Obama Outlines Gun Ban Agenda

[RangerM]

I've been uninformed before. I can admit that. Educate the savage, please.

 

There were 42-gun related deaths in Britain last year. It's JUST like the U.S. :reading:

 

Here are the actual statistics. Your number is accurate (order of magnitude), but that ignores other gun-related crimes.

 

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/hosb0109.pdf

[the_spaniard]

Here are the actual statistics. Your number is accurate (order of magnitude), but that ignores other gun-related crimes.

 

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/hosb0109.pdf

 

Thanks Ranger. So it would be safe to figure that less than 3 gun-related crimes occur each month in the UK? Compare that to 39,753 gun-related crimes each month in the U.S.. (2005 FBI figures).

 

As I said before, we wish we had that crime rate.

[sprinter]

Thanks Ranger. So it would be safe to figure that less than 3 gun-related crimes occur each month in the UK? Compare that to 39,753 gun-related crimes each month in the U.S.. (2005 FBI figures).

 

As I said before, we wish we had that crime rate.

 

Let me be the first to boot your a$$ all the way to the UK :happy feet: :happy feet:

 

Murder rates and violent crime rates are two different categories. So go ahead and move there (wish wish). You might not end up dead, but the chances of you getting the shit kick out of you are greater.

 

 

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/guncontrol_20010302.html

Britain, Australia top U.S. in violent crime

Rates Down Under increase despite strict gun-control measures

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

 

 

Law enforcement and anti-crime activists regularly claim that the United States tops the charts in most crime-rate categories, but a new international study says that America's former master -- Great Britain -- has much higher levels of crime.

 

The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations.

 

Twenty-six percent of English citizens -- roughly one-quarter of the population -- have been victimized by violent crime. Australia led the list with more than 30 percent of its population victimized.

 

The United States didn't even make the "top 10" list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime.

 

Jack Straw, the British home secretary, admitted that "levels of victimization are higher than in most comparable countries for most categories of crime."

 

Highlights of the study indicated that:

 

The percentage of the population that suffered "contact crime" in England and Wales was 3.6 percent, compared with 1.9 percent in the United States and 0.4 percent in Japan.

Burglary rates in England and Wales were also among the highest recorded. Australia (3.9 percent) and Denmark (3.1 per cent) had higher rates of burglary with entry than England and Wales (2.8 percent). In the U.S., the rate was 2.6 percent, according to 1995 figures;

"After Australia and England and Wales, the highest prevalence of crime was in Holland (25 percent), Sweden (25 percent) and Canada (24 percent). The United States, despite its high murder rate, was among the middle ranking countries with a 21 percent victimization rate," the London Telegraph said.

England and Wales also led in automobile thefts. More than 2.5 percent of the population had been victimized by car theft, followed by 2.1 percent in Australia and 1.9 percent in France. Again, the U.S. was not listed among the "top 10" nations.

The study found that Australia led in burglary rates, with nearly 4 percent of the population having been victimized by a burglary. Denmark was second with 3.1 percent; the U.S. was listed eighth at about 1.8 percent.

Interestingly, the study found that one of the lowest victimization rates -- just 15 percent overall -- occurred in Northern Ireland, home of the Irish Republican Army and scene of years of terrorist violence.

Analysts in the U.S. were quick to point out that all of the other industrialized nations included in the survey had stringent gun-control laws, but were overall much more violent than the U.S.

 

Indeed, information on Handgun Control's Center to Prevent Handgun Violence website actually praises Australia and attempts to portray Australia as a much safer country following strict gun-control measures passed by lawmakers in 1996.

 

"The next time a credulous friend or acquaintance tells you that Australia actually suffered more crime when they got tougher on guns ... offer him a Foster's, and tell him the facts," the CPHV site says.

 

"In 1998, the rate at which firearms were used in murder, attempted murder, assault, sexual assault and armed robbery went down. In that year, the last for which statistics are available, the number of murders involving a firearm declined to its lowest point in four years," says CPHV.

 

However, the International Crime Victims Survey notes that overall crime victimization Down Under rose from 27.8 percent of the population in 1988, to 28.6 percent in 1991 to over 30 percent in 1999.

 

Advocates of less gun control in the U.S. say the drop in gun murder rates was more than offset by the overall victimization increase. Also, they note that Australia leads the ICVS report in three of four categories -- burglary (3.9 percent of the population), violent crime (4.1 percent) and overall victimization (about 31 percent).

