Guns why do you americans love them so much?

[casdave]

Sure loads of times I've been angry,never needed a gun though,lets face it guns are designed to do just one thing - kill deer,
big game,you,me,anything really.
I don't trust anyone who carries a gun in the street.
Self defence hmmmm
Protection of freedom hmmmm
You Americans seem to have a shortfall of
compassion for your own (no health coverage
for a third of you-its communist) yet you take everyone elses problems as your own.
Stop killing yourselves-ban guns,save a life

[Spiritus Mundi]

American politicians have long been successful in manipulating the fears of the populace to amass personal power. America is by no means unique in this, of course, but the diverse nature of our population makes it a particularly effective strategy here. Frightened people will surrender a number of things to regain their sense of security, compassion is only one example.

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

The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.

[Nu Vo Da Da]

Big guns make up for small penises. Seems pretty simple to me....

[manhattan]

We need to be able to shoot guns so that we’re prepared to sail on over and save Europe and Great Britain from the Germans twice per century.

P.S. The ultra-rightists are already part of a coalition government in Austria and are becoming increasingly popular in Germany as well. Perhaps you should get out to the rifle range yourself. You know, just in case.

Any more questions?


------------------
Change Your Password, Please (http://204.95.48.199/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ubbmisc.cgi?action=getannounce&ForumNumber=3&Start=2451545.99&End=2451911&Session=2451598.1854) and don't use HTML, as it has been disabled, but you can learn about superscripts here (http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000795.html)

[BoBettie]

Very true, but those barrels are SO DAMNED cold!

I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry!!

------------------
"If I had to live your life, I'd be begging to have someone pop out both my eyes. Just in case I came across a mirror." - android209 (in the Pit)
Zettecity (http://www.angelfire.com/ny3/zettecity/index.html)
Voted "Most Empathetic"- can you believe that?

[Glitch]

I am starting to understand how David B must feel whenever he sees a new creationism thread.

Dave:

Your facts are mistaken.

See:

John Lott - "More Guns, Less Crime" and numerous articles
Gary Kleck - Numerous articles

Morgan O Reynolds - National Center for Policy Analysis
W.W. Caruth III - National Center for Policy Analysis
James D Wright & Peter H Rossi - "Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms"

Paul Blackman - Journal of Firearms and Public Policy

Marianne Zawitz - "Guns Used in Crime" & "Firearm Injury from Crime" (Bureau of Justice)
Patsy A Klaus - "The Cost of Crime to Victims: Crime Data Brief" (Bureau of Justice)
Micheal R Rand - "Guns and Crime: Handgun Victimization, Firearm Self Defense, and
Firearm Theft" (Bureau of Justice)

[Spoke]

Guns are a hedge against tyranny. That is the reason gun ownership is protected in the Constitution, plain and simple.

Put it this way: If the Jews of Europe had owned guns, I wonder if the Nazis wouldn't have been just a little more circumspect about trying to round them up? Seems like a tyrranical government might be just a little more reluctant about kicking someone's door down if they don't know what might be behind that door.

That was the logic behind the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Now, I am not a gun nut by any stretch of the imagination. Heck, I don't even own one. But I do see the logic behind the notion embodied in the Second Amendment.

The problem is that guns known to the drafters of the Constitution and the guns of today are very different things. The musket of the Revolutionary War has yielded to today's assault weapons, which can do extraordinary damage in the hands of a motivated lunatic. Another problem is the ease of use of guns today -- so simple that even a child can operate them (as has been demonstrated far to often).

How do we reconcile the desire to protect ourselves from the potential of government tyranny with the desire to keep ourselves safe from random acts of violence? I don't have the answer.

[casdave]

I've fired proper guns (4.5inch)at proper
baddies for real in defence of'freedom'
All I found out was that it help a certain females election campaign-who says all the right wingers are in Austria.
I've had lots of practice on ranges too and
I'll hit anything you care to point out within a couple of hundred yards but I fail to see why carrying arms in peacetime in a
suburban landscape improves my ability to defend my nation

[Glitch]

See the material presented in my previous post and you will stop "failing to see".

[Glitch]

Here's a novel idea, casdave:

You prove your case about the necessity of banning guns. You started the debate how about providing some supporting evidence instead of unsupported personal opinion?

[PeeQueue]

A couple of questions:
no health coverage
for a third of you-its communist
How exactly is that communist?

I've fired proper guns (4.5inch)
What is 4.5inch?

One point:
...my ability to defend my nation
I'll at least agree with you here - I don't think private people own guns to defend their nation. Mostly it is just to protect themselves.

Or for sporting purposes of course.

PeeQueue

[Freedomx]

I'm going to label this a troll thread. 4 posts, and an op like that, I smell a troll.


I'm going ot try as hard as I possibly can to stay out of this thread. I hope it dies a quick and painless death.

Glitch, I know what you mean about seeing these threads.

Manhattan, I checked the callendar and it looks like that time might be popping up again.

[KM2]

Actually, the crime rates here aren't as bad as Europeans think. Sure, when you think of tighter gun laws, you think of the white trash NRA members.

This comparison with Europe suggests that the United States has neither a unique "culture of violence" nor inadequate gun laws. It turns out some of those US crime rate stats are skewed, that it's not the "typical American" (as Europeans see us) abusing guns. Here's some stats from the Uniform Crime Reports:

Country (murder rate) Crimes per 100,00

Britain (7.4)
France (4.6)
Germany (4.2)
Italy (6.0)
U.S.A. (9.3)
American Whites (5.1)
American Blacks (43.4)

[KM2]

Sorry, make that FBI's Uniform Crime Reports

I should also add more about the above stat. The FBI classifies Hispanics as "white", further throwing off the American white murder rate.

[neutron star]

no health coverage for a third of you-its communist

I posted a thread a while back about socialized medicine and it was practically laughed off the board. Everyone said it didn't work, people had to wait weeks to see a doctor, etc, etc. Then I actually started to TALK to some Canadians on IRC. Guess what? They're pretty damn happy! People I talked to in Toronto, the biggest city in Canada, made SAME-DAY appointments at the doctor! I couldn't do that here even if I had the best insurance available!

------------------
"Honey we're recovering Christians."
--Tori Amos - In the Springtime of his Voodoo

[Nu Vo Da Da]

Britain (7.4)
France (4.6)
Germany (4.2)
Italy (6.0)
U.S.A. (9.3)
American Whites (5.1)
American Blacks (43.4)


I don't suppose that you would happen to have any figures on French, Italian, German, or English blacks, now would you? And what exactly are you implying with this statistic anyway?

[C3]

I'm an American. I hate guns, would never own one, and would never allow one into my house (unless it was attached to a police officer). I do not think guns should be outlawed in the U.S. because 1) it's a part of our Constitution and I believe it would weaken the entire document if one part was deleted and 2) I agree with the people above who state that a government is less likely to become tyrannical when the citizens (or at least a whole bunch of them) are armed.
I do agree that there should be some regulation of guns and gun sales and I mostly wish that the topic would be approached with common sense from both sides instead of made into an "issue" that just becomes an emotional stomping match. But I wish that about a lot of "issues."

So, I guess what it boils down to is that I think guns should be legal, but stupidity should be illegal.

[ReservoirDog]

Originally posted by manhattan:
We need to be able to shoot guns so that we’re prepared to sail on over and save Europe and Great Britain from the Germans twice per century.


Absolutely hysterical!! Hahahahahaha

[casdave]

I'd love to read the material suggested and I'll try to get hold of it ,yes I'm opinionated true I quote no facts or figures.
I don't pretend that not carrying guns will make folk start to hug and kiss each other
violence is bound to occur it is noteworthy
though that the police in the U.K do not feel the need to carry arms in the usual course of events but they are available if required.Try that with your lawmen.
I'm not that interested in the race of the offender a death is a death if white people engineer an economic system that tends to disadvantatage certain groups then it seems to me that poverty is likely to be fertile ground for gun crime to breed.
Maybe one of your good selves could explain to me then why your murder rate per capita is over 11times higher than ours and the gun
crime figures even higher.
Guns make killing so much easier for the bad guy.The only way that law-abiding citizens can counter this is to lose something of their soul-believe me even with justification you don't feel good when you've
had to fire on real people,which of course you shouldn't.
Nothing will change I know our crime seems to follow where yours leads maybe when I'm
living in a society like yours which from the outside looks like it worships violence
maybe then I'll appreciate your piont of view but I hope that day is a long time coming.

P.S Why is universal healthcare communist?
dunno just quoting J Edgar

[jab1]

Originally posted by Nu Vo Da Da:
I don't suppose that you would happen to have any figures on French, Italian, German, or English blacks, now would you? And what exactly are you implying with this statistic anyway?

KM2 was once known as Klan Man. That name was banned and he returned with this oh-so-clever variation. Draw your own conclusions.

casdave, I would respond to your post if you had written it better.

------------------
When all else fails, ask Cecil.

[Wage]

Ehehe! I'm a British Citizen living in the US. The smartest person I've ever known, who is American, said americans like guns because Americans enjoy loud noises, and also because Americans have the theory implanted at birth by other Americans (supposedly from colonial times) that anyone who opposes the country must die IMMEDIATELY, no exceptions. So guns give Americans a false sense of "I can kill that guy if he opposes me!". I agree with this view.

[Wage]

Ehehe! I'm a British Citizen living in the US. The smartest person I've ever known, who is American, said americans like guns because Americans enjoy loud noises, and also because Americans have the theory implanted at birth by other Americans (supposedly from colonial times) that anyone who opposes the country must die IMMEDIATELY, no exceptions. So guns give Americans a false sense of "I can kill that guy if he opposes me!". I agree with this view.

[Glitch]

Only a fool would suggest that carrying and using a firearm is not a considerable responsibility can carries with considerable repercussions for the user when used to end another human life (I have discussed these at length in another thread... namely "Mark of Cain" complex, impotence, nightmares, possible criminal and civil proceedings, etc). However, that is the choice for the responsible citizen to decide to bear or not.

The notion amongst some anti-gun people is that people are just dying to use thier guns. This is far from the truth when talking about the bulk of gun owners (a large segment of civilian gun owners are: doctors, lawyers & social workers). It is like saying "Atheists are immmoral". It is too broad a brush. Are there idiots with guns? Yes. And those guns should be removed. However, a total ban of guns is foolishness at this time. Study after study (see the material above) show that guns reduce crime, and that the #1 fear of criminals is that the civilian they attack will be armed. Of course, in states where people are not allowed to legally carry that fear is greatly reduced for the criminal, and for this reason (amongst others) crime rises. (compare "hot" burglary rates in Canada vs USA, for example).

Should every able bodied person be carrying a firearm? No, not unless every able bodied person were also to receive training and examined to make sure that they have a degree of responsibility consummate (sp?) with carrying a firearm.

Anti-gun people (which is very different from pro-gun control) seem to be chalk full of rhetoric but don't seem to have a lot of solid reasoning and fact behind their suggestions other than I just really think this is the way it should be. Personally, I think the way it should be is that we don't have violent crime and then we wouldn't have to worry about it. That is best accomplished by what some would call "draconian" imprisionment. But from my prespective it is real simple, 80-90% of all crime is commited by recividists. Why do we keep letting them out? Because the notion of rehabilitation, good behaviour and parole has become our mode of imprisonment. Rehabilitation and parole are good ideas, but it is obvious that the current implementation is all wrong (80-90% of ALL violent crime is commited by recividists, it beared repeating). I say scrap the current system, keep people locked up for their sentences and if possible work on a new system of rehabilitation, except this time lets make sure it works before we use it on a wide scale.

[Glitch]

Wage: Is this friend a:

1) criminologist?
2) psychologist?
3) sociologist?
4) historian?

What research has he done to support his conclusion? Any? Has any of it been published? Or is this more "Hey, this is what I think, therefore it must be true because I have observed it a couple of times and drawn a hasty conclusion"?

[Freedomx]

Things I have a problem with:


I don't trust anyone who carries a gun in the street.



Frightened people will surrender a number of things to regain their sense of security, compassion is only one example.

I think there is a quote from one of the founding fathers that goes something like:

"Those that surrender some freedoms to gain some security deserve neither.

We need to be able to shoot guns so that we’re prepared to sail on over and save Europe and Great Britain from the Germans twice per century.

Actually, I really liked this line. I hope you don't mind, but I plan to use it in future gun debates :)

The problem is that guns known to the drafters of the Constitution and the guns of today are very different things. The musket of the Revolutionary War has yielded to today's assault weapons, which can do extraordinary damage in the hands of a motivated lunatic.

This logic never seems to be applied to the first amendment. Computers and the internet never get the 200 year old technology arguement. Muskets were the weapons of the 1700's foot soldiers. To act as a gaurd against governmental tyranny, the 2nd Amendment needs to protect current weapons.

I've fired proper guns (4.5inch)at proper
baddies for real in defence of'freedom'
All I found out was that it help a certain females election campaign-who says all the right wingers are in Austria.


I don't know what a 4.5 inch gun is, and what certain lady?

I don't think private people own guns to defend their nation. Mostly it is just to protect themselves.

The point is that they will have guns if they do ever need to defend their country. By the time you realize you need them, it is to late to get them.


would never allow one into my house (unless it was attached to a police officer).

Or a soldier I guess.

If people take the attitude that only the government should be trusted with weapons, the people will lose control of this country.


the police in the U.K do not feel the need to carry arms in the usual course of events but they are available if required.

There was an article posted on a previous gun thread about the criminals in England outgunning the cops. The was also another piece about how Manchester is now being called Gunchester. Now that guns are illegal, only criminals have guns :)

death if white people engineer an economic system that tends to disadvantatage certain groups

Screw the klan guy up there, but this statement is bullsXXt.

Guns make killing so much easier for the bad guy.

UUUUmmmmmmmmm.......

Especially if they are the only ones with guns.

After all these gun debates, I think this is the CORE disagreement between the two camps. Pro-gun control/Anti-Bill of Rights people thend to think that it is possible to remove enough guns from circulation that there won't be any left for the criminals.

Pro-Bill of Rights people tend to think that the cat is already out of the bag, and there is nothing we can do except even the playing field.

Americans have the theory implanted at birth by other Americans (supposedly from colonial times) that anyone who opposes the country must die IMMEDIATELY, no exceptions.

I think Glitch was born in Canada. Otherwise, I think this idea is pure crap. Not even die hard evolutionists think that we are passing traits this soon. This theory also dicounts that a majority of Americans are not decended from people who around in the 1700's.

