white male teens are more than twice as likely to have access to guns, but 1/17th as likely to be homicide victims.


----------



## mipcar (Dec 12, 2007)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I'm not sure why you think that most robberies take a person by surprise. I think the most common robbery tactic is simply to feign panhandling.
> 
> As you say, you can only fire one gun at a time. So what do you care if someone collects guns? I've got about ten.


As crimes generally get reported over here, it would seem (our crime) is taking people by surprise as in they did not see it coming. With the exception of my reference in an earlier post about how a lot of things happened that were on the first reporting of it , it appeared to be random but where later on it came out there there was some prior knowledge or connection between the parties involved. I still reckon the for the average person around here it would be a surprise. Assuming they were not stupid enough to put themselves in harms way in the first place.

I don't understand your term "panhandling".

I don't "care" as in lose sleep over the fact of someone collecting guns. I personally only ever owned two at the same time, usually only one but my mate has quite a few in both hand guns and long-arms but each and everyone of his guns get used in either target shooting or hunting.
To me it seems strange that people feel such a need to have so many high powered weapons for reasons other then being a genuine collector or regular hobbyist/user.
Many yrs ago now we had a huge gun buy back scheme initiated by our government, it was misguided and many people (myself included) opposed it and protested, it still happened and was an inconvenience and an insult to the responsible/legal gun owners.
For all that though, the world did not end, Australia did not decay into any more crime then it already had, crims didn't haunt the streets harassing the nice people, nothing changed, in the end it did not change a thing.
Guns were in the end not that important and that particular government remained in power for many yrs to come because the majority did not vote them out.
I would never support the total banning of any legitimate pastime that does not harm or inconvenience anyone else or the environment but by the same token I would not get overly defensive when someone questions why I might or might not do a particular thing.

Mychael


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

mipcar said:


> As crimes generally get reported over here, it would seem (our crime) is taking people by surprise as in they did not see it coming. With the exception of my reference in an earlier post about how a lot of things happened that were on the first reporting of it , it appeared to be random but where later on it came out there there was some prior knowledge or connection between the parties involved. I still reckon the for the average person around here it would be a surprise. Assuming they were not stupid enough to put themselves in harms way in the first place.


Yes, most robberies occur between people who know each other-- probably through the drug trade. I was referring to street robberies.



> I don't understand your term "panhandling".


Begging-- "hey, man, got a dollar?"



> I don't "care" as in lose sleep over the fact of someone collecting guns. I personally only ever owned two at the same time, usually only one but my mate has quite a few in both hand guns and long-arms but each and everyone of his guns get used in either target shooting or hunting.
> To me it seems strange that people feel such a need to have so many high powered weapons for reasons other then being a genuine collector or regular hobbyist/user.


I don't really know anyone who has a lot of guns that isn't a "genuine" collector or regular shooter. Why else would they have the guns?



> Many yrs ago now we had a huge gun buy back scheme initiated by our government, it was misguided and many people (myself included) opposed it and protested, it still happened and was an inconvenience and an insult to the responsible/legal gun owners.
> For all that though, the world did not end, Australia did not decay into any more crime then it already had, crims didn't haunt the streets harassing the nice people, nothing changed, in the end it did not change a thing.
> Guns were in the end not that important and that particular government remained in power for many yrs to come because the majority did not vote them out.


It's been, what, 10 years? The most peaceful and propserous ten years in the world's history. Give it time.



> I would never support the total banning of any legitimate pastime that does not harm or inconvenience anyone else or the environment but by the same token I would not get overly defensive when someone questions why I might or might not do a particular thing.