 

Australia is second to England in auto theft (2.1 percent).

 

In March 2000, WorldNetDaily reported that since Australia's widespread gun ban, violent crime had increased in the country.

 

WND reported that, although lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:

 

Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.

Assaults are up 8.6 percent.

Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent.

In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent.

In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily.

There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.

 

 

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2206

 

Talking facts to gun control zealots is only likely to make them angry. But the rest of us need to know what the facts are. More than that, we need to know that much of what the gun controllers claim as facts will not stand up under scrutiny.

 

The grand dogma of the gun controllers is that places with severe restrictions on the ownership of firearms have lower rates of murder and other gun crimes. How do they prove this? Simple. They make comparisons of places where this is true and ignore all comparisons of places where the opposite is true.

 

Gun control zealots compare the United States and England to show that murder rates are lower where restrictions on ownership of firearms are more severe. But you could just as easily compare Switzerland and Germany, the Swiss having lower murder rates than the Germans, even though gun ownership is three times higher in Switzerland. Other countries with high rates of gun ownership and low murder rates include Israel, New Zealand and Finland.

 

Within the United States, rural areas have higher rates of gun ownership and lower rates of murder, whites have higher rates of gun ownership than blacks and much lower murder rates. For the country as a whole, handgun ownership doubled in the late 20th century, while the murder rate went down. But such facts are not mentioned by gun control zealots or by the liberal media.

 

Another dogma among gun control supporters is that having a gun in the home for self-defense is futile and is only likely to increase the chances of your getting hurt or killed. Your best bet is to offer no resistance to an intruder, according to this dogma.

 

Actual research tells just the opposite story. People who have not resisted have gotten hurt twice as often as people who resisted with a firearm. Those who resisted without a firearm of course got hurt the most often.

 

Such facts are simply ignored by gun control zealots. They prefer to cite a study published some years ago in the New England Journal of Medicine and demolished by a number of scholars since then. According to this discredited study, people with guns in their homes were more likely to be murdered.

 

How did they arrive at this conclusion? By taking people who were murdered in their homes, finding out how many had guns in the house, and then comparing them with people who were not murdered in their homes.

 

Using similar reasoning, you might be able to show that people who hire bodyguards are more likely to get killed than people who don't. Obviously, people who hire bodyguards already feel at risk, but does that mean that the bodyguards are the reason for the risk?

 

Similarly illogical reasoning has been used by counting how many intruders were killed by homeowners with guns and comparing that with the number of family members killed with those guns. But this is a nonsense comparison because most people who keep guns in their homes do not do so in hopes of killing intruders.

 

Most uses of guns in self-defense -- whether in the home or elsewhere -- do not involve actually pulling the trigger. When the intended victim turns out to have a gun in his hand, the attacker usually has enough brains to back off. But the lives saved this way do not get counted.

 

People killed at home by family members are highly atypical. The great majority of these victims have had to call the police to their homes before, because of domestic violence, and just over half have had the cops out several times. These are not just ordinary people who happened to lose their temper when a gun was at hand.

 

Neither are most "children" who are killed by guns just toddlers who happened to find a loaded weapon lying around. More of those "children" are members of teenage criminal gangs who kill each other deliberately.

 

Some small children do in fact get accidentally killed by guns in the home -- but fewer than drown in bathtubs. Is anyone for banning bathtubs? Moreover, the number of fatal gun accidents fell, over the years, while the number of guns was increasing by tens of millions. None of this supports the assumption that more guns mean more fatal accidents.

 

 

http://www.theacru.org/blog/2007/05/harvar...nterproductive/

 

« AP: ACLU Engaging in 'Shakedown' Project | Main | A Study of Neighbors: Is It Safer to Live Where Handguns are Banned or Allowed? »

 

Harvard Study: Gun Control Is Counterproductive

I've just learned that Washington, D.C.'s petition for a rehearing of the Parker case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was denied today. This is good news. Readers will recall in this case that the D.C. Circuit overturned the decades-long ban on gun ownership in the nation's capitol on Second Amendment grounds.

 

However, as my colleague Peter Ferrara explained in his National Review Online article following the initial decision in March, it looks very likely that the United States Supreme Court will take the case on appeal. When it does so - beyond seriously considering the clear original intent of the Second Amendment to protect an individual's right to armed self-defense - the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court would be wise to take into account the findings of a recent study out of Harvard.

