Guns why do you americans love them so much?

Great Debates
41

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.

42

LET IT DIE

43

CLOSURE PLEASE

44

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

45

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.

46

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

47

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.

48

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.

49

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.

50

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.

51

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

52

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.

53

Sentinel wrote:

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?

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.

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”.

54

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.

55

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!).

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.

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

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:

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

56

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 ) :slight_smile:
I’ve missed your eloquent posts.
Peace,
mangeorge

57

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.

58

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.)

59

Sentinel wrote:

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?

60

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

voltaire wrote:

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