I tend to get defensive because it implies that I or anyone else needs to explain it. We don't.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> If I might differ, THIS is a gun. It's a .50 Cal. semi-automatic rifle made by a small company in Tennessee. It is currently in use by the U. S. Army for special ops and sniper duty. I have no doubt that more than a few terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan have found themselves on the business end of this bad boy. MSRP is in excess of $8,000 per unit for civilian purchasers, although I have a feeling that anyone who buys one will end up on somebody's watch list. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> https://img72.imageshack.us/my.php?image=82a1fq5.gif
> 
> Cruiser


No, they'll end up as a poster boy for the NRA.


----------



## mipcar (Dec 12, 2007)

PedanticTurkey said:


> It's been, what, 10 years? The most peaceful and propserous ten years in the world's history. Give it time.
> I tend to get defensive because it implies that I or anyone else needs to explain it. We don't.


1/Cynic:icon_smile:. Trust in human nature,,hmm, come to think of it, not a good idea. Better keep your gun. lol. Personally though I'd rather wait and see if the sky really "was falling" before going to my personal DEF CON 4.

2/ Well, if trying to make conversation ,having debate and sharing of views and opinions is implying that someone needs to "explain" something and therefore become defensive, then I hold little hope for the future of forums or the human race to solve problems with discussion. I would have said that the greatest human achievement is the ability to communicate.

Mychael


----------



## radix023 (May 3, 2007)

mipcar said:


> That is interesting, how many people would you estimate actually carry (legally) a concealed weapon? Excluding police security etc. Just the normal person on the street.
> 
> I guess it must vary a lot from state to state, town to town.
> 
> Mychael


PT provided some stats, but there is no way to know how many people with a CCW permit (Carry Concealed Weapon) chose to carry a handgun on any given day. This is the brilliance of the civilian CCW: the would-be mugger doesn't know either. Thus a small minority of CCWs has a multiplier effect in deterring stranger crime.

With regards to your questions about the differences between countries, there is a good book on the topic:
The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies 
https://www.amazon.com/Samurai-Mountie-Cowboy-Controls-Democracies/dp/0879757566


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

mipcar said:


> 1/Cynic:icon_smile:. Trust in human nature,,hmm, come to think of it, not a good idea. Better keep your gun. lol. Personally though I'd rather wait and see if the sky really "was falling" before going to my personal DEF CON 4.


The thing is, every writing from our founding says that you can't trust human nature. That "if men were angels, no government would be necessary" and that "had every Athenian been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob." (federalist papers 51 and 55...in case as an Australian you don't know the significance of those, the federalist papers were basicallly arguments published in newspapers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay on why the people should support the ratification of the Constitution).


----------



## etp777 (Nov 27, 2007)

People who think you can trust all governments jsut because it's the "modern day" need to look at their history a bit more closely. Besides all the obvious atrocities commited by various communist, fascist and other regimes on their people, take a look at Kent State, all the criminal (whether they charged them or not) acts commited by various government entities against blacks in the last century, and the bonus army. ETERNAL vigilance is the price of freedom. Outside of that issue, home invasion robberies are on the rise in many (most?) metro areas, and response times on 911 calls are similarly rising. If you call 911 during a home invasion, they're likely just gooing to be sending an ambulance, or worse, body bag, for you, and some cops to take your statement afterwards. If you protect yourself, they can be sending cops to pick up the scumbag cowering in the corner that you have covered, and take your statement. It's up to you, do you want to be in the newspaper as a statistic and a sad story, or as a bright tale of someone taking personal responsibility for their own (and even more important, their family's) safety, with the punk sitting behind bars.

Course, good chance said punk will get out after little or no time served, but that's another whole problem and issue. It's up to each person to make their own decisions though as to what they consider priorities, what they consider likelihood of something like this happening. I have life, car, motorcycle and renter's insruance. I don't expect to use any of them (except for life, in the far future), but I still have them. I also have means of protecting my home. I also don't expect to use that, on the small scale or the large scale, but I still have them, and I ensure I know how to safely and effectively use them. That's the decision I've made. If you choose differently, that's up to you, but don't try to tell me what i can and can't do.


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I think the most common robbery tactic is simply to feign panhandling.