 

The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

 

The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:

 

Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

 

For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study's authors write in the report:

 

If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)

Finally, and as if to prove the bumper sticker correct - that "gun don't kill people, people do" - the study also shows that Russia's murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns.

 

The important thing to keep in mind is not the rate of deaths by gun - a statistic that anti-gun advocates are quick to recite - but the overall murder rate, regardless of means. The criminologists explain:

 

[P]er capita murder overall is only half as frequent in the United States as in several other nations where gun murder is rarer, but murder by strangling, stabbing, or beating is much more frequent. (p. 663 - emphases in original)

It is important to note here that Profs. Kates and Mauser are not pro-gun zealots. In fact, they go out of their way to stress that their study neither proves that gun control causes higher murder rates nor that increased gun ownership necessarily leads to lower murder rates. (Though, in my view, Prof. John Lott's More Guns, Less Crime does indeed prove the latter.) But what is clear, and what they do say, is that gun control is ineffectual at preventing murder, and apparently counterproductive.

 

Not only is the D.C. gun ban ill-conceived on constitutional grounds, it fails to live up to its purpose. If the astronomical murder rate in the nation's capitol, in comparison to cities where gun ownership is permitted, didn't already make that fact clear, this study out of Harvard should.

[Extreme4x4]

The Gun Control Act of 1968 established the rules for the ownership of "assault weapons," otherwise known as fully automatic weapons.

 

Today, to purchase a Class 3 firearm, you must conduct your transaction through a Class 3 authorized dealer. You have to purchase said firearm, upfront. You must pay a transfer tax for said firearm. You then must have a complete FBI background check, with fingerprints. All of the above must be completed before you can take posession of said firearm.

 

Thus, there is nothing simple, or inexpensive about owning a Class 3 firearm.

 

Those who feel the need to make all of those who have gone through so much scrutiny, and expense, criminals who must turn in their guns.................. to make you feel safe at night................ need to find a new hobby. Do the research on how many legally obtained Class 3 firearms have been used in the commission of a crime.

 

You will be surprised. If I recall, there may have been 1 or 2, since 1968.

 

What you are advocating, is the elimination, or restriction on "ugly" guns. You know, those black things with pistol grips and bayonette lugs (when was the last time that someone in the US got bayonetted to death???). They have big "ugly" magazines, that stick out of the bottom.

 

The funny thing is, if you pull the trigger once................ one bullet comes out. Pull the trigger again................ and one bullet comes out. Not unlike a revolver, semi auto handgun, or many "pretty" hunting rifles out there.

 

Thats funny................. these guns are the epitome of evil, yet, they really are no different than most of the guns that one would deem "acceptable."

 

My favorite "light" hunting rifle is: CAR15. You use it with a 5-round magazine. It is light, easy to carry, and very accurate. Perfect for tromping around the mountains and ravines.

 

Your evil, is my wonderful. You pay attention to your backyard, and I will pay attention to mine.

 

Remember, the reason the NRA will not budge one inch, is because the other side is fanatical in their beliefs also. Thus, you create a stalemate, which is perfect. The big difference is, the NRA has the constitution on its side.

 

The worst gun owner, is the one who thinks that "some" gun control is ok................. as long as you don't try to "control" my gun. Look at England and Australia to see the path of gun control, since you like to talk about them so much. Hobbyist in those countries can't even have a bolt action rifle anymore.

 

BTW, there are more illegal firearms in Japan, than there are people. You need to read about the Japanese "mafia."

 

Proud Lifetime NRA member.

 

PS.................. "The One" has already created alot of new jobs........................ in the gun industry.

Edited February 5, 2009 by Extreme4x4

[the_spaniard]

Let me be the first to boot your a$$ all the way to the UK :happy feet: :happy feet:

 

Murder rates and violent crime rates are two different categories. So go ahead and move there (wish wish). You might not end up dead, but the chances of you getting the shit kick out of you are greater.

 

 

Booting my a$$ out to the UK? You can't even handle an on-line discussion. Baby, steps, Sprinter. Before one can fly, they must first learn to walk.