[justwannano]

Lets just ask the antis to register -names addresses etc. -maybe a web site of thier very own.
Then we'll just sit back and watch to see if they are systematically raped murdered and plundered.

[Freedomx]

:)


Did you see the story where a Colorado (IIRC) newsparer posted the names and addresses of all the CCW permit holders in the state?

I think the names and addresses of the unarmed are fair game.

[Freedomx]

http://www.frii.com/~buchanan/hgc/


Of course, they could voluntarily put one of these in their front yard. If the idea is all that great, take it to the people :)


http://www.frii.com/~buchanan/hgc/sign01.gif


And this is for the car:

http://www.frii.com/~buchanan/hgc/gfbumpersml.gif

[Typo Negative]

Originally posted by KM2:
Actually, the crime rates here aren't as bad as Europeans think. Sure, when you think of tighter gun laws, you think of the white trash NRA members.

This comparison with Europe suggests that the United States has neither a unique "culture of violence" nor inadequate gun laws. It turns out some of those US crime rate stats are skewed, that it's not the "typical American" (as Europeans see us) abusing guns. Here's some stats from the Uniform Crime Reports:

Country (murder rate) Crimes per 100,00

Britain (7.4)
France (4.6)
Germany (4.2)
Italy (6.0)
U.S.A. (9.3)
American Whites (5.1)
American Blacks (43.4)



Is that whites being murdered or whites murdering.?

[Typo Negative]

The 2nd ammendment has really never been tested before the supreme court. I would be interested to see the courts actual interpretation on the general public's right to have automatic weapons. That being said, I think it's time we just admitted that man is violent species and America is particularly violent culture within that species. And that's not really a bad thing. If we were not so violent, we would not have secured our own country or seen it grow into a world power. We would have trembled before Napolean, Hitler, Stalin, Kaiser Wilhelm, and of course, King George. For better or worse, Americans kick ass.

[mangeorge]

Freedom, those signs and the attitude that goes with them are silly. C'mon, would you put out a sign that said "I keep $20,000 cash laying around in my house, but I own a gun"? Of course not. Anyway, if I were a crook and saw one of those "unarmed" signs, I'd say, "Right. That sucker's probably sitting in there with a 12 gauge, just waiting for me".
casdave;
Most of the people I know who own guns have them because they like guns. They like the feel, the sounds, the loud bang, the slapping in of the magazine. I like that stuff too, but I don't own a gun. Never go hunting, noboby ever envades my house. I lead a pretty boring life, I guess.
There is a guy on another thread who might shoot me if I come within 20ft. of him, but I think I can stay out of his way. ;)
Peace,
mangeorge (Unarmed and secure)

[mangeorge]

Nor has anyone ever invaded my home. :o
Mangeorge

[elucidator]

The image of an armed populace resisting tyranny is noble enough, all those ideas that end up getting people killed got a nice ring to them. But lets consider: resisting whom? Well, tyranny!

Foreign tyranny? That necessarily implies occupation by foreign troops. A treacherous backstabbing blitzkreig from....Canada?

OK, so maybe a Steven King political scenario, the AntiChrist, or Alan Keyes, UNICEF, whatever.....siezes control of the US government, and sets the US Army to tyrannize the citizenry WHO RISE UP!! Armed with Glock 9's, shotguns, rabbit ammo. Against an Army with REAL guns, and planes and helicopters oh yeah tanks..... An Army with some of our kids scattered here and there within it.

Let us just say implausible and and leave it at that.

There is no realistic threat of foreign invasion. The only plausible threat of domestic tyranny can arise only if we are stupid and docile enough to vote our tyrant to power.

If we do that we pretty much deserve whatever happens. But the Orange County Militia and the Idaho Irregulars will not ever, repeat never, offer any kind of strategic or tactical threat to any modern Army, much less the US Army.

Walk around your block, get to know your neighbors. Ask yourself: do I want to argue with this guy about his noisy dog when we are both drunk and on full auto?

[casdave]

O.K I showed a lack of consideration to a few
of you so here's a bit of clarification-
A 4.5 inch gun is just that,the bore is,
yup,4.5 inch,such weapons are used by navies around the world they are most efective especially when employed in shore bombardment.When I was being trained to operate this gun I was told that you stood a
2% chance of death if a shell went off 200yards away from you and of course the kill
rate rises dramatically if you are closer.
Who did I fire them at -Argentinians-as I say
in the defence of freedom(Falklands war-thanks for your support U.S it could have been much worse for us without it)
The certain lady was Margaret Thatcher,her government prior to that war was the most unpopular since records had been kept and was due for annihilation at the polls.After
successful conclusion to war she was reelected by a landslide,the boost to her popularity was known as the 'Falklands factor'
This seems at first to be irrelevant to this thread but bear with me.
In 1977 a small fleet of warships was sent to the Falklands by the defence secretary David Owen,who was acting on intelligence, it was believed that Argentina was preparing to invade,result-they stayed at home.
During the intervening years,and with a change of government,statements were made
about the cost of maintaining a presence in the area,the Falklanders pointed out the message that this gave Argentina.
Roll forward several years David Owen is being interviewed on t.v,he states quite baldly that the Argentinians had prepared for war on 3 occasions when he was a minister of state,that this had been acted upon each time and no war had taken place,and more to the point those same intelligence sources had given the same warning to the most unpopular Thatcher government-Owens question was
"Why was no preventative action taken?".
Yes we did in the round put paid to a dictatorship,yes we defended freedom ,but
this war need not have taken place at all
and the dictatorship of Gen Galtieri was on the verge of collapse anyway the war was a
last desparate attempt by him to garner credibility in his own land.
Finally the point is this,in the guise of freedom,me and my colleagues were used to support our own unpopular government at a cost of some 2000 lives where no such loss need have taken place.
I would suggest that those who use defence of freedom as a reason to bear arms should be treated very cautiously.I accept that sometimes war will be necassary-I think that the intention of the founding fathers was to protect citizens from the state now it seems citizens must also protect themslves from each other.
I've had my rant thanks for reading and giving your point of view-time to let it go eh.

[Spiny Norman]

elucidator: Well said, I quite agree. Even the Afghans (and I guess that's stretching the definition of "armed civilians" to the very limit) needed some high-tech weaponry before they were able to evict the Russian Army. And the Afghans were considerably better armed that any US civilian could ever lawfully be.

The armed civilian is not the military force he was when the US Constitution was drafted. He has insufficiently equipped with grenades, anti-tank rockets, night-vision equipment, arillery, armor and helicopters - to name a few.

Of course it's nice to think "I'm doing my bit against tyranny" when buying a handgun, but it's not really so, sorry.

Norman

[tracer]

KM2 wrote:

Country (murder rate) Crimes per 100,00

Britain (7.4)
U.S.A. (9.3)

Then casdave wrote:

Maybe one of your good selves could explain to me then why your [U.S.] murder rate per capita is over 11times higher than ours [Britain's] and the gun crime figures even higher.

Somethin' ain't right here ...

------------------
The truth, as always, is more complicated than that.

[voltaire]

I'm an American. I hate guns, would never own one, and would never allow one into my
house (unless it was attached to a police officer)


In that case, you may be interested to know that there are more civilians with guns then there are police with guns. Yet, police are involved in a higher ratio of accidental shootings (i.e. shooting the wrong person) then the civilians. You would think that if civilians were so incompetent and the police were so qualified, it wouldn't be so.

Lesson #1: Don't automatically put your trust in someone who's armed based solely on the fact that they're wearing a badge.

Lesson #2: Don't automatically distrust a civilian who carries a firearm. They may someday be in a position to save your life.

Disclaimer: I'm sure I'll be challenged on the statistic I just referred to. I'll try my best to dig up a cite. I guarantee that it wasn't one of those "off the top of my head" made-to-order statistics that are so commonly bandied about.

[voltaire]

elucidator: Well said, I quite agree. Even the Afghans (and I guess that's stretching
the definition of "armed civilians" to the very limit) needed some high-tech weaponry
before they were able to evict the Russian Army. And the Afghans were considerably
better armed that any US civilian could ever lawfully be.


Ahhh, but the Afghans weren't exactly lawfully armed either. When they revolted, they mostly used Russia's own weapons against them.

Something similar to that could easily happen here in the U.S., I know that if I were in the military and was told to fire upon my own fellow Americans, I would have at the very least some serious misapprehensions.

It is quite conceivable that if such a "military vs. the populace" civil war broke out, there would be a significant number of soldiers going AWOL, taking with them enough military hardware and know-how to help level the playing field.

Although, I don't foresee anything this large in scale ever taking place. I think the powers-that-be realize that they could never successfully mobilize their troops against their fellow Americans and still expect them to remain loyal.

[Freedomx]

Before you guys want to dismiss the idea of an armed populance causing the government a bunch of trouble, go research the Warsaw Ghetto during WWII. They held out for a month and there were only 10 guns against a whole army.

April 19, 1943 marked the beginning of an armed revolt by a courageous and determined group of Warsaw ghetto dwellers. The Jewish Fighter Organization (ZOB) led the insurgency and battled for a month, using weapons smuggled into the ghetto. The Nazis responded by bringing in tanks and machine guns, burning blocks of buildings, destroying the ghetto, and ultimately killing many of the last 60,000 Jewish ghetto residents. The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising was the first large uprising by an urban population in German-occupied territory.

Just imagine if they had 60, 000 weapons instead of ten. Imagine they were already armed instead of having to get "smuggled" arms.
http://fcit.coedu.usf.edu/holocaust/timeline/resist.htm

[casdave]

K2 suggest you look up the true figures last I saw 45000 were blown away this in quite a bit less than 12 months we can only do 1100 in mostly with blunt instruments not guns or even knives.
Yes your problems may be highly localised but you ought to compare Manchester a major provincial town city with say Buffalo which I believe is also in the same category perhaps I'm wrong here.
ref your quote about Mosside we exaggerate things so that we can pretend we are just as mean as you are-really,your average gang banger would consider our worst areas pretty tame.

There is a kind of odd competition in our media to prove our worst are as bad as your worst no obvious reason for this maybe we like a scary bedtime story.

[casdave]

LET IT DIE

[casdave]

CLOSURE PLEASE

[tracer]

If by "closure" you mean you intend to start using commas in your sentences, I wholeheartedly agree.

[voltaire]

I don't get it. Let what die? Closure on what? I think the debate in here is just getting started. That is, unless you're worried that you may be proven wrong.

[casdave]

Alrighty lets keep going then,
Figures from the U.K home office show that we had a total of 746 homicides,this incudes infanticide,from a population of around 56mill.
Unfortunately I've not yet got a breakdown on this but there is another way to get at the numbers.

Your own Justice department,surprisingly, perhaps is very helpful on UK crime,it quotes its own(U.S) figures and compares them with the UK.

Their figures say that firearms wre used in 68% of US homicides compared to the UK's 7%.

The numbers are simple enough 7% of 746 is near enough to 54 but this remember is out of 56 mill Britons work out the 100 000 per capita rate yourselves.

The only number I can obtain at the moment for the U.S is a 100 000 per capita rate for cities over 1mill and this is 20.3 so 68% of
this is around 13 gun homicides per100 000.

Put another way London has a population of 6mill I think,correct me if I'm wrong,so at U.S rates of gun crime there'd be something like 780 killings-more than our whole country for all forms of homicide.

Maybe someone can provide the data for the whole of the U.S

For the benefit of our misled friend it seems that 85% of whites are killed by whites
and 94% is black on black the statistics may well include groups you do not consider to be part of your superior aryan grouping but the message is unmistakable no-one does more harm to ourselves than our own kind.

Guns provide the easy means man provides the finger on the trigger in since mass amputation is not likely to be a runner I hope you can find another option

[voltaire]

Statistics can seem to say one thing, until they're closely analyzed.

The only things that can be extrapolated from the above statistics are that more people are murdered in the U.S. than the U.K. and of those murdered in the U.S. a greater percentage are murdered with firearms as opposed to the U.K.

The above does seem to say that in the U.S. you stand more of a chance of being murdered. Also, if you're unfortunate enough to have been murdered, you are more likely to have been murdered with a firearm as opposed to the U.K.

But the above isn't what's in question.

Does this tell us anything about whether or not the greater proliferation of firearms in the U.S. is the cause of the discrepancy between the murder rates in the two nations in question? NO.

Would murders still have occurred without any firearms? Would people simply lose their motivation to kill if there was no firearm available to them? Is the quantity of guns in the U.S. a cause of the greater murder-rate or an effect of it?

To find this out, you would need to look at the murder rates of the U.K. before and after any sweeping changes in the gun laws which affected availability. In the U.S., you would have to look at the murder rates in individual states before and after changes were made in the gun laws which affected availability. You may also want to throw Australia in there for good measure, since their gun laws have recently changed and the gun buyback there most definitely affected availability.

Do your own research. If I did it for you, you probably wouldn't believe me. You may be very surprised at what you find.

[Sentinel]

OH BOY! A GUN THREAD!

Hold on now, I've gotta go get my armory and join in the fun.

'Kay now. I'm American and I like guns. Why? I dunno. I always have. I was raised on cowboy and Indian movies and games and WW1 and WW2 films and the corresponding availability of toy guns, grenades, bows and arrows. Back before everyone suddenly became 'sensitive' the Japanese were 'Nips' or 'Japs', Nazis were Krauts, and every good cowboy just had to fight Indians.

You know -- I see a lot of kids playing but I don't see them playing cowboy and Indian anymore -- that was the first to go. The Indians got all sensitive about it. (Plus people got educated.) At least they did not choose to call themselves Red Americans or anything like that. Then, after Vietnam, there was a decrease in war games.

Now the kids play -- those that actually GO outside -- cops and robbers, cops and drug dealers and so on. Not too many play war anymore. (They do that on video games -- only it aint called war.)

I always have liked guns. I have always enjoyed the power they have, the precision construction and the very feel of a good gun. I was not allowed to own a gun until after I moved out of my family home as a young man. I got my first apartment and within a week bought my first gun, a . 22 caliber semiautomatic tube load rifle for $65 from Western Auto.

I used to target shoot happily down at the public gun range, until they closed it down and made it for police only. Then I went and found places to shoot in the woods and major canals. Sometimes I used to just load the gun and rapid-fire the entire clip into the water just for the heck of it.

I don't hunt but I like the ability to be able to do so if I need to. Plus, back then I was a great reader of survival books -- like some science fiction types concerning people trying to survive after a world shattering disaster.