I had this happen to me on a Saturday afternoon. It was amazing how quickly it went from innocent "got a dollar" to menacing robbery.

I have a concealed carry permit however, so the gentleman didn't get much from me but the **** scared out of him when he realized I was armed.


----------



## laufer (Feb 20, 2008)

etp777 said:


> People who think you can trust all governments jsut because it's the "modern day" need to look at their history a bit more closely. Besides all the obvious atrocities commited by various communist, fascist and other regimes on their people, take a look at Kent State, all the criminal (whether they charged them or not) acts commited by various government entities against blacks in the last century, and the bonus army. ETERNAL vigilance is the price of freedom. Outside of that issue, home invasion robberies are on the rise in many (most?) metro areas, and response times on 911 calls are similarly rising. If you call 911 during a home invasion, they're likely just gooing to be sending an ambulance, or worse, body bag, for you, and some cops to take your statement afterwards. If you protect yourself, they can be sending cops to pick up the scumbag cowering in the corner that you have covered, and take your statement. It's up to you, do you want to be in the newspaper as a statistic and a sad story, or as a bright tale of someone taking personal responsibility for their own (and even more important, their family's) safety, with the punk sitting behind bars.
> 
> Course, good chance said punk will get out after little or no time served, but that's another whole problem and issue. It's up to each person to make their own decisions though as to what they consider priorities, what they consider likelihood of something like this happening. I have life, car, motorcycle and renter's insruance. I don't expect to use any of them (except for life, in the far future), but I still have them. I also have means of protecting my home. I also don't expect to use that, on the small scale or the large scale, but I still have them, and I ensure I know how to safely and effectively use them. That's the decision I've made. If you choose differently, that's up to you, but don't try to tell me what i can and can't do.


True voice of reason. I have experienced first hand what corrupt government can do to unarmed people.


----------



## brioni007 (Dec 3, 2007)

It does sound crazy that we keep buying more guns and more people in America keep dying from firearms. it's madness that will never stop. it's only the rare occasion when a gun owner out draws the bad guy. In most cases the bad guy wins. There too many crazy people with guns in America. Just watch your local news. Guns make cowards brave!



mipcar said:


> Okay, but I still ask, home defense from what?? Is America such a dangerous place that everyone needs guns for home defense, if it's really that bad why do you even go out the door and into the streets everyday?
> 
> Sure I realize there are areas you would not sensibly go to,We have places like that as well but I am assuming your are speaking of mainstream/average Joe suburbia. So, home defense in case of what?? I'm really trying to understand the mindset here.
> 
> Mychael


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

laufer said:


> True voice of reason. I have experienced first hand what corrupt government can do to unarmed people.


Trouble is, do you really think that when the men in the black pajamas come knocking that the average citizen, even as well-armed as those people in the link above, will stand a chance? I guess the expected response is, at least I'll go down fighting. But wouldn't it be better to avoid the last stand at the OK Corral and instead find other ways to improve things so that the black helicopters don't hover over your house?

Maybe taking a second look at some of the anti-terror legislation passed in recent years could be a decent first step in shoring up privacy abuses.

As for fighting bad guys in the street, that's another story. I spent a decade in Phoenix and can say that never once did I want to take on the dude in the cowboy hat sporting a sidearm and buying bread in the Albertson's.

But for those who say that the folks in the link above are not going to risk accidentally shooting their kid or pet because they're so well trained (not that we know that, really, but let's accept it as a fact since someone here noted they were not posing with finger on the trigger), I can point to a couple instances where veteran cops I know have nearly killed someone while cleaning their guns. And these were not dumb-asses by any means, despite the blunder. Training gets you only so far. The gods muck up the rest.


----------



## laufer (Feb 20, 2008)

brioni007 said:


> It does sound crazy that we keep buying more guns and more people in America keep dying from firearms. it's madness that will never stop. it's only the rare occasion when a gun owner out draws the bad guy. In most cases the bad guy wins. There too many crazy people with guns in America. Just watch your local news. Guns make cowards brave!