 

You can't even misdirect. Bring up other crimes that support an argument pertaining to something I'm not even discussing. when I'm discussing fully automatic weapons and how I don't like them and support their ban, you bring up every crime other crime there is...except for those pertaining to guns. Oh, wait, there it is.I missed it reading about all those muggings. Hell, you even bring in other countries (Australia? ) But thanks for the information on handgun statistics. That's exactly what I was talking about. Oh wait. no it wasn't. But then again, you did bring up information that on nations with strict gun-control laws. Getting rid of fully automatic weapons that some (5%?) of gun owners can actually afford doesn't sound like strict gun control to me.

 

But that's right, ANY gun control is bad, the NRA mantra.

 

It's been a few...so let me refresh your memory. I don't like full automatics, and I with those firearms were banned, along with high-capacity magazines. Not all firearms. You posted information that would be useful if I were a liberal anti-gun zealot. I'm not.

 

Bravo.

 

Wow. Just, wow. :reading:

Edited February 5, 2009 by the_spaniard

[the_spaniard]

EDIT>POST DELETED FOR SHEER MEANNESS

 

I had a long response for you Extreme 4x4, full of barbs and quips. I deleted it a few minutes after I posted it. I only ask that you read my entire thread, as pretty much everything in your response was covered previously.

 

I can't say I agree with what you say that often, but I respect the way you say it. And you didn't deserve both barrels. (I'd save it for Sprinter, but lately it likes a .22 will suffice).

 

Wow. I self-moderated. Nick, does that mean I am human?

Edited February 5, 2009 by the_spaniard

[RangerM]

Thanks Ranger. So it would be safe to figure that less than 3 gun-related crimes occur each month in the UK? Compare that to 39,753 gun-related crimes each month in the U.S.. (2005 FBI figures).

 

As I said before, we wish we had that crime rate.

 

Actually, according to Table 2 of my link, the figure is about 700 gun-related crimes per month through September, 2008.

 

I may not be as enthusiastic as others here when it comes to gun ownership. (I don't own a gun) BUT, I side with the gun owners on this one. Responsible gun owners are no offensive threat to anyone (no matter the weapon). If my house is being burglarized, given the choice between a gun and a telephone, I'll take the gun (and make it the biggest, baddest gun that guy ever saw)

 

Going back to my drug example, if it makes sense to turn drug users into responsible drug users (and not inmates), I don't see the need to turn gun owners into criminals (unless they actually commit a crime).

[sprinter]

I don't know about the trigger guards thing. Some of us don't have children running around, and make sure our stuff is accessible, but secure.

 

The assault rifle ban should be in place, and permanent. As I have said before, there is no reason for anyone to own one. If someone needs a semi-automatic with a 29-round magazine to hunt deer, he should stay home and play Nintendo.

 

My experience at the range is that most people that bring those things in, a.) do it for show, and b.) can't shoot worth a damn anyway.

 

Talk about misdirection! This was your first post on the topic. No mention of fully automatics here. YOU want to ban ASSAULT RIFLES.

[Extreme4x4]

EDIT>POST DELETED FOR SHEER MEANNESS

 

I had a long response for you Extreme 4x4, full of barbs and quips. I deleted it a few minutes after I posted it. I only ask that you read my entire thread, as pretty much everything in your response was covered previously.

 

I can't say I agree with what you say that often, but I respect the way you say it. And you didn't deserve both barrels. (I'd save it for Sprinter, but lately it likes a .22 will suffice).

 

Wow. I self-moderated. Nick, does that mean I am human?

 

Thank you for deleting meanness, as it is never necessary.

 

I understand that most of what I said, was nothing new to this thread. However, it did put it in one post, as it all ties together.

 

I directed my post to you, as you have changed your direction, through the length of this thread. In the beginning, you were railing against "semi-auto assault weapons (contradiction of terms)," and you were advocating the return of the "assault weapons ban." This was the point of my "ugly" guns paragraph. Meaning, the "assault weapons ban" was nothing of the sort................ it was an "ugly gun ban."

 

As the thread progressed, so did your posts.................... to the point where you are now railing against Class 3 firearms and large capacity magazines.

 

My point being, Class 3 firearms are already VERY HEAVILY regulated, and are used less, in the commission of a crime, than any other firearm or weapons class. Owners of said firearms are enthusiasts and collectors who have the desire, and means to own one. Many of them are ex military. To completely ban these guns, would be the upmost in futility, as they are already so heavily regulated, and we know where all of the legal ones are already.