In a couple of jobs of mine where I was required to work within high crime zones, I carried a gun for defense and the protection of my cargo. I never had to use it but the comfort of having it there was great. When crime started going up, I bought bigger guns. If attacked, I did not want to shoot half a dozen times at some thug with a . 22 that would not stop him until later. So I went and got a . 12 gauge shotgun -- which would blow the door off of a house. Then I bought a . 45 handgun.

Both would stop an attacker in their tracks with one shot. I have had need to use the handgun on occasion. Once to fend off this really pissed Black guy swinging a steel prybar who attacked me when I caught him breaking into a neighbors car. Once when I was attacked by a drug high White guy who wanted to rob me.

A friend of mine worked an all night store and was robbed at gunpoint and gave the Black guy the money but when the SOB fled, he fired a shot at my friend. He missed, but my friend pulled his own gun out from under the counter and did not. The guy lived ONLY because my friend KNEW that if he pursued the wounded robber and shot him again, HE could go to jail. After being shot at for no reason, needless to say my friend was all keyed up on adrenaline and it took all the will power he had to keep from pounding the rest of the 9 shots in his clip into the bastard.

I don't think I could have done that. I have been shot at several times -- apparently for no reason by people unknown in several different cities -- and not all of them in America. In fact, only one in the States.

Much of our gun-mindedness not only comes from our early days along with the Western times but during the Cold War, everyone was CONVINCED that at any day - Russia would start WW3 and we would be invaded and no one wanted to be without any means of defense. We learned from WW1 and WW2 what happens to an unarmed population if an invasion hits.

Castro did not help matters at all for we learned not only how a small guerilla army, well armed could topple a regimen BUT how that Army could stay in power against the wishes of the general populace. Then the nut went and started threatening the US. The only reason we did not go over there and remove his ass is because President Kennedy agreed NOT to invade so long as Russia removed their missiles and if we had, the Russians would have probably retaliated in West Germany.

Plus, we are a nation made up of millions of refugees who fled here from war torn other countries and THEY decided not to ever be caught unarmed again. I wonder what would the outcome of the mass extermination of the Jews been like had most of them possessed arms and used them? Besides, history has taught us that most invasions from within always begin with the removal of arms from the populace.

In the cold war, most of you guys were not actually involved. It was mainly between Russia and America. Who do you think would have taken the first nuclear hits if the war had started? Britain? France? Australia? Japan? Nope. America. We knew this. By the time you guys got around to coming to our aide -- if you would, Russian troops would have been landing on our shores and we'd have our troops on Russian soil.

By the end of the 60s, most of us already knew that building bomb shelters in case of nuclear attack was a lost cause because very few could afford to build the heavy duty ones that could withstand the newer, more powerful weapons. It was figured that the survivors would have to be armed to fend off any invasion. Plus, it was also suspected that if we were hit, that shortly after, China would join in and invade.

Our history is one of the freedom to possess weapons and we defend that strongly. Unfortunately, some feel that they have the right to possess anything from an antitank gun to the cannon from a battleship, and I disagree with that. No civilian needs to own a fully automatic military weapon equipped with armor piercing shells.

Those murder rates are a bit off, I might add. Murder is very high in the middle east, the African Nations, Russia, Vietnam, Korea, India, Poland and Yugoslavia. They don't use guns all that often either, preferring knives or just simply beating someone to death.

Now, in the United Kingdom, I question those figures because of the dispute in Ireland. Besides, in England I observed more people getting into 'brawls' of something like 2 and 3 on 1 than in America.

[voltaire]

Yes, the military is nowhere near as almighty and powerful as they are made out to be. Look at what a bunch of unorganized combatants did to two of our most elite and well-equipped military units in Mogadishu.

http://www.philly.com/packages/somalia/nov16/default16.asp


This excellent series, Blackhawk Down, documents exactly what took place in the streets of Mogadishu that left 18 U.S. Rangers dead and 73 others wounded. These heavy casualties to the Airborne Rangers and the Delta Force, after less than 24 hours, are what caused the U.S. to turn tail and pull two of its most elite units out of Somalia.

[casdave]

Hi Sentinel.

Did you get my email?

It's going to take a little while to unearth more data but one that does spring to mind as regards Northern Ireland is,

More people have died in New York murders in year than in 20 years of strife in the Irish troubles.I remember the article in the Independant.

This,I believe,was in a particularly bad year for New Yorkers,sometime in the early 1990's and things have improved somewhat since then.

You mention that murder rates in other countries are high in even though guns are not freely available,Indian local politics with its mix of religion and ethnicity is noteworthy,but the figures in many of these countries are not very reliable.South Africa as a whole is not too bad but certain areas are exceptionally violent.

I was not aware that the pattern of brawling here in the UK was so differant to the US but then I live amongst it and don't have a referance outside of it,but it illustrates that over here we too have an ugly capacity for violence the free availability of arms could make that very much worse.

The gist of your comment seems to be that wether guns are easily obtained or not people all over the world will find ways and means of doing each other in,and that guns are a way of evening up the odds,logically then,if everyone was armed gun violent crime would reduce,do you believe that?

In Finland there is a requirement for all men between 18 and 45 to do national service but its a part time thing rather like our territorial army and they get to take their weapons home,mostly assualt rifles,but they do not have anything like the problems faced in the US,on that basis why do US police forces consistantly oppose easy access to them? I would suggest experience.

Guns are not the problem its the attitude of those who have them. Given that this is not likely to change because you love them so much you could try reeducation or removing guns,either way problem is solved.

[Sentinel]

Got your E-mail. Get mine?

Reeducation is going to take some doing because Hollywood has nicely displayed for every nut in the States how easy it is to settle problems with a gun and then general television, with its documentaries, has nicely shown those same nuts how NOT to leave any incriminating evidence behind. (Don't you just LOVE those detective, FBI and Forensic Detective shows?)

A major problem is in many areas where the yearly hunt is the big macho thing. Everyone has a cannon and they just have to go out and hunt. (Getting a bit drunk in the process just makes it more interesting.) Plus the easy availability of exotic ammunition ranging from high powered shells to explosive rounds, to Teflon tipped bullet proof vest piercing and armor piercing slugs.

Now, what hunter needs those? The NRA is fighting to allow the easy availability not only of regular ammunition but such dangerous stuff mainly used on cops. Plus they want to be able to buy military style rifles and weapons -- sold as semiautomatic but there are plenty of people willing to show you how to return them to full auto.

I'm all for major restrictions. In England, you can freely own shotguns, but no handguns. Your 'rook' rifles are like our .22s and are also available. You can't easily get anything more powerful legally unless you're a hunter and registered. Here you can waltz into a store and, in many cases, waltz right out with a handgun that takes two hands to hold, is laser sight equipped, has a telescopic sight attached, a speed clip installed, loaded with copper jacketed rounds and walk outside and knock the engine out of a car two blocks away.

In one of the 'Western' States, (the only one, I might add), you can legally buy machine guns. I forget which State. They also will sell you almost any form of military weapon forbidden in the other States.

I don't think any civilian needs weapons powerful enough to start a war with or to enable him to take over a small nation. Nor do they need exotic shells which have absolutely no use other than to kill other people with.

See, after WW2, the maker of the Thompson machine gun suddenly found that sales dropped next to nothing. So, being a good businessman, he promptly offered the gun to the general public, who loved being able to stand back and spray anyone or anything with a couple of hundred rounds per minute. The government waiting until the general public and criminals started spraying each other with the gun to make them illegal.

Now, everyone in every action movie the hero shows up with a weapon which has the ability to toss about thousands of rounds a second, or fires a shell powerful enough to knock a train off of its tracks, blow up a police armored transport or turn over a tank. People like that and promptly start going out to find them.

Many don't realize the consequences or don't care. Our freedom of the press and freedom of speech allows twisted people to provide anyone who desires booklets on how to make standard ammunition more deadly, either by increasing the powder charge, or modifying the slug itself.

Education probably will help, but tougher gun laws restricting what one can buy will help even more.

[mealworm]

I loved David's line early in the thread! Busted my gut!

Anyway, not to ad much, but the season opener of 'Law & Order' had some excellent commentary on the subject. Basically, a bunch of people were gunned down in Central Park with a modified semi-auto. The prosecutor sued the manufacturer of the gun... In the courtroom, he said:

"Reasonable people can disagree on the meaning of the second amendment... But this is not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind"

At which point he held up the modified semi-auto. It was pretty hard-hitting, and right on target. I love that show...

Infamus

[mipsman]

What part of "Shall not be infringed" don't you understand? You U.S. citizens who don't like it, try to change it (good luck). Non U.S. citizens, do you maybe see the possibility that you might not know what you are talking about concerning U.S. society, crime and guns?
Just like the revisionists who dislike the military since we actually did not have to fight the Big One, the gun control weasels would ban guns because they have not been victims themselves. Say that you guys get your way. There would not be a snow ball's chance in hell that your little old grandmother living alone or your sister, a single mom, could possibly be armed with a gun. The bad guys, even if unarmed (yeah, right) would strong arm any defenseless person with impunity. There is a deterence out there that you are enjoying whether you like it or not.
Besides you liberal weenies don't like to punish wrong doers anyway. If you did pass gun control legislation, wouldn't you just let any convicted gun owner off because of his disadvantaged childhood, he was a victim of society, what harm was he really doing anyway, etc.

[Sam Stone]

Those of you who think the framers of the constitution didn't intend to allow citizens to own *really dangerous weapons like modified semi-autos haven't studied the past. In fact, the framers defended the right of citizens to own CANNON, at a time when the Navy was wooden and a disgruntled citizen could sink a warship.

See, the framers understood that you can't have a truly free society without accepting some risks, and without taking the bad with the good. A serious flaw in today's political dialogue as I see it is that every time something bad happens the body politic looks for a legislative 'fix'. Thus, we develop the notion of government as a Nanny State, checking our food, dictating our wages, telling us what drugs we can or can't take, what activities we can enjoy, etc. Well, I'm an adult. I don't need another parent. Especially one with guns and the willingness to use them.

[ExTank]

Sentinel, babe, wake up and smell the Maple Nut Crunch! Tracer was too kind in rebutting your preposterous misconceptions; I will try to be the better person and follow Tracer's kind example (no guarantees!).

"In one of the 'Western' States, (the only one, I might add), you can legally buy machine guns."

Incorrect. Provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 have made possession, sale, receipt and transport of any fully automatic weapon except by licensed owners/dealers to other licensed owners/dealers a Federal offense.

Licensed owners/dealers may do so, with paperwork filled out, approved and affixed with the Dept. of the Treasury's stamp of approval in almost every state in the union.

"I forget which State."

How incredibly convenient that you have no actual fact to back up your ludicrous assertion.

"They also will sell you almost any form of military weapon forbidden in the other States."

Can you be a tad more specific? Can I buy my own F-15E? What if Bill Gates wants to buy an Aircraft Carrier? Or are you just speaking of AR-15s (the semi-auto variant of the military's M-16)? Guess what: they're legal in every state, but California may be the first to enact a ban on these "assault weapons", with door-to-door searches and warrantless siezures being the most often touted means of enforcing that law, should it pass.

Police state? In America?

"Can't happen!" you say? It's in committee in California's legislature as we speak.

Now as for your seriously fucked take on the history of gun control:

"See, after WW2, the maker of the Thompson machine gun suddenly found that sales dropped next to nothing. So, being a good businessman, he promptly offered the gun to the general public, who loved being able to stand back and spray anyone or anything with a couple of hundred rounds per minute. The government waiting until the general public and criminals started spraying each other with the gun to make them illegal."

It was after WWI that the Thompson was introduced to the American public for general sales, after being passed on by not only the military, but quite a few law enforcement agencies as well.

Now, in 1919, the 18th Amendment (less commonly known as the Volstead Act, more commonly referred to as "Prohibition") was enacted and an instant black market sprouted for alcohol. The making, transporting, distribution and sale of alcohol became a cash cow for criminal gangs who competed for control, and the violence that erupted was a natural consequence of their criminal activity.

And, following the examples of nation/states that make war on one another, the criminals chose to arm themselves with the best weapons available to them (legally or otherwise); machne-gun massacres like the St. Valentine's Day Massacre were mere exclamation points to the shootings, beatings and bombings going on.

The law restricting the fully-automatic Thompson (among other types of firearms) wasn't passed until 1934, a year after Prohibition was repealed. Note the timing:

1) 1929: October 29, Black Tuesday, beginning of Great Depression

2) 1932: Hoover defeated by Roosevelt, who promises "New Deal"; vague on how this "New Deal" will be financed.

3) 1933: Prohibition is repealed, causing thousands of Treasury Agents to rightly fear for their jobs.

4) 1934: National Firearms Act is passed, levying outrageous taxes (800% to 1000% on average) on certain types of firearms associated with criminal activity, Treasury Agents no longer need fear losing their jobs, and Federal authority is increased, in the first step of many more to follow.

And yet, every socio-economic study conducted by scientific method has shown that gun control doen't necessarily equate to crime control. Reference the studies Glitch cited for further analyses.

It's intersting to note that the 1939 Supreme Court case U.S. v. Miller seems to support the notion that fuly-automatic, miitary grade weapons are exactly the sort that we the people are supposed to keep and bear.

And Freedom: my personal fave (and stuck to the back window of my Jeep):

Warning! Driver Carries Only $20 Worth Of Ammunition!

ExTank

[mangeorge]

dhanson;
Intellectually, I can understand a persons desire to have the right to own an aircraft carrier, but you lump a lot of other stuff in there with your post.
I simply don't have the facilities to test foodstuffs and drugs etc. for safety. Also, because I live in a city, I'd prefer that my neighbor not entertain himself by setting off fireworks, or by doing other things of potential great danger to me and my other neighbors.
I agree that the govt. sometimes has it's nose too far up our butts, but we should challenge that, not the entire concept of regulation.

Hey, Ex Tank. Where the hell ya been. (off on some secret mission, I bet ) :)
I've missed your eloquent posts.
Peace,
mangeorge

[Johnny L.A.]

I just wanted to clear up a point or two.

Machine guns have been outlawed since before WWII.

There are a few states where machine guns are permitted. Oregon is one, and I think Nevada is as well. Montana? I don't know.

Federal law permits the ownership of machine guns. Most states ban them. To own a machine gun you must first live in a state that allows them. You must also apply for a permit and undergo a background check. One person or article (I don't remember where I got the information) said the process could take up to six months. There's also a $200 transfer tax (unless it's been raised).

Actually, quite a few diesel-powered aircraft carriers have been sold. I think they all were sold to scrap companies. But technically, I don't think there is a law against an individual owning a decommissioned carrier. Commissioned carriers are still being used, so you wouldn't get one; and there are other laws pertaining to possession of nuclear powerplants.