I understand you point but if we prohibit people from buying guns legally bad guys will always obtain them illegally.

I agree that people do not need anti aircraft machine guns and grenade launchers or heavy artillery but basic weapon should be legal.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

BertieW said:


> I can point to a couple instances where veteran cops I know have nearly killed someone while cleaning their guns. And these were not dumb-asses by any means, despite the blunder. Training gets you only so far. The gods muck up the rest.


I don't care if they had 30 years on the force, they'd have to be pretty darn stupid to accidentally fire a gun. I don't know how these people who accidentally discharge while cleaning their gun do it. There's no way to do it when cleaning a revolver because the wheel has to be open; when you clean a semi-auto pistol you disassemble the gun, when you clean a bolt action rifle you have to take out the bolt. Even on something like an M1 where you clean from the barrel end you still take out the trigger and make the gun inoperable before cleaning.


----------



## etp777 (Nov 27, 2007)

Change term accidental discharge to negligent discharge.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Yeah, anybody who "accidentally" fires a gun is careless. I think a better word would be "negligently"; of course, I know people who have been driving for 30 years and still cause car accidents. And car accidents kill a lot more people.

As to the danger of guns to children, two points: the vast majority of children who are accidentally killed with guns are shot by adults; and second, guns are much safer than many common items. 

Consider that if you followed a single gun and a single swimming pool until the gun was used to accidentally kill a child-- the swimming pool would have drowned 80 children during that time.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Home Invasions*

For anyone thinking a home invasion is not likely, please go to www.google.com and do this search:

+tucson +"home invasion"

You will be shocked. The "showy" ones come up first, the ones on the south side of the city, which is the poorer area of town where most of the illegals live. Keep digging though and you will see it is not contained to that area of town, but also homes in the upscale northern neighborhoods get hit for just plain old robbery reasons.


----------



## marlinspike (Jun 4, 2007)

Heck, the first news story here https://www.city-data.com/forum/virginia/88322-crime-williamsburg.html is about 1.5 blocks from my law school.

Oh, and here's a follow-up to the story (he ended up copping a plea) https://www.dailypress.com/news/local/williamsburg/dp-local_joyner_0220feb20,0,7377134.story


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

marlinspike said:


> The thing is, every writing from our founding says that you can't trust human nature. That "if men were angels, no government would be necessary" and that "had every Athenian been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob." (federalist papers 51 and 55...in case as an Australian you don't know the significance of those, the federalist papers were basicallly arguments published in newspapers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay on why the people should support the ratification of the Constitution).


The American Revolution did not trust human nature; a republic was born. The French Revolution trusted human nature; a democracy was born. Q.E.D.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Why do families feel the need to keep a gun in their house,It's not like they're going to use it or anything.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Why do families lock their doors when they go to bed at night? 

Don't we trust our fellow humans?


----------



## capitalart (Apr 2, 2007)

Howard said:


> Why do families feel the need to keep a gun in their house,It's not like they're going to use it or anything.


Its better to have one and not use it, then to need one and not have it.


----------



## capitalart (Apr 2, 2007)

Relayer said:


> Why do families lock their doors when they go to bed at night?
> 
> Don't we trust our fellow humans?


Not at night time, thats when we are most vulnerable.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Howard, What right has anyone to determine what another individual may, or may not possess? As we read this forum communist China is enforcing yet another brutal crackdopwn on the people of Tibet. Tibetans are a minority in their own land and denied religous freedom in a nation synonymous with Buddhism. Shall I walk into a WALMAT and start smashing made in China ( how simple, no Mainland China, Red China,chicom or PR of China to distinguish from Taiwan) because said objects, like a firearm represent an aspect of social behavior I disapprove of? That's exactly what the chinese did during the cultural revolution; smash the majority of buddhist temples and holy objects. FREE TIBET! and, if an option, with Mao's metaphor for the voice of that revolution.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Relayer said:


> Why do families lock their doors when they go to bed at night?
> 
> Don't we trust our fellow humans?