 

The criminals who acquire such weapons are already felons the second they do so illegally............... and not just any felon, but Federal felons. Yet, they do not care in the slightest. They are, after all, criminals. Also, understand that most of the illegally obtained Class 3 firearms, are ex military firearms, and were imported into this country (black market).

 

As for the gentleman who stated how easy it is to convert a semi-auto into a full auto................. you are wrong. At one time, when civilian AR15's first were made available, this may have been true. Now, not at all. They share next to no parts with their Class 3 siblings................. other than looking similar. Frankly, it would take an entire machine shop and casting facility to convert them now................ and frankly, it is much easier and cheaper to just buy an illegally imported one.

 

There is nothing simple about the quest to control people, but one thing remains a constant................ the first step to controlling your people, is to take away their means of defending themselves, and their country. This has been proven time and again, throughout history. The other means, is to make them dependent on their government............... by praying on the low income/poor class.............. which is happening today, as we speak. And no, I do not trust my government, as it is full of people who are power hungry, arrogant narcissists. Such is the nature of politics, and I don't expect this to change any time soon.

 

Spaniard, there are many thousands of gun laws on the books, at this very moment. The problem is, many of them are not enforced to any degree. Making more of them, will not change anything, but to make the stack higher................. and make many law abiding people into instant criminals. We are not "gun nuts" as the anti gunners would like you to believe................. we are your neighbor, your friend, and your relative. If you walk into my home, you would never know that I own firearms, or am a member of the NRA............ and I plan to keep it that way. I respect that you are a firearm owner, and I know that you are trying to be logical in what you say................... as is evidenced by you changing your own opinion along the length of this thread. I must say, I respect that more than you can know, as most people are incredibly nieve of the subject................. yet fein that they are experts. You sir, did not do that, and that is to be commended.

 

BTW, I worked in the firearms industry for 4 years, and was a certified pistol instructor. Even though I have been out of the industry for 15 years, I still follow it, and am an enthusiast. I had the opportunity to converse with FBI agents, Secret Service agents, Bomb squad agents, and even, occassionally, BATF agents (scary), and this is where some of knowledge comes from. Our 6-year-old is currently in the education portion of responsible firearms ownership. We are working with him with a soft air gun, and have purchased him a cricket 22lr single shot rifle, for when we feel he is responsible enough to learn to shoot with it. Also, my posts are not meant to be condescending in any way, so if they appear as such, in any way, I apologize in advance. This is an issue that I do know alot about, but would never consider myself close to an expert............ as there is no such thing.

[NickF1011]

Wow. I self-moderated. Nick, does that mean I am human?

Well done.

[goinbroke2]

Thank you for deleting meanness, as it is never necessary.

 

I understand that most of what I said, was nothing new to this thread. However, it did put it in one post, as it all ties together.

 

I directed my post to you, as you have changed your direction, through the length of this thread. In the beginning, you were railing against "semi-auto assault weapons (contradiction of terms)," and you were advocating the return of the "assault weapons ban." This was the point of my "ugly" guns paragraph. Meaning, the "assault weapons ban" was nothing of the sort................ it was an "ugly gun ban."

 

As the thread progressed, so did your posts.................... to the point where you are now railing against Class 3 firearms and large capacity magazines.

 

My point being, Class 3 firearms are already VERY HEAVILY regulated, and are used less, in the commission of a crime, than any other firearm or weapons class. Owners of said firearms are enthusiasts and collectors who have the desire, and means to own one. Many of them are ex military. To completely ban these guns, would be the upmost in futility, as they are already so heavily regulated, and we know where all of the legal ones are already.

 

The criminals who acquire such weapons are already felons the second they do so illegally............... and not just any felon, but Federal felons. Yet, they do not care in the slightest. They are, after all, criminals. Also, understand that most of the illegally obtained Class 3 firearms, are ex military firearms, and were imported into this country (black market).

 

As for the gentleman who stated how easy it is to convert a semi-auto into a full auto................. you are wrong. At one time, when civilian AR15's first were made available, this may have been true. Now, not at all. They share next to no parts with their Class 3 siblings................. other than looking similar. Frankly, it would take an entire machine shop and casting facility to convert them now................ and frankly, it is much easier and cheaper to just buy an illegally imported one.