What I don't understand is how the government could logically outlaw the sale of Cobra helicopters (except ones that are already privately owned). It's just an airframe. Without the already heavily-restricted arsenal, they're not very good as weapons. A terrorist could easily strap a 500 pund bomb to a Cessna, or hang an illegally-obtained GE Minigun in the door and obtain a similar effect. And nobody notices a Cessna.

[Sentinel]

REBUTTAL.

We have public gun and knife shows here where one may buy guns with just a bill of sale. For $1000 I can buy a home made, hand cranked .22 machine gun, drum fed. I can buy a civilian version of the M-16 and for $20 more the seller will give me a booklet and a small bag of parts showing me how to make it fully automatic.

Another seller will sell me a little device which attaches to the trigger of any .22 semiautomatic and converts it to full auto.

I can buy clip load, semiautomatic military rifles and Tech-9s along with instructions and parts to make them fully automatic. My brother is a chief of police and is aware that there have been police officers shot with armor piercing shells.

I can buy bullets of any type by the pound or by the bag.

Oklahoma is the state where, on a documentary, a store was featured where you can legally by machine guns, and virtually any other form of heavy caliber weapon you desire. It was featured because of so many gangs going there to buy automatic weapons.

It get catalogues offering to sell me bullets which explode on contact, sabot rounds, chainshot rounds, rounds packed with steel needles, incendiary rounds, Teflon coated rounds, armor piercing rounds and rounds designed to go through a body but if they hit something hard, like a wall, they turn into metal powder.

Like, what is the need for such rounds except to kill others with? You going to deer hunt with explosive tipped rounds? Not oo long ago, in Georgia, Rangers caught a group of hunters going onto a Federal Deer Preserve for the yearly hunt trying to smuggle in a BAR, fully automatic. They were not the first. They have caught hunters trying to sneak in illegal high powered rounds, trying to get in with remodified machine guns, and even armor piercing slugs.

I was given once a .25 caliber semiautomatic which held 5 in the clip and one in the chamber. It had been 'modified.' You squeezed the trigger and all 6 shots went off with a second. I gave it away to a collector friend because it was too dangerous and impractical.

As far as I am concerned, people can own all of the normal guns they want, but when it comes to military type weapons -- no. When it comes to the type of slugs I get catalogues for -- no. As for machine guns being illegal -- hell yes. They do sell quite well illegally though.

Man, I walk into a gun shop and find all forms of exotic weapons there that are not exactly used for hunting meat with. Remember the Great LA bank robbery, with those guys and their body armor and the machine guns? You think they had much problem getting them? Nope.

You think many of these survival groups are out in the woods playing war with semiautomatic military rifles? Nope.

I own guns and I agree with the right to own and bear arms but I do not agree with citizens owning enough stuff to start a war with.

I have been to a collectors house, where he has a license to buy exotic arms and sell them overseas. He personally owns a BAR -- which costs $5 a shot to shoot. He can afford it. He personally owns a Thompson-style machine gun, a fully automatic Tech-9 and an M-16. For the right price and if you are 'safe' you can get one also.

You may buy military equipment, surplus, but the weapons are either removed or rendered harmless or the barrels -- like in outdated ships cannon - plugged with cement and the firing mechanism removed. You may buy tanks -- all weapons inoperative. You can buy Navy landing craft, Vietnam style armored attack boats, and so on but all weapons have to be removed or disabled. (The Vietnam armored river craft sell FAST!)

A company near me bought a medium class battleship, retired, its guns removed. They stripped it of its generators and anything else, cleaned it up to use as an artificial reef, towed it out off shore and blew the bottom out. You can buy the popular wheeled landing craft from the military, and even old, worn out aircraft. (The park near my home, years ago, had a Korean War jet for the kids to play on. It was gutted. Somewhere along the decades, someone got upset about it and it was removed. A collector in the next city owns it and has it nearly restored to flight capacity.)

[tracer]

Sentinel wrote:

My brother is a chief of police and is aware that there have been police officers shot with armor piercing shells.

Dates? Places? Names? Were they wearing body armor when they were shot? Did the shot(s) actually pierce said armor? Did any of these officers die?

[tracer]

Sentinel wrote:

Plus the easy availability of exotic ammunition ranging from high powered shells to explosive rounds, to Teflon tipped bullet proof vest piercing and armor piercing slugs.

Would it interest you to note that in California -- the state in which the dreaded Hollywood is located -- both explosive and armor-piercing ammunition are illegal?

Now, what hunter needs those? The NRA is fighting to allow the easy availability not only of regular ammunition but such dangerous stuff mainly used on cops.

And would it interest you to know that not one police officer has ever been killed by so-called "cop killer" armor-piercing ammunition going through his armor? The only police officer ever killed by armor-piercing ammo was killed by a shot to the head, where he wasn't protected.

Plus they want to be able to buy military style rifles and weapons -- sold as semiautomatic but there are plenty of people willing to show you how to return them to full auto.

And would it interest you to know that any semi-automatic gun "readily convertible" to full-auto is classified as a (highly restricted) fully automatic firearm under Federal law? For a semi-auto gun to be sold or posessed legally as a semi-auto in the U.S., it cannot be simply modifiable to full auto just by knocking out one or two pins or anything. The parts that would make it fully automatic must have been completely removed by the manufacturer. And those full-auto conversion parts can't be sold or posessed, either.

Hollywood isn't the only one distorting the facts when it comes to firearms and firearms laws. The news media are just as quick to dismiss facts if it'll increase the hype. It sounds like you got your "facts" about illegal gunsmiths modifying semi-autos to full-auto from one of those 60 Minutes "exposés".

[Spiny Norman]

Damn, you leave for the weekend and see what happens.

voltaire wrote:

Ahhh, but the Afghans weren't exactly lawfully armed either. When they revolted, they mostly used Russia's own weapons against them.

Something similar to that could easily happen here in the U.S., I know that if I were in the military and was told to fire upon my own fellow Americans, I would have at the very least some serious misapprehensions.

It is quite conceivable that if such a "military vs. the populace" civil war broke out, there would be a significant number of soldiers going AWOL, taking with them enough military hardware and know-how to help level the playing field.



You're right about the Afghans. What I tried to say was that is unrealistic to expect armed civilians, no matter how competent at waging war, to take on an army and win without assistance. The Afghans just came to mind as the best-armed and most capable armed civilians I could remember. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear.

And I think you are completely right about how unlikely it is for the US armed forces to accept orders to attack civilians. Perhaps the best safeguard against tyranny is to make sure that the armed forces (including the officer corps) and the civilian population are more or less in agreement on the important issues ? (That could be put more eloquently, I know.) Actually, I find it rather hard to imagine an army in democratic country accepting orders to attack civilians on a larger scale.

Oh, and mipsman: Excuuuse me for taking part in a debate that I consider interesting, being non-US. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to offer some guidance on what debates I might be allowed to participate in ?

Norman

[Johnny L.A.]

Sentinal
Technically, a "hand-cranked" .22 is not a machine gun. The law says that a machine gun is a firearm that delivers more than one shot for each single pull of the trigger. The crank just pulls the trigger several times very quickly.

Modifications to any sime-automatic firearm to fire automatically is illegal! Furthermore, possession of any part or parts that can convert a firearm to a machine gun are also illegal. Say you have an AR-15 with an M-16 bolt carrier. There is no way this rifle can ever fire automatically in this configuration (unless there is breakage of one of the non-M-16 parts). You would still be in violation because the bolt alone is illegal. You don't even have to have it in the rifle. You used to be able to walk into any gun show and buy all the auto parts (except for receivers) you wanted. You could even buy "drop-in auto sears". These parts were only illegal if they were installed. In the 1980s, the BATF ruled that "drop-in" auto sears were illegal if manufactured after a certain date (how would they know?). Several years ago they changed the rule so that any part of a machine gun that is part of the automatic function is a machine gun. Also, new machine guns for civilian use are now outlawed. You can only legally purchase machine guns made before a certain date. (Sorry, I don't know the dates.) The fact that you can get the parts does not make them legal. If you have an AR-15 that's "almost battle-ready" (i.e., just switch out the selector and drop in the auto sear), you're in violation. Remove the M-16 parts and replace them with AR-15 parts. Destroy or otherwise rid yourself of the M-16 parts.
along with instructions and parts to make them fully automatic
The parts are illegal. The instructions are not.
Oklahoma is the state where... you can legally by machine guns... It was featured because of so many gangs going there to buy automatic weapons.
Oklahoma may be one of the states that allows citizens to own machine guns, but you still have to go through all of the Federal processes to get them. The gangs certainly didn't get them legally.
Remember the Great LA bank robbery, with those guys and their body armor and the machine guns? You think they had much problem getting them?
They probably didn't have too hard a time getting (or modifying) them. That still doesn't make them legal. The sad thing is that the Media implied that you could walk into any gun store and buy one. You can't. It's a good thing that AR-15-type (semi-automaticrifles were for sale then. The cops went to a gun store and borrowed some to even the odds.
I have been to a collectors house, where he has a license to buy exotic arms... He personally owns a BAR -- which costs $5 a shot to shoot.
The key is that he has a license. Five bucks to shoot a BAR? The BAR fires a .30-06 round, popular with many hunters. I don't have a .30-06, but it seems to me a box of 20 rounds would cost about $15.

Bushmaster makes M-16s for military and police use. If you contact them, they can tell you what's legal and what's not. Note: There are "pre-ban" and "post-ban" firearms. You can put an AR-15 barrel with a bayonet lug on a pre-ban receiver, but not on a post-ban. Want a folding stock for your Mini-14? Make sure it's pre-ban. Flash hider? Ditto. Greater-than-10-rounds magazine? Snap 'em up now. Post-ban mags are limited, and the pre-ban supply is dwindling and expensive. (I used to be able to buy 30-rd. AR-15 mags for $6, surplus. Now they're about $30.)

[mipsman]

In Texas you can buy a full auto machine gun but you need a Federal Class 3 weapons permit. These are issued by the Treasury Department and require your local chief of police's okay. Not a good procedure if you like to stay under the government's radar screen. I have seen the parts at gun shows that will make semi-autos into full autos. However, I have also been informed that if you even have these part in the same house as the semi-auto weapon, you are looking at 5 years in a federal pen. Spiny Norman, join in the debate by all means, just think what living in the U.S., with the greater chance of becoming a victim of crime, might do to your desire for self protection.

[Sentinel]

Johnny L.A.

I probably was wrong in calling the weapon a BAR. It is a massive gun with a dipod attached to the front of the barrel. The cartridge it shoots is as big as my hand, close to an inch around and heavy! He said it was used to attack tanks with in the Korean War and, later, in Vietnam. One soldier carried the gun, while another carried the ammo.

[tracer]

Johnny L.A. wrote:

Technically, a "hand-cranked" .22 is not a machine gun. The law says that a machine gun is a firearm that delivers more than one shot for each single pull of the trigger. The crank just pulls the trigger several times very quickly.

And in California, such a "multiburst trigger activator" device would also be illegal.

[Sam Stone]

Most of the laws against military-style weapons are nothing more than blatant attempts to curry public favor with style over substance. Most of these weapons are no more lethal than regular sporting arms in the hands of your typical criminal. Assault rifles are made to be light, easy to clean, and rugged. Important qualities when you're hauling them through the bush, but hardly necessary for your typical drive-by shooting. They are no more powerful than a typical sporting arm, and often much less accurate.

Remember the guy who opened up on the schoolyard of kids with an AK-47? He emptied magazine after magazine of ammunition, and I think he killed three kids.

The kids in that schoolyard were damned lucky he had that 'deadly assault rifle' instead of say, your dad's Remington 12-gauge pump shotgun, which is FAR more lethal and easy to use in that type of situation. But no one's talking about banning THOSE, simply because they don't look 'mean'.

[tracer]

Not only that, but the laws (particularly the Federal laws) against these military-style weapons are bans of assault weapons, not assault rifles. "Assault rifle" is a well-defined military term meaning a light, low-recoil selective fire rifle. (Selective fire means you can switch between semi-automatic and fully-automatic.) "Assault weapon" is a made-up legalistic term that means whatever the laws say it means. The Federal definition of an "assault weapon" includes any semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine and two or more of: a folding stock, a flash suppressor or a threaded barrel capable of accepting a flash suppressor, a protruding pistol grip, a front clip that can hold a bayonet, or a "grenade launcher" (a mount that can accept a rifle grenade, which would be illegal under other laws).

Note that firearms capable of fully automatic fire (machine guns) are not covered under the Federal "assault weapons" ban. Only semiautomatic firearms are. Thus, the Federal assault weapons ban does not affect assault rifles! (All full-auto or selective-fire arms are classified as "machine guns", and are regulated according to an entirely different [and stricter] set of Federal laws.)

[DougC]

- - - Sentinel; I thinks that buddy-collector-dealer was pulling your leg. IIRC, a BAR is 30-06 cal, -which isn't the cheapest gun to feed- but sure don't cost five bucks per shot.
- - - I only own a few small-caliber firearms now, as I don't have anywhere to shoot anything larger. I even have an airgun but since it shoots with 18 ft lbs of energy (roughly 1/6th the power of a .22 LR), I'd need a "firearm permit" to own it in merry olde England, because it is 50% over the non-licensed energy limit. It weighs 11 lbs; I'd be more likely to kill a person with it by beating them over the head rather than shooting them with it. I would ask where is the line between obsession and repression drawn? - MC

[Freedomx]

From the description of the round, could it have been a .50 cal?

The rounds are that big and damn expensive. Of course the gun costs anywhere from $5000 - $15,000. So the average Joe isn't going to be playing with one of these.

This is the same type of rifle that was used in a one mile sniper kill during Vietnam. They also used them n the Gulf war to shoot airplane engines (parked) to disable them. I don't know about shooting tanks, but I guess if you knew exactly where to shoot then you could slow one down.

[UncleBeer]

Specs and a picture of the BAR, or Browning Automatic Rifle, Models 1918A1 and 1918A2 can be found here (http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/browning.htm).

[UncleBeer]

Specs and a picture of the Barrett .50 BMG can be found here (http://www.biggerhammer.net/barrett/).

I think this is the rifle described above.

[Freedomx]

http://www.biggerhammer.net/barrett/m95_2.gif

There is just something special about shooting 7000 meters.

Do you think if I painted a diamond on it I could give it to my girl and call it an engagement ring?