_"Now and again, America is subjected to the acts of a criminal so profoundly depraved that it changes the way we view our fellow human beings. _ 
_Ted Bundy. John Wayne Gacy. Jeffrey Dahmer. Gary Ridgway. Dennis Rader. Richard Speck._

_This pitiless club has a new member: Joseph Edward Duncan III._

_As a teenager in Tacoma, Wash., Duncan raped and tortured a 14-year-old boy at gunpoint. Convicted as an adult, he spent 18 years in prison and was afforded many opportunities to overcome-or perhaps constrain-his psychopathic sexual urges._

_Ultimately, all efforts failed._

_After prison, Duncan enrolled in college in Fargo, N.D., registered as a sex offender and spent several years without any reported lapses._

_But early last spring, he was accused of molesting a boy on a playground in Minnesota. Facing charges that almost certainly would have led him back to prison, Duncan vanished from Fargo in a stolen Jeep, just weeks before he was to graduate from North Dakota State University._

_Three days later, authorities allege, Duncan turned up with a shotgun and carpenter's hammer at the home of Brenda Groene and her children near Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. He bludgeoned to death Groene, her son Slade, 13, and Brenda's boyfriend, Mark McKenzie._

_He bound the woman's two youngest children, Dylan, 9, and Shasta, 8, and carried them away in his Jeep. He took them to a hideout in the Montana woods and used the children as sexual playthings for seven weeks before finally killing Dylan, officials allege._

_He was arrested July 2 at a Coeur d'Alene restaurant while having breakfast with Shasta."_

I live in Coeur d' Alene, Idaho, a place thought to be a haven from this type of thing. That's why I lock my doors, have two dogs that bark at anything, and take other measures to try and safeguard my family.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Relayer said:


> Why do families lock their doors when they go to bed at night?
> 
> Don't we trust our fellow humans?


No we don't.I don't even trust myself.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

capitalart said:


> Its better to have one and not use it, then to need one and not have it.


Correct. I keep my trusty CZ at the ready at night. I don't expect that I'll ever have to use it in defense of my home and loved ones, but I know that I can if it becomes necessary.

For a similar reason I gave my two daughters (away at college) pepper spray and told them to have it in hand if they have to be out at night alone or even with another girl. The two recent incidents (Auburn & UNC) reminded me of why I did.

These precautions may or may not carry the day, but at least you give yourself the chance.


----------



## Akajack (Jun 15, 2007)

I'm not sure whether the lower rates of gun-related homicides in Australia are a point worth mentioning as there has been a statistically insignificant change in _*total*_ homicides in Australia between 1996-2006. In the same period violent crime against individuals is increasing signficantly - even takining population changes into account. I don't draw any conclusions from this as I haven't studied the Australian government's statistics in depth, but it would lead me towards looking further at the possibility that the strict gun laws have motivated criminals in Australia to change their tactics - possibly using other weapons.

"Australian Institute of Criminology" is a good place to start looking.

https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2007/01_recorded_crime.html#number


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I was transferring to a new duty station and two nonrates announced they were going to give me a 'blanket party' for giving them extra weekend duty a month before. The fact I caught them smoking a joint and could have sent them on in life with a DD escaped their 18 y/o logic. They knew I had shipped my personal firearms ahead. I had half a bottle of Hoppes cleaning solvent still in my locker. I simply opened it and let that unappreciated men's cologne fill the enlisted quarters. There was no blanket party, though they lost a lot of sleep that night. Ironic, I've had people get in my face over this issue of firearms more than any other. perhaps people have this basic understanding most of us are MORE responsible and restrained in physical action than any other issue group?


----------