I didn't think so. :)

[Sam Stone]

More stupid, pandering gun laws:

- Magazine capacity restrictions. This one baffles me. Here in Canada, we're allowed to have a pistol magazine of up to 9 rounds. No more. The chief effect of this was to kill the sales of 9mm handguns that had double-stacked magazines of usually 13 rounds or so, or to force owners of those to spend money on new, re-engineered magazines that only hold the 9 rounds. But what the hell is the point of this? Is there anyone who thinks that lives will be saved because the criminal missed with his first 9 shots but would have got the innocent civilian on the 10-13th round? Anyway, with a very short practice time a person can swap magazines in a couple of seconds anyway. This is another gun law that was passed simply because it sounds good, and has as its ownly effect to inconvenience lawful gun owners.

[tracer]

Sam Stone: We have a similar law down here in the States. Federal law prohibits the sale or posession of magazines larger than 10 rounds manufactured after September 13, 1994. As of this year, a new California law bans all magazines larger than 10 rounds within California, regardless of when the magazine was manufactured.

I'm guessing the reasoning behind the "high capacity magazine ban" was that a criminal might go berserk and start shooting at everyone around him, and without a high-capacity magazine he'd only be able to kill 10 people. (Before he popped in a new magazine, of course.)

[SuaveSkin]

ok...all you people out there FOR gun control... RIGHT ON! I live in america and personally think that there is way too many people who take advantage of our "right to own guns" or so they think and many people arn't very educated about it. "A well regulated MILITIA, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." a well regualted militia. When this law/amendment/right (whatever you prefer) was made...it was intended for an army aka well regulated militia. I dont think we should ban handguns just learn to use them right. People say well it's our right. Yes it is, but all rights come with responsibilitys..i.e. you have the right to drive a carbut you DON'T have the right to drive on the wrong side of the road! catch my drift? now automatic weapons... that's a different story... these should be banned. why? well you tell me why not? what's the purpose of a machine gun? population control? ;) hunting? are you really that bad of a shot? comon you have to agree with me on that one at least. Thank you for taking the time to look at this and if you have time lpease respond. I like a good argument. Thank You
SUAVESKIN

Originally posted by spoke-:
Guns are a hedge against tyranny. That is the reason gun ownership is protected in the Constitution, plain and simple.

Put it this way: If the Jews of Europe had owned guns, I wonder if the Nazis wouldn't have been just a little more circumspect about trying to round them up? Seems like a tyrranical government might be just a little more reluctant about kicking someone's door down if they don't know what might be behind that door.

That was the logic behind the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Now, I am not a gun nut by any stretch of the imagination. Heck, I don't even own one. But I do see the logic behind the notion embodied in the Second Amendment.

The problem is that guns known to the drafters of the Constitution and the guns of today are very different things. The musket of the Revolutionary War has yielded to today's assault weapons, which can do extraordinary damage in the hands of a motivated lunatic. Another problem is the ease of use of guns today -- so simple that even a child can operate them (as has been demonstrated far to often).

How do we reconcile the desire to protect ourselves from the potential of government tyranny with the desire to keep ourselves safe from random acts of violence? I don't have the answer.

[Spiny Norman]

As some of you probably know, I try to stay out of the legal side of these debates - I'm not American, and I'd sure as hell be p.ssed if an American started telling me which laws to support and which not to.

However: I can only agree that if you are going to allow private possesion of handguns on a larger scale, restrictions on magazine capacity is a misunderstanding. If anything, a larger capacity favors the attacked, not the attacker, right ? The attacker has his mind all made up and plenty of time to carefully aim the first round - the attacked is in shock and will probably miss with most of his rounds.

On a lighter note: Firing the 0.5 HMG (Browning) is just about the most fun I ever had in the Army. And of course, thinking that a 5-round burst just burned off 25$ of taxpayer money was kind of a kick too... Carrying that weapon around is another story entirely, the fun stops rather abruptly. FWIW, it's worthless against modern armored vehicles, but I suppose it could have been useful against light armor in Korea.

BTW: Has anyone seen "Lock, stock and two smoking barrels" ? There's an incredible shoot-out scene where one of the bad guys brings his granddads Bren gun (light machinegun) along - let's just say that he has more than enough firepower for indoors use.

Hmm - better stop rambling and do some work.

Norman

[UncleBeer]

Suave:
I live in america and personally think that there is way too many people who take advantage of our "right to own guns" or so they think and many people arn't very educated about it.
It appears to me you are one of the many that "arn't" very educated about it. There are so many errors of fact in your post I don't know where to begin.

[DougC]

- - - I'll take a shot at the spelling and grammatical errors, UncleBeer:
#1 - "ok" used first in sentence, but not capitalized.
#2 - "America" not capitalized. (frowning)
#3 - " , ,there is way too many people who take advantage of our "right to own guns" or so they think , , " - Sentence meaning unclear.
#4 - " , , and many people arn't very educated about it." - There are times when no snide remark seems apropriate.
#5 - "When this law/amendment/right (whatever you prefer) was made..." - It's clear we are obviously dealing with an expert on the subject here.
#6 - " , ,it was intended for an army aka well regulated militia." - Army != Militia. The two terms aren't interchangable, particularly in the modern sense.
#7 - "I dont think , ," - Conjunction missing apostrophe, and that's all I'm gonna say about that.
#8 - "responsibilitys" - Spellcheck, thou hath forsaken us.
#9 - " ..i.e. you have the right to drive a carbut you DON'T have the right to drive on the wrong side of the road!" - Space missing (car_but). And people in other countries do drive on the wrong side of the road. And they also don't have guns. Hmmmmm , , ,
#10 - " , , catch my drift?" - I'm trying, you drift a lot.
#11 - now automatic weapons... that's a different story... these should be banned. why? well you tell me why not? what's the purpose of a machine gun? population control? hunting? are you really that bad of a shot?" - Automatic weapons are often used for hunting. Ever been hunting, cupcake?
#12 - " comon " - I could not find this term in my dictionary. The closest I could come was comity of nations and comma.
#13 - " you have to agree with me on that one at least." - No, I don't; I've been hunting. -And about that comma, , ,
#14 - " , , ,if you have time lpease respond." - transposition of letters; I'll let this one go. I do it every now and then when I'm in a hurry.
#15 - "I like a good argument." - I like a good debate, myself. That generally requires that both parties be reasonably informed on the subject, so I'm not going to get one here. - MC

[Glitch]

Spiny: Actually, large capacity magazines favor both relatively equally. Criminals under fire or delivering fire experience the same sensations are normal person does; however, they do tend to control it better. This is because they have a "aggressor's mindset" which, as you mentioned, the ever important predetermination of action. Your average criminal isn't going to be carrying a large amount of magazines on him, and neither are you.

So, why do I tend to support small magazines? Because it gets the firefight over with quicker! It also means that there will be less bullets in you (imagine if you both have 15 round clips, on average you both will have 3.66 bullets in you. If you both have 10 round clips, on average you both will have 2.5 bullets in you). These is in your (the defender's) best interest.


First, Out of bullets many criminals will run. If they decide to stay and fight you have a good club in your hand (pistol whipping hurts) and since you clearly had the mindset to stick through a fire fight you have the mindset to fight the criminal now too. The odds are still relatively even. Of course, through all this you still should be evaluating your escape options, and should take any reasonable. Out of bullets, some new options will undoubtedly have opened up, hopefully, you have developed the plans of escape ahead of time (predetermination again) and will take them.

Keep in mind too, with shots fired the police are on the way. The criminal knows this. This puts a lot of pressure on him to run.

Second, personally, I am not interested in killing the criminal. My objective is to live. If we both have 2.5 bullets in us, we both will likely live (~80% for those injuries), but he has been stopped. Easily a win for me. If we both have 3.66 bullets in us, chances are one of us is going to die (50/50 with those injuries). If the fates choose me, that is a decided loss for me.

Finally, I always carry an extra magazine. Always. I know that some criminals will, but many won't. Out of bullets, IF I can reload fast enough the advantage is clearly mine. That's where the martial arts comes in. In my dojo, we practice reloading and firing under attack. The martial arts may not be a "Hammer of Thor" but if you use simply for short term avoidance it simply rules the roost.

[Freedomx]

Well this gun thread has me smiling moe than any other. :)

Unclebeer, when I read your posts, I get this image of you all scrunched up with your face turning red, just wishing we were in the Pit.

When I read your one liners, I always wonder how much you typed and then erased before you posted. :)

MC, I am the typo king, so I would be leaving myself open for all eternity if I joined in with most of your post. (although it was pretty funny)

However, I will join you on numbers 2, 5,6, 7, 13 and 15.

SuaveSkin, There is really nothing to debate with you. Instead of argueing, we would be teaching. You have no grasp of the issue.

[Freedomx]

In my dojo, we practice reloading and firing under attack.

Now I know that I am not in the right Dojo. :)


Have you ever considered moving to NJ?

[Glitch]

Freedom: No, I won't move to NJ, sorry bud. :)

Anyway, you do have the ability to learn about this. Find out if they have any bodyguard/security guard training in your area. They teach at a minimum all the stuff I teach, and are almost undoubtedly better at it too.

With the security guard approach you might have to take a couple of basic classes before they teach you more advanced concepts, it all depends on the school.

Also, talk to your local police force, often they will offer courses or can make a recommendation.

Some police officers are even willing to teach you what they know on the side. No, this isn't typically illegal (it depends on the self defense class licensing requirements of your area), but some police departments frown on the practice but that is up to each individual police officer to decide to risk the wrath of his supervisors.

[UncleBeer]

Unclebeer, when I read your posts, I get this image of you all scrunched up with your face turning red, just wishing we were in the Pit.

Occasionally this is true, especially regarding gun control debates. I don't get like that at all in face to face confrontations though; just here where you think it would be easier to control emotions. I guess I get a bit too upset over this issue because it just seems so simple to me. However, my post just above was written while I was mentally chuckling. SuaveSkin is horribly misinformed and he's berating others for their supposed lack of education on this issue. I found it way too ironic.

[aschrott]

Voltaire wrote:
[quote]In that case, you may be interested to know that there are more civilians with guns
then there are police with guns. Yet, police are involved in a higher ratio of accidental
shootings (i.e. shooting the wrong person) then the civilians. You would think that if
civilians were so incompetent and the police were so qualified, it wouldn't be so.

Lesson #1: Don't automatically put your trust in someone who's armed based solely on
the fact that they're wearing a badge.

Lesson #2: Don't automatically distrust a civilian who carries a firearm. They may
someday be in a position to save your life.[quote]


Voltaire: while I agree with the sentiment of your post, you of all people (being a self-described hater of misleading statistics) should realize that your statistical comparison is meaningless. Police shoot more people accidentally because their line of work automatically puts them in more situations where the use of guns is required. I'd like to see a stat on accidental shootings involving off-duty cops at home vs. those involving civilians. My money is on the cops for safety.

I have to say that I despise guns and everything they represent in society. However I would never support a repeal of ownership rights and I agree with several posters on this board who point out that the anti-gun lobby is often poorly informed and manipulative. The only way guns could be removed from society without disadvantaging the honest citizen is to make them non-existant, which will never be the case. :(

------------------
"I don't get any smarter as I get older--Just less stupid"

[voltaire]

Police shoot more people accidentally because their line of work automatically puts them in more situations where the use of guns is required.


Yes, I see your point. But I'm not so sure that this is even the main reason for the disparity. Afterall, most criminals do their best to stay away from an armed altercation with the police.

I think that there are two MAIN reasons why the police are involved in more accidental shootings. First, they often arrive on a frantic scene and must quickly decide who is the victim and who is the perpetrator, this often leads to mistakes. Second, police are basicly trained to unload their guns on someone after they have decided to use deadly force. This greatly increases the chances of them hitting the target and killing them.

Conversely, a civilian protecting themselves or their family does not usually have a problem figuring out who the bad guy is. They are more in tune with what's going on at the scene, and are far less likely to make an erroneous judgement call based on someone's stereotype or profile. Generally, the armed civilian, having not been trained to, will not unload the entire clip after having decided to use deadly force. This reduces the chances of them hitting and killing the target.

I'm sure there are plenty of other factors, not the least of which is the fact that police are probably better shots on average so that when they have mistakenly decided to shoot someone, they are more likely to hit them in the right places and kill them.

The point is that I think a populace where the majority of law-abiding civilians are armed is inherently more safe then one where none of the law-abiding civilians are armed and all of the crime-control is left to the police. I, as one of those law-abiding citizens, (well, most laws anyway :D ) would rather not have to wait for the police to arrive during the aftermath and have them kill me, my family, or any other innocent bystanders.

[ExTank]

ManGeorge: I'm strictly civilian now, it's just that the company I work for does military contracting, mostly in Communications Electronics and Logistics.

I'm currently working at Ft. Bragg, N.C., but we're doing upgrades to the N.C. Nat'l Guard's tactical commo systems (tanks, Bradley IFVs, HUMMERS, etc.)

Having caught up, I can only say this: WOW!

I wish more of you had been around some time back (a year or more) when I felt I was fighting this battle by myself, uphill, humping a "Ma-Deuce", tripod and 1,000 rounds of ammo while zipperheads are popping rounds at me.

Sentinel, your rebuttal not only missed the point, you've been ejected from the range for firing out of your lane. But you do get points for coherency (don't cream your jeans, as this is graded on a curve, and your only comparison is SuaveSkin) so keep plugging, your almost to the point of a coherent, logically consistent post.

Ahhhh, SuaveSkin? Kinda ballsy jumpin' into a hot topic on your 3rd post, ain't it?

Anywho, welcome to the Straight Dope Great Debates board (you too, Sam Stone; I haven't seen you here before, so if this is your Straight Dope hangout, this "howdy" is just from me.)

Digressing from the O.P. a bit, SuaveSkin, but there are a few standards at The Great Debates that are generally adhered to if you wanna be taken at all seriously:

1. Differentiaite from Opinion and Fact. Opinions are fine, and accepted at face value (generally), but they are not Fact.

2. Facts are usually backed up with Citation (previously accomplished works by acknowledged or professional experts) and links to those people's work. If you don't know how to link, check the FAQ's for directions.

3. Enjoinders to agree with you because "only I am right" are usually interpreted as whining, and will get you slammed so fast you'll have to change your screen name and move to a different state.

These should help you get started towards being a "Great Debater", and check this out as well (it's a hyperlink; double click on it and off you go):

Logical Fallicies (http://www.almanac.bc.ca/features/fallacies/index.html#index)


Back on topic:

There's nothing that I can add that hasn't been covered well by others. Makes me wanna go to the range and blow some ammo at some targets (7mm Magnum Armor-Piercing-Fin-Stabilized-Discarding-Sabot-Depleted-Uranium-Heat-Seeking-Laser-Guided-Smart-Gun-Cop-Killers, at that!). :rolleyes:

You know; just to let 'em know I'm out there and shoot straighter than they do. :P

ExTank
"Call me sick and wrong, but I like it when Authority is nervous about what I can do"

[tracer]

MC wrote:

#6 - " , ,it was intended for an army aka well regulated militia." - Army != Militia. The two terms aren't interchangable, particularly in the modern sense.

Not only that, but they weren't interchangeable at the time the Bill of Rights was drafted, either.

However, there was one concept that did exist in the U.S. at the time of the Bill of Rights that no longer exists, and that is the concept of compulsory State militia service. Most States required everyone who wasn't in a legitimate volunteer militia corps, and who was a 17-44 year old male capable of shouldering arms, to train for and show up for militia "musters" held a couple of times a year -- and the participants had to bring their own firearms.

Thus, one of the reasons for the second amendment was to protect the militias of those States whose governments could not afford to provide arms for all of their militia members. The reasoning was that, should the Federal government try to waltz in and take over one of the States by force, the State could repel the invasion by means of its own militia.

Of course, by the time the Civil War broke out, most States had disbanded their compulsory militia services -- which may have helped the Union win the war. But I digress.

[mangeorge]

I've learned a lot on these many gun topics, and have come to a couple of conclusions;
(Generalizing profusely)
"Guys want guns to defend their country."
Bullshit
"Guys want guns to defend hearth and home."
Bullshit

The OP:
"Guns why do you americans love them so much?"
Answer:
Well, Mommy, because they're GUNS.
;)
Peace,
mangeorge
Ain't got no guns. Don't want no guns. But you go ahead. Just don't hurt nobody with it.

[Spiny Norman]

Damn, why can't I keep away from these debates ?

voltaire:

The point is that I think a populace where the majority of law-abiding civilians are armed is inherently more safe then one where none of the law-abiding civilians are armed and all of the crime-control is left to the police. I, as one of those law-abiding citizens, (well, most laws anyway ) would rather not have to wait for the police to arrive during the aftermath and have them kill me, my family, or any other innocent bystanders.


voltaire, according to your logic, Scandinavia is inherently less safe than the US. I do believe the stats say otherwise.

It's a cultural thing - generally speaking, even the criminals hardly carry guns around here. Why should they ?

When I first entered these debates, I naively thought this model would work everywhere: "Ban the bloody guns, it works for us!" But I've come to see that the US culture is wildly different from us on this issue. I do believe you'd live safer if more people (especially the criminals, of course) decided against owning & carrying a gun. But that'd obviously have to be a major cultural changeover, and these things take time.

I'll try to just lurk from now on....

Norman

[Johnny L.A.]

However, there was one concept that did exist in the U.S. at the time of the Bill of Rights that no longer exists, and that is the concept of compulsory State militia service. Most States required everyone who wasn't in a legitimate volunteer militia corps, and who was a 17-44 year old male capable of shouldering arms, to train for and show up for militia "musters" held a couple of times a year -- and the participants had to bring their own firearms.
I thought that the U.S. Code (sorry, I don't remember the section, but it was posted in another thread) still exists that says able-bodied males between 18 and 45 are by law part of the "unorganized militia"?

[TheMadHun]

We need to be able to shoot guns so that we’re prepared to sail on over and save Europe and Great Britain from the Germans twice per century.


If you personally served during WWII then I thank you Sir for the liberty which I now enjoy. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

[Freedomx]

I thought that the U.S. Code (sorry, I don't remember the section, but it was posted in another thread) still exists that says able-bodied males between 18 and 45 are by law part of the "unorganized militia"?


Here you go.....
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/unframed/10/311.html

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

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


I am not sure how to prove it, but this looks different than the last time I quoted it. It still says the same thing, but I recall it being more clear last time.

I will skim through the old threads and see if I quoted it in here.


If you personally served during WWII then I thank you Sir for the liberty which I now enjoy. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.


Well, I think we are coming due for another trip over the pond to save your butts. Are you sure you don't want to apologize now so at least we WANT to help you guys out?

In addition to coming over twice in the 1900's, don't forget that we stayed for close to 50 years just to hold your hand and make sure you didn't get attacked again.

Maybe you guys should consider following Switzerland and America's example, get yourself some guns. :)

[TheMadHun]

Well, I think we are coming due for another trip over the pond to save your butts. Are you sure you don't want to apologize now so at least we WANT to help you guys out?

In addition to coming over twice in the 1900's, don't forget that we stayed for close to 50 years just to hold your hand and make sure you didn't get attacked again.


So you personally will protect me? Makes me feel a whole lot safer. It is really infuriating to read the posts of jingoistic crackpots like you who use the military action of genuinely brave men and women to inflate thei own sense of self-importance. I repeat: if you serve in the armed forces, good on you. If you don't, shut the f*ck up.

[TheMadHun]

Well, I think we are coming due for another trip over the pond to save your butts. Are you sure you don't want to apologize now so at least we WANT to help you guys out?

In addition to coming over twice in the 1900's, don't forget that we stayed for close to 50 years just to hold your hand and make sure you didn't get attacked again.


Incidentally, America did not enter either World War just for the sake of helping their British chums, they had a lot to lose if Germany had been victorious. Indeed, it was the unlimited use of submarine warfare and poisonous gas during The Great War (violations of International Law) that led to America's involvement. In WWII we were buying war materials from America, by 1941 we were unable to pay for them and the Lend-Lease Act was passed allowing the American president to lend or lease war materials to nations whose defence was thought important to the United States. This is not the cavalry charge you suggest. The Japanese attack Pearl Harbour and away you go...America involved in the scrap proper.

[Gaudere]

MadHun said:
shut the fuck up. andjingoistic crackpots like you[Moderator Hat ON]

Cool it, MadHun. This isn't The Pit. That goes equally for the rest of you guys, too.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

[DougC]

I've learned a lot on these many gun topics, and have come to a couple of conclusions;
(Generalizing profusely)
"Guys want guns to defend their country."
Bullshit
"Guys want guns to defend hearth and home."
Bullshit
The OP:
"Guns why do you americans love them so much?"
Answer:
Well, Mommy, because they're GUNS. - mangeorge
- - - I agree with you on this; I'd guess if I asked everyone I knew who was a gun owner not one would say they're preparing for the day the Russkies or Chinese or FBI or whoever comes over the horizon. Quite frankly, I'd worry if they did. Most would say that they just like shooting, with a few mentioning home protection (particularly the ladies that live alone).
- I also do not understand what is so objectionable about allowing people to own firearms, or why firearm ownership has to be "justified" more than anything else. If the US as a nation decided to outlaw anything that could be deemed as hazardous to the public, the first thing to go would be cars. Every argument you can make for eliminating guns, is even greater for banning automobiles.
- What concerns me is that the process of liability law is currently being drastically undermined by progressives seeking a way, any way, to hold gun manufacturers liable for deaths that they are not by any regular legal standards responsible for, with little regard to how these laws might be applied in the future. - MC

[aschrott]

voltaire:I think that there are two MAIN reasons why the police are involved in more accidental shootings. First, they often
arrive on a frantic scene and must quickly decide who is the victim and who is the perpetrator, this often leads to mistakes. Second, police are basicly trained to unload their guns on someone after they have decided to use deadly force. This greatly increases the chances of them hitting the target and killing them.

Conversely, a civilian protecting themselves or their family does not usually have a problem figuring out who the bad guy is. They are more in tune with what's going on at the scene, and are far less likely to make an erroneous judgement call based on someone's stereotype or profile. Generally, the armed civilian, having not been trained to, will not unload the entire clip after having decided to use deadly force. This reduces the chances of them hitting and killing the target.

Voltaire, Your line of thinking makes no sense to me. Are you suggesting that only the police are confronted with making quick decisions about who is a threat and who is not in dangerous situations? I have no numbers to quote here, but I am led to believe that differentiating good guys v. bad guys (i.e. thinking it's a burglar but it's really your son coming home late) is the main reason for most accidental shootings in the home. Feel free to show me some figures to the contrary.

[casdave]

One thing I note about this debate is that we Brits are obsessed about the American obsession for guns . Pick up any British newspaper & you will find a 'crazy yank gunman' story or else if it's a 'crazy Brit gunman'(very much rarer-the gun bit that is) a bystander will almost inevitably say something that incudes 'The wild west' or'Chicago' or 'The Bronx'.
My conclusion is that Brits love guns too ,it's just that we don't happen to own the objects of our affection.
By the way ,I looked round for some info about gun stats pro and anti ,good grief!Looks like I need a bigger hard drive.

[casdave]

One thing I note about this debate is that we Brits are obsessed about the American obsession for guns . Pick up any British newspaper & you will find a 'crazy yank gunman' story or else if it's a 'crazy Brit gunman'(very much rarer-the gun bit that is) a bystander will almost inevitably say something that incudes 'The wild west' or'Chicago' or 'The Bronx'.
My conclusion is that Brits love guns too ,it's just that we don't happen to own the objects of our affection.
By the way ,I looked round for some info about gun stats pro and anti ,good grief!Looks like I need a bigger hard drive.

[casdave]

One thing I note about this debate is that we Brits are obsessed about the American obsession for guns . Pick up any British newspaper & you will find a 'crazy yank gunman' story or else if it's a 'crazy Brit gunman'(very much rarer-the gun bit that is) a bystander will almost inevitably say something that incudes 'The wild west' or'Chicago' or 'The Bronx'.
My conclusion is that Brits love guns too ,it's just that we don't happen to own the objects of our affection.
By the way ,I looked round for some info about gun stats pro and anti ,good grief!Looks like I need a bigger hard drive.

[UncleBeer]

Let me get this straight, Dave. You started this topic to bitch about Americans and their firearms a week ago and you are just now starting to research the issue? Thanks for playing, make sure to pick up your lovely parting gifts on the way out.

[voltaire]

Voltaire, Your line of thinking makes no sense to me. Are you suggesting that only the police are confronted with making quick decisions about who is a threat and who is not in dangerous situations? I have no numbers to quote here, but I am led to believe that differentiating good guys v. bad guys (i.e. thinking it's a burglar but it's really your son coming home late) is the main reason for most accidental shootings in the home. Feel free to show me some figures to the contrary.


This is one example of where figures or statistics are not necessary. You need only apply logic and common sense to realize that the victim is going to be keenly aware of who the bad guy is. A police officer, showing up during or after the fact will have a lot less real information to go on. Because of this, they will often rely on their instincts and the subject's profile or stereotype to determine who is who. Most of the time they'll probably be right, but obviously this can be problematic.

Am I saying that civilians never mistakenly shoot someone? No. Am I saying that the police always mistakenly shoot someone? No. I'm saying that someone who is present during the commission of a crime is always in a better position to end the crime successfully without making mistakes then someone who arrives after the fact and who is relying on second-hand or third-hand information.

And all that is assuming that the victim is still alive and the perpetrator isn't long gone by the time the police arrive. That's a big assumption. To much of an assumption for me anyway.

[tracer]

Freedom wrote:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/unframed/10/311.html

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Yes, but:

1. This law did not come into existence until 1916.

2. At no time since the passage of this law has the "unorganized militia" been called into actual service. And:

3. According to http://www.militia-watchdog.org/faq3.htm#3.50 , being a member of the unorganized militia conveys NO additional rights, only additional responsibilities.

------------------
The truth, as always, is more complicated than that.

[Freedomx]

tracer,

being a member of the unorganized militia conveys NO additional rights, only additional responsibilities.


I agree. The right exists for all people in this country.

I see the milita arguement as a red herring. It really has no relevance. Anybody who can read English can tell that the Amendment is recognizing the right of the people to own arms.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That could very well say:

A well aged wine, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And it would still mean the same thing.
(except we would party more :) )

It is not debating whether or not a milita is neccesary to the security of a free state, nor does it set a prerequisite for there to be a well regulated milita for there to be the right of the people to bear arms.

Is the sentence a little awkward by today's standards? Yes. No doubt about it.

But can we understand it easily enough? Yes, as long as we don't bring an agenda to the table.

All you have to do is go through the Bill of Rights and ask yourself why they used people in some Amendments, and then States in others. Are they interchangeble? Or were they smart enough to to be specific in their wording?

The only reason I even address this issue is because people run around with this wacky version of what they THINK the 2nd Amendment says. The funny part is, even with their interpretaion, they still lose the arguement.

[TheMadHun]

[Moderator Hat ON]
Cool it, MadHun. This isn't The Pit. That goes equally for the rest of you guys, too.

[Moderator Hat OFF]


No problemo....read and posted after a fairly heated exchange in The Pit. Apologies. Although it was deserved right ;)

[aschrott]

voltaire:
This is one example of where figures or statistics are not necessary. You need only apply logic and common sense to realize that the victim is going to be keenly aware of who the bad guy is.

I definitely see that point--my thinking was geared more towards the home burglary scenario in which a person first has to indentify whether or not there even IS a bad guy (as opposed to a neighbor, etc.). I see now where you are coming from.

I would add, though, that while I respect your point of view, I do not share your feelings about who to trust with a gun. The police definitely do make mistakes. But, while I am not foolish enough to think that a badge makes someone trustworthy, I DO think that a person who has been trained to tackle life-threatening situations and who is practiced in making decisions of that nature under pressure will be less likely to screw up given equal circumstances. Let's face it, while an armed civilian might very well be in a position to do some good, they are also in a position to do great harm through inexperience, panic, rage, etc. I am not against gun ownership, but I am extremely wary of vigilantism. I believe that, when possible, situations involving armed conflict ought to be left to those trained to deal with it (the operative words being "when possible" I understand that sometimes a person has no choice but to defend himself and his loved ones).

[Freedomx]

Diallo

Rodney King


Sure I trust the police. They never make mistakes or abuse their power.

[aschrott]

Freedom--

Come on. There is (hopefully) no one in this debate who is not troubled and horrified by police brutality and criminality. However, does that support the notion that--generally speaking--armed citizens are less likely to do unintentional harm than trained law enforcement agents? That is pure cynicism--a cop out :D of major proportions. No, policemen are not necessarily trustworthy human beings simply because they are policemen--but they are trained to deal with dangerous situations in ways that ordinary citizens are not. Like it or not, your honest-abe next door neighbor with the gun collection is just as likely to be a bigoted maniac as any cop. Yes, I've known stupid cops. Yes I'm sickened by recent events in the news involving abusive and corrupt cops. But, given my choice in a situation, I'd rather be protected by them than someone who may or may not be the least bit mentally or emotionally prepared for a potentially deadly confrontation.

peace

[Joe_Cool]

Originally posted by C3:
I'm an American. I hate guns, would never own one, and would never allow one into my house (unless it was attached to a police officer). I do not think guns should be outlawed in the U.S. because 1) it's a part of our Constitution and I believe it would weaken the entire document if one part was deleted and 2) I agree with the people above who state that a government is less likely to become tyrannical when the citizens (or at least a whole bunch of them) are armed.
I do agree that there should be some regulation of guns and gun sales and I mostly wish that the topic would be approached with common sense from both sides instead of made into an "issue" that just becomes an emotional stomping match. But I wish that about a lot of "issues."

So, I guess what it boils down to is that I think guns should be legal, but stupidity should be illegal.

I know I'm responding to a really old post. I'm sorry, but I had to. I am really thankful to see an oasis of rational intelligence in the desert of human stupidity, where nothing can grow except inappropriate, overextended metaphors.

Anyway, The fact that you don't want a gun doesn't mean you have to take them away from everybody else. It does, however, mean that you have the freedom and intelligence to choose not to use them or allow them into space that you control.

The problem here is that we have:
a) a corrupt government looking to consolidate and maximize its power and control over the citizenry,
b) normally rational people with their worst fears whipped into a frenzy by said government, along with news media that report gun violence disproportionately to make it look worse than it is, and
c) people looking for a global solution to a local problem. If there are too many idiots in New York City to allow guns, fine (and that may be true. NYC is FULL of idiots. Many of them are running the place). Ban them there. But don't lobby for them to be made illegal in Virginia, New Mexico, Texas, etc. You're not helping anybody except the people in a) who want more power over you, and want you to have no liberty or freedom.


------------------
Oh, what's that? So now you say life sucks?
Well 99% of it's what you make of it...
So if your life sucks, YOU suck!
-----
Joe_Cool

[Joe_Cool]

Originally posted by tracer:
Not only that, but the laws (particularly the Federal laws) against these military-style weapons are bans of assault weapons, not assault rifles. "Assault rifle" is a well-defined military term meaning a light, low-recoil selective fire rifle. (Selective fire means you can switch between semi-automatic and fully-automatic.) "Assault weapon" is a made-up legalistic term that means whatever the laws say it means. The Federal definition of an "assault weapon" includes any semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine and two or more of: a folding stock, a flash suppressor or a threaded barrel capable of accepting a flash suppressor, a protruding pistol grip, a front clip that can hold a bayonet, or a "grenade launcher" (a mount that can accept a rifle grenade, which would be illegal under other laws).


Actually, "assault-weapon" is also a well-defined military term which has been ignored and redefined by politicians, because it sounds like "assault-rifle" and evokes a specific emotional response.

The definition? "any weapon used in an assault"

That means if I throw a rock at you, I have attacked you with an assault weapon.

For all the debate about what kind of guns we should be or not be allowed to have (no military guns...Hunting guns are ok...etc), I'm surprised. Does anybody know the meaning of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"? What does that mean? It means that my rights shall not be infringed. Telling me I can own A and C, but not B is infringing my right to own letters, so to speak. Machine-guns and Armor-piercing ammunition aren't practical for hunting? You're damn right.
The 2nd amendment isn't in place to protect our sport-hunting. It's in place for two things: to make our nation secure from external attack, and to make our nation secure from INTERNAL attack.

Read what the drafters wrote and discussed about the constitution someday. They did not trust government--not even the one they were forming. They knew that disarmament is the first and most important step toward tyranny. It's there to protect us from our own government becoming too zealous for power.


------------------
Oh, what's that? So now you say life sucks?
Well 99% of it's what you make of it...
So if your life sucks, YOU suck!
-----
Joe_Cool

[Occam]

To get back to the OP. When the US deals with other countries we like using napalm. Since the stuff is too expensive and cumbersome for household use I think automatic weapons are a nice compromise.

[ExTank]

OK. The op asked and honest question, and I'll try to give an honest answer, without going political.

What follows is strictly my own opinion, with no basis in logic or law or precedent or statistics; just the accumulated experience of being a member of the American gun-culture since the age of five.

I like guns because they are fun. I love to shoot targets. I like the satisfaction and feeling of accomplishment I get from placing rounds in the 10-ring of a target, time after time. It is a physical and mental discilpline, that doesn't stop when the magazine is empty and I go home from the range.

It is a reminder of my ability, and the concomitant responsiblity I bear as a free citizen in a free country; a responsibility to be not only able to use force, but to use it wisely and judiciously; a responsibility to be safe and considerate of the rights and feelings my fellow citizens, that they may never, ever feel endangered or threatened by me, nor have their life unnecessarily jeapodized, by my hand.

I was introduced to shooting by my father, who divorced my mother when I was five; our shared experiences hiking, camping, canoeing and hunting has given me a love of Nature and the peace and tranquility of cool, clean lakes and rivers and the deep, quiet forests.

I respect Nature, and seek to preserve the wildlife and habitat by culling the weak and sickly from the herd, so that the remaining wildlife will grow strong and pass on the best possible genes. If and when man and nature can live in harmony, and the natural predators can resume their rightful place in the food chain, I will gladly give up hunting with a gun, and substitute my hunting rifles and shotguns for a good camera.

In addition, my father taught me safety and responsibilty in the care and handling of firearms; as he was a machinist, he understood the intrinsic value of good tools, and the need to treat them with care and respect.

He also taught me about our Constitution and Bill of Rights; as a vetern of WWII, he taught me about civic duty and responsibility, and love of country and our fellow citizens, and the need for every able-bodied citizen to render some form of service to our nation; enrolling me in the Boy Scouts where I attained the rank of Eagle Scout, before I enlisted in the U.S. Army, where I attained the rank of Sergeant and served as a gunner on an M-1 Abrams Tank during the Persian Gulf.

While I am not satisfied with America's reasons for our involvement in the Persian Gulf, I am proud of my service, and honored by the respect and accolades of my fellow soldiers, both superiors and subordinates alike, and my fellow citizens.

There is a fine, if definite, distinction in the above statement; if you don't, can't or won't understand it, the fault is yours, not mine or my fellow soldier's.

All of that has combined to leave me, one man, one citizen of the United States of America, with the utmost conviction that I have not only the right, but the responsibility to be armed; to be proficient in the use of arms, to understand and respect the heritage of the self-reliant citizen-soldier that founded this country and has seen it grow to be the richest, most powerful nation on this planet.

I stand ready not only to defend myself, but also my family, my neighbors in time of need, my community in times of disaster or strife, and my Nation, should it feel the need to call upon my Service once again.

I swore an Oath of Enlistment to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, from all enemies foreign and domestic. I did not abdicate that oath when I took off my uniform.

In my twenty-eight years of living in and around the gun-culture, I have found that I am not exceptional; but rather the norm.

Come visit us; not just once, but several times. Get to know us a bit. We're not, collectively, the loutish insensitive cretins who cannot see the grief and damage of irresponsible use of firearms that Bill Clinton and the Media have portrayed us to be.

Our hearts, too, go out to the victims of gun violence; we too weep at the tragic, untimely loss of the innocent young lives to violent crimninal predators and mentally unbalanced individuals.

But sacrificing fundamental rights that have been hard fought for and won with the blood of our Fathers, the blood of more people than all the innocent victims of tragic incidents, for the imagined safety and promised panacea of less crime, is not what we believe.

I make no apologies for my hobby, my past or my convictions.

ExTank
"Loyalty, Courage."

[Sam Stone]

It's absolutely true that an armed citizen is less likely to shoot the wrong person than is a cop. The simple reason is that the citizen knows who the good guys and bad guys are, and when the cop arrives he has to make a judgement call, when seconds count and chaos is reigning.

Also, police are put into more marginal situations simply because they have guns handy and the authority to use them. If someone screams, a gun shot rings out, and a man comes racing around the corner with his arm extended, the police officer is there to take a shot at him.

The average citizen, on the other hand, only brings out a weapon in situations that are much more cut-and-dried, the typical one being a home assault.

[UncleBeer]

Tank, you are the man! I'm not a sentimental type, but that is a moving post. Nicely done.

[mangeorge]

Originally posted by UncleBeer:
Tank, you are the man! I'm not a sentimental type, but that is a moving post. Nicely done.

Like I said, eloquent.
Now if only we could figure out a way to get guns away from idiots, and leave responsible gunners like Tank alone...
Hmmm, another post?
Peace,
mangeorge

[bossbuster]

Well I sure don't love guns, even though a lot of people think I do or should. I grew up on a farm in the midwest, with many guns. Guns on the wall, guns in the pick up truck window, guns strapped to our motorcyles. As well as a hammers and a fencing pliers. Thats all a gun was to me, a tool. Mainly for shooting at stray packs of dogs.. (caused by all those city slickers that would dump their dogs out in the country)..shooting cyotes and sometimes for food if the population ( of squirrels , rabbits, pheasants etc...) was getting ridiculously high. But never did I even think of using it in self defence against a human being!

In my extremely peacefull years there, I only experienced one act of violence, while at a church volley ball game. A bunch of drunks came around and started harrasing us, things started to get pretty ugly, punches flew, but we finally got them to leave, even though most of us were 15 year old, and they were early and late 20's. I was thinking about this the other night, and realized, at least half the cars a pick ups in the parking lot had guns in them, but nobody would have even "thought" of using them to protect us. Thank god! I can only imagine what would have happened if some idiot had.

When I was 25, I moved to L.A.. And unfortunatley saw alot more violence. (Allthough not as much as I thought I might)
A few of the acts even involved weapons. Not one incident would have been "helped" by another weapon!

I know alot of people fantasize about being on the "good end" of criminal activity, and like to dream up scenerios where a weapon would help, so they can be heros.

I would never push for outlawing guns, even though I don't think the constitution guarantees it at all(for all individuals)....Hell its "Grand Fathered" in by this point. But registration, limits on puchases, YOU BET! And those f****n gun shows! ..."oh we'll loose too many sales if we have to do a real background check" ...And while I'm at it, why doesnt the NRA just ...
...oops , hold on... oooooooommmmmmm......oooooommmmmm...
ok I'm better now.

[casdave]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me get this straight, Dave. You started this topic to bitch about Americans and their firearms a week ago and you are just now starting to research the issue? Thanks for playing, make sure to pick up your lovely parting gifts on the way out
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aw shucks Uncs,don't be so sensitive.
You get prizes for bitchin'? Did I do well?

But seriously folks I had absolutely no idea about what this issue means to so many of you.
Until now the only exposure to the real views of US citizens was through our media,then I got connected-last week-hence all the typos.
Extank that was just so beautiful ,do you think that the homicidal lunatics ,robbers ,junkies and other assorted lowlifes think about the points you raised or not?
The Constitution issue is fascinating.Some of us in the UK would like to have a written constitution too(Charter 2000 group).
I imagine that when The Constitution was drafted they had in mind Britain with all its corruption and France with its recent revolution.They must have thought about the abuses of power the executive in those lands had commited ,possibly some had already been victims of the same and decided to leave.
In England although there was the vote it certainly was not democracy as we today see it and in any case the King still had final authority no matter what parliament decided,in France the high ideals the of the revolution were slowly being perverted.

So how to defend the right of citizens?
America found an answer that was appropriate for the time.

Over here we don't trust the politicians absolutely-no surprises there then-and ,in extremis ,power still remains with the monarchy who can declare a state of emergency using the armed forces and the police to enforce this.
This sounds well dodgy but in fact it works because the monarch is really a constitutional position .As such it is apolitical whereas your president is both constitutional head and political head.
In my view these two roles should be kept separate.
Before you comment on the contradictions between hereditory monarchy and democracy let me add that I myself would prefer a non- executive presidential style solution but the ongoing discussion here is how could this be achieved without bringing bear-pit politics into it.
The thing is;- any rights violations by the state are going to be sanctioned by the politicians hence the need for citizens to defend themselves.
I can't help but feel that some in the gun community wrap the flag around themselves and use it to justify many things but there wouldn't be anyone like that here, now would there?

[casdave]

Small point ,I know, but actually most of our rights in the UK were achieved by political means and the power of the unions to defend the rights of the small man.
Much of the Eastern Bloc fell not by force of arms but by ordinary people simply walking away.
Guns have their place but civil protest has shown time and again that guns are not always the most effective way to protect the public.

[Freedomx]

Hey dave, another small point.

Not only did we NOT have the French Revolution in mind, but our success helped start the French Revolution.

Frog Revolution (http://members.aol.com/agentmess/frenchrev/summary.html)

The Intermediate Causes (Four Primary causes)

(excerpted)

American Revolutionary Ideas

The cost of support to America was not just associated with money. Already in France a new school of thought was developing amongst the Bourgeoisie. This was further aided by the transmission of Revolutionary thoughts from America back into France. Many French Troops (mainly the Bourgeoisie) came back encouraged by the revolution to introduce a revolution in France. These ideas included that:

It is right to take up arms against tyranny
There should be no taxation without representation
All men should have liberal freedoms
A Republic is superior to a monarchy.
Obviously these new ideas provided much conflict with the ideas prevalent in the Ancien Regime.

[casdave]

Ooops!

slinks off feeling sheepish(blush)

[Freedomx]

Damn ExTank.....

I hereby propose that ExTank be Renamed:

PATTON

And that all future posts be on a flag background. With the Battle Hymn of the Republic playing softly in the background.


:)

Those were two strong, clear posts. They certainly go a long way towards defing the pro-Bill of Right side of the debate.

[Freedomx]

Damn ExTank.....

I hereby propose that ExTank be Renamed:

PATTON

And that all future posts be on a flag background. With the Battle Hymn of the Republic playing softly in the background.

I am now considering going to the Bush VP thread and nominating you for VP :)

:)

Those were two strong, clear posts. They certainly go a long way towards defing the pro-Bill of Right side of the debate.

[ExTank]

Not enough experience to be a VP, but maybe a speech writer.

All issues are connected; there is no separation.

ExTank

[tracer]

Joe_Cool wrote:

Telling me I can own A and C, but not B is infringing my right to own letters, so to speak.

Then again, the right to keep arms, and the right to bear arms, are not the same as the right to build arms or the right to buy arms -- neither of which are protected at the Federal level.

[voltaire]

Then again, the right to keep arms, and the right to bear arms, are not the same as the right to build arms or the right to buy arms -- neither of which are protected at the Federal level.



That's tantamount to saying that you have the right to vote, but actually entering the polling place and actually punching the ballot are not protected on the Federal level.

The fact is, I DO have the right to buy or build whatever The Constitution says I have the right to keep or bear. That was the original intention of the signers of The Constitution. Anything else would be infringement.

Yes, I see where this is headed....All of those infringements are indeed unconstitutional. But since they remain unchallenged, they stay on the books de facto. If the gun control lobby ends up pushing it too far though, they may very well be surprised with the outcome.

[tracer]

voltaire wrote:

The fact is, I DO have the right to buy or build whatever The Constitution says I have the right to keep or bear. That was the original intention of the signers of The Constitution. Anything else would be infringement.

Then I suggest you take up the Federal Assault Weapons Ban with the Supreme Court. The law bans the sale (and, therefore, the purchase) of any "assault weapon" built after September 13, 1994 -- and such a weapon would clearly be the type of weapon a well-regulated militia would carry.

Good luck fighting this law on second-amendment grounds. You're gonna need it.

CasDave, your response still has some misconceptions, which I'll address in order:

The drafters of the Constitution were not only concerned about Great Britain, but Spain, and The Netherlands as well, as they were the only other colonial powers, besides our allies the French, with the werewithal to mount an expedition to conquer us.

Domestically, they were also concerned about the Indians (I know, un-PC; but that is what they were referred to then) who were succeptible to influence by the British, by way of Canada. Many tribes accepted arms and aid from the British during the French-Indian War, and there was a justifiable fear that the British could (and eventually did during the War of 1812) again use the Indians to wage a guerrilla war against the new nation.

Remember, this was before Manifest destiny and the Westward Expansion the led to the inevitable conflict with the Native Americans.

But mostly, they felt that a Free, Armed Citizenry was the first, last and best defense against Too Much Government.

That we, as a Nation, have lost Faith with and strayed away from this principle of the Empowered Citizenry, saddens me; I sometimes feel that this Nation is no longer the Nation that our Founding Fathers conceived, and that my forefathers left Europe to join, and have fought, bled and died for securing and re-affirming this Principle of the Emancipated Citizen.

Not just the change of landscape or technology, but the principle that we Citizens are the Government, not the Talking Heads we elect to represent us, not the political appointees who shape policy and hold our representatives ears, not the special interests who fill the campaign coffers and pockets of "action committees", "focus groups" or "polling organizaions".

As far as the various people who abuse firearms, remember that there are an estimated 65,000,000 gun-owners in America, and it's also estimated that there are upwards of 150,000,000 firearms in America.

If violence and crime were even half[/i[ as bad as politicians and The Media portrays it to be, we would be drenched in blood.

But violent crime is declining at about 5-6% annually, and has been since 1994; in addition, the vast majority of states that have "shall-issue" CCW laws have seen an even greater decline, anywhere from 2-10%, depending on locality (my home state of Texas is about 5% over the National Average).

And there haven't been the "Wild West" shootouts by gun-toting citizens that politicians and The Media have predicted; quite the contrary, only a very few CCW Permits have been revoked, and none for violent felony criminal activity.

As far as the violent criminals are concerned, gun laws mean nothing to them; if they are violent and maladjusted enough to commit murder in the furtherance of their criminal activities, do you honestly believe that they are going to obtain their weapons legally? Sure, maybe the first weapon they obtain may be done legally, and possibly subsequent ones until they are caught and have a felony record!

They now may no longer legally acquire weapons; they must either steal them or use "Straw Man" buyers.

These "Straw Men" are usually gang members without records, who are given money to buy guns for their fellow gang members.

The Clinton Administration, acting upon information provided by the BATF, has estimated that there are only a few (percentage wise) gun stores that cater to this clientele, somewhere on the order of 10-15%, and has proposed an initiative to target these abusers of the Federal Firearms Dealer System.

This proposal has my cautious approval, and, I dare say, the approval and support of the gun-culture, in theory, at least. As this political administration has shown itself all too willing to throw the baby out with the bath water in the furtherance of their political agenda.

We do support taking gun away from criminals; we do support theories on how to prevent criminals from getting or using firearms.

But barring the total disarmament of free citizens alike, there isn't much more that can be done except the vigoruous enforcement of our current gun-control laws![/]i

If George W. is elected, I will be far more trusting of him, his having been [i]my state governor going on two terms now. I have seen this man, talked to him, heard and seen his political will in action.

He means what he says, and does what he promises, in good conscience and full faith and trust in the people who elected him to represent him.

The bottom line is that a grossly small percentage of lawful gun owners commit violent crimes with firearms, and the current laws, if vigorously enforced, are sufficient to deter further abuses of the power gun-owners possess.

And tough prosecution of violent criminals, often times repeat offenders, will go even further towards reducing violent criminal activity, without infringing on the law-abiding citizenry's rights to keep and bear arms and pursue legitimate hobbies and sporting activities.

We in the gun-culture are the vast majority, the people standing in line next to you at the grocery store, filling up our cars at the gas pump, buying stamps at the post office, renting videos at Blockbuster, rooting for our kids to hit the homeruns on the same baseball team as your children. Just like the soldiers I am supporting in the "Mandatory Service" thread:

We Are You!

Like I asked before, come to our clubs; meet us and talk to us. We have mortgages, and car payments. We too worry about taxes and property values, and the price of gasloine.

We, too, are just as concerned about crime, criminals and drugs in our neighborhoods, because our children live and play and go to school alongside your children.

To us, camoflauge is not a fashion statement; it is a tool of the lawful hunter engaging in lawful sporting activities. We too hate the knuckleheads bringing full-auto weaponry into our forests, as we are also out there hunting, and don't want a spray of bullets flying aroud the space we are also occupying.

We too don't want .50 caliber bullets fired from military-grade sniper rifles flying dozens of miles to impact randomly in God-knows-where.

We will be the first to contact Game and Wildlife Officials to apprehend these law breakers, and provide whatever aid and assistance the enforcement officials and justice system requires to apprehend and prosecute these law-breakers!

We are not a small minority of law-abiding citizens. WE are the vast majority!

You never here about us because we are not news-worthy to the Mass Media; the amazingly few incidents of mass violence are ratings-grabbers.

Just last week, here in North Carolina, a bar owner used his handgun to defend his premises and clientele against three gun-toting criminals with felony records from robbing his establishment.

One robber was killed, and two other were either wounded or held at gunpoint until the police arrived (the news wasn't entirely clear, but at least one of the surviving two was wounded).

Not a single bystander/patron was wounded.

This is the overwhelming norm, not the minority of incidents.

Statistic are tricky. British Prime Minister and Statesman Benjamin Disraeli's famous quote highlights perfectly the potential abuse of statistics:

[i]"There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics."

Any group, from HCI to the NRA, can twist numbers to prove their points. You and anyone else new to this debate are wise and right to not entirely trust any statistic to form an educated opinion concerning gun control, one way or the other.

But just consider this: at HCI's web-site, there are plenty of scary numbers to support their position.

And yet they cite no studies, no agencies or bureaus that collect and track the very data they claim supports stricter gun control.

And then go to the NRA's Institute for Legislative Ac

[ExTank]

Freedom: while I certainly appreciate the sentiment, please don't ever compare me to that butchering sycophant again.

Veterans Affairs (http://comptonsv3.web.aol.com/ceo99-cgi/article?'fastweb?getdoc+viewcomptons+A+7768+6++Veterans%20Army')

Majors George S. Patton, Jr. and Dwight D. Eisenhower, under the command of General Douglas MacArthur, opened fire on and burned out over 15,000 destitute Veterans on July 28, 1932.

These men, most with their families and children as they were homeless, were seeking the same relief as other destitute people, and peaceably demonstrating for early payment or partial payment of their promised bonus for service overseas in WWI.

They even proposed a "Transfer Compromise" in which their bonus certificates, redeemable in 1945, could be purchased by individuals with the werewithal and time to wait for the money.

Roosevelt, the New Deal Socialist, ordered Federal Troops to open fire and burn them out.

Citizens, Veterans, women and children alike, all as destitute and poor as most everyone else in America at the time, were attacked with Tanks, Cavalry and Infantry, and then had their make-shift shelters burned to the ground, with many of them still trapped inside.

It made Waco and Ruby (actually Caribou) Ridge look like exercises in restraint.

Makes me wonder what Clinton might do if ever the Persian Gulf Veterans marched on the Capitol to demand action on Gulf War Syndrome.

ExTank

[ExTank]

I never claimed it was, Tracer.

syn*drome (noun)

[New Latin, from Greek syndrome combination, syndrome, from syn- + dramein to run -- more at DROMEDARY]

First appeared 1541

1 : a group of signs and symptoms that occur together and characterize a particular abnormality

2 : a set of concurrent things (as emotions or actions) that usu. form an identifiable pattern

Bolding mine.

ExTank

[voltaire]

Then I suggest you take up the Federal Assault Weapons Ban with the Supreme Court. The law bans the sale (and, therefore, the purchase) of any "assault weapon" built after September 13, 1994 -- and such a weapon would clearly be the type of weapon a well-regulated militia would carry.

Good luck fighting this law on second-amendment grounds. You're gonna need it.


As I said above, once gun control laws are taken too far there is a distinct possibility of a considerable backlash.

I agree with all of the reasonable laws and restrictions on guns and weapons. I don't think anyone wants people running around with all the same weapons that are available to the military. I really only care about weapons for self-defense, hunting, or recreation. When it comes to fighting tyranny and all that, it's more about the sheer number of people than the weapons, although all the weapons for self-defense, hunting, and recreation don't hurt. ;)

But once it all goes to far, and it likely will, I think the Supreme Court will save The Constitution from the over-bearing gun control lobby.

[tracer]

And what would be really scary about that scenario is: Gulf War Syndrome probably isn't a real disease anyway!

[tracer]

And as I said, the Supreme Court won't be able to do jack-piddley about laws restricting the manufacture or sale/transfer of firearms, because the 2nd amendment only protects your right to keep arms and your right to bear arms. Any case citations to the contraty?

[tracer]

Er, I meant: Any case citations to the contrary?

[ExTank]

Tracer: Nah, the case law is pretty thin and so ambiguous that both sides of the debate routinely cite the same rulings as being supportive of their positions.

Check out the excellent article:

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms? The State of the Debate. (http://www.saf.org/pub/rkba/Legal/ARightToKeepArms.html)

I don't think that our current crop of Justices (Thomas, Souter and Paglia, in particular) will allow too much parsing of verbage as an end-run around their rulings; but Congress can always come back with Gun Control (New and Improved, with 25% More!) before their rulings have hit the press, and the whole process starts all over again.

Kinda what FDR did with his alphabet agencies in the '30s.

People talk about ammending the Constitution? Possibly allowing Judicial Review (with veto power) to the Supreme Court prior to a Bill being signed into Law?

That way all three branches are equal, and our Government really gets nothing done except in time of National Emergency.

ExTank
"My kind of Government!"

[casdave]

I've seen it reported in various newspapers that one of the main reasons for the reduction in gun crime is not the locking up of offenders but mostly the change in demographics.
Now ,not being one to trust the media ,I'm sure someone here could shed some light on it.

[danielnsmith]

How many times have I heard it said that hunting rifles cannot stand up to the modern army? Too many.

If the US army were to throw in with a tyrannical government and the people were to rise up, I could quickly arm myself with millitary equipment including humvees, APC's, and high explosives (land mines, M1 shells, and patriot warheads.)

Now, how do you think I'll get this! First, I go to the local nation guard armory and take the vehicles. Then I drive not even 10 miles down Agency Street to the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant and take the explosives. I am now armed enough to take on the US army. Better yet, I could deny them the means of manufacturing their ammunition. If I was really pissy, I'd drive up to Rock Island and take over Arsenal Island.

Now that I have weapons, ammunition, and vehichles, I sink a few barges in the mighty Mississippi, blow up a few bridges across it and I've severed transportation. I drive into Illinois and hit the BNSF rail yards in Galesburg.

When idiots make the comment that the populus cannot stand against a modern army, just think about how much infrastructure (civillian and millitary) is in your area.

PS - sorry if this is off of the curent subject.

[mangeorge]

"If the US army were to throw in with a tyrannical government"

Is this really a concern? I've seen the idea mentioned several times in these debates, and I'm wondering if people really do feel that such a thing is likely to actually happen.
Don't those who have the power and influence to initiate a take-over already pretty much have what they want without taking such a risk?
Peace,
mangeorge

[tracer]

danielnsmith:

I hope by "patriot warheads" you weren't talking about Patriot missiles. Those sorry birds didn't hit a single Scud during the whole Persian Gulf war.

[mangeorge]

Originally posted by mangeorge:
"If the US army were to throw in with a tyrannical government"

Is this really a concern? I've seen the idea mentioned several times in these debates, and I'm wondering if people really do feel that such a thing is likely to actually happen.
Don't those who have the power and influence to initiate a take-over already pretty much have what they want without taking such a risk?
Peace,
mangeorge

----------------------------------------
Sorry, I re-posted this question as a seperate topic in this, the GD. I decided it was off-topic. :confused:

Peace,
mangeorge

[mangeorge]

Originally posted by danielnsmith:
How many times have I heard it said that hunting rifles cannot stand up to the modern army? Too many.

If the US army were to throw in with a tyrannical government and the people were to rise up, I could quickly arm myself with millitary equipment including humvees, APC's, and high explosives (land mines, M1 shells, and patriot warheads.)

Now, how do you think I'll get this! First, I go to the local nation guard armory and take the vehicles. Then I drive not even 10 miles down Agency Street to the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant and take the explosives. I am now armed enough to take on the US army. Better yet, I could deny them the means of manufacturing their ammunition. If I was really pissy, I'd drive up to Rock Island and take over Arsenal Island.

Now that I have weapons, ammunition, and vehichles, I sink a few barges in the mighty Mississippi, blow up a few bridges across it and I've severed transportation. I drive into Illinois and hit the BNSF rail yards in Galesburg.

When idiots make the comment that the populus cannot stand against a modern army, just think about how much infrastructure (civillian and millitary) is in your area.

PS - sorry if this is off of the curent subject.

Now that's what I call exercising your 2nd ammendment rights.
:D :D :D
Sorry, I let this go for three days, but what can I say. I'm weak.
Peace,
mangeorge

[Joe_Cool]

Well, This thread seems to have split. I posted my reply to this in the new thread, located Here (http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001510.html).

I'm interested in your opinions, so swing on by and let me know.

------------------
Mere Life is not Victory.
Mere Death is not Defeat.
-----
Joe Cool