 

There is nothing simple about the quest to control people, but one thing remains a constant................ the first step to controlling your people, is to take away their means of defending themselves, and their country. This has been proven time and again, throughout history. The other means, is to make them dependent on their government............... by praying on the low income/poor class.............. which is happening today, as we speak. And no, I do not trust my government, as it is full of people who are power hungry, arrogant narcissists. Such is the nature of politics, and I don't expect this to change any time soon.

 

Spaniard, there are many thousands of gun laws on the books, at this very moment. The problem is, many of them are not enforced to any degree. Making more of them, will not change anything, but to make the stack higher................. and make many law abiding people into instant criminals. We are not "gun nuts" as the anti gunners would like you to believe................. we are your neighbor, your friend, and your relative. If you walk into my home, you would never know that I own firearms, or am a member of the NRA............ and I plan to keep it that way. I respect that you are a firearm owner, and I know that you are trying to be logical in what you say................... as is evidenced by you changing your own opinion along the length of this thread. I must say, I respect that more than you can know, as most people are incredibly nieve of the subject................. yet fein that they are experts. You sir, did not do that, and that is to be commended.

 

BTW, I worked in the firearms industry for 4 years, and was a certified pistol instructor. Even though I have been out of the industry for 15 years, I still follow it, and am an enthusiast. I had the opportunity to converse with FBI agents, Secret Service agents, Bomb squad agents, and even, occassionally, BATF agents (scary), and this is where some of knowledge comes from. Our 6-year-old is currently in the education portion of responsible firearms ownership. We are working with him with a soft air gun, and have purchased him a cricket 22lr single shot rifle, for when we feel he is responsible enough to learn to shoot with it. Also, my posts are not meant to be condescending in any way, so if they appear as such, in any way, I apologize in advance. This is an issue that I do know alot about, but would never consider myself close to an expert............ as there is no such thing.

 

There is already a "post of the week" I think there should be an "excellent post" award too as this one certainly qualifies.

Extreme4X4, thank you for the good read and I agree 100%. As one who is in the military and handles various weapons regularly but does not own a personal weapon, I can agree that gun ownership does not mean you should be viewed as a criminal or nutjob. Weapons can be safe/fun and rewarding. They (along with dirtbikes/jr dragsters/etc) can be used to teach kids responsibility. Criminals will acquire whatever means neccesary to accomplish their goals. They will not stop shooting people because it is ruled unlawful to own a particular type of gun.

[Trimdingman]

Thanks Ranger. So it would be safe to figure that less than 3 gun-related crimes occur each month in the UK? Compare that to 39,753 gun-related crimes each month in the U.S.. (2005 FBI figures).

 

As I said before, we wish we had that crime rate.

 

The only crime rate I worry about is the crime rate against my family. There could be neighbourhoods where the shooting never stops. It is their choice to live there. What happens there should not impact on my rights. People are too quick to make new laws. They should be looking at eliminating laws. There are way too many laws. Laws take away freedom. We would all be 100% safe if we were put in seperate bullet proof cages. That is where all this is government meddling is gradually leading. I want to be able to legally obtain firearms as easily as criminals illegally obtain them. That isn't asking too much. Government has a vested interest in crime. The more crime, the more tentacles that the government can grow. It is a life sucking monster that needs to be curbed. Government is much more of a threat than anything else we face. The government knows that dis-arming the non-criminal will increase criminal activity. More criminal activity is what the government wants so that it can increase its control by enacting more laws.

Edited February 9, 2009 by Trimdingman

[No_Fear]

Here's someone who speaks from experience. Please watch.....it may influence your thinking.

 

[RaZor]

I have only a couple points to add. I am a combat vet. I served 2 tours. I killed a significant number of the enemy - both with and without a gun. Many people that have done so are irreparably changed the moment that occurs, even for those that are/were the most staunch gun advocates/lifetime users/lifetime hunters, even when it is in a combat zone and it becomes a -- you or them scenario. I know as I have witnessed it. The brain is like a sponge. For most, killing another human being is like soaking up permanent ink in that sponge. You can squeeze out the "fluid ink", or it can dry over time, but the sponge remains "stained" from the ink. Many people are fooling themselves that given a life-death situation that they will react and perform correctly - even when they are (in their own minds) properly armed. I witnessed just the opposite - with some (experts) that no one would have guessed that it would happen to. . . even after 19 weeks of intensive training. It IS different when you place the sights on another human.

 

I haven't killed any human or animal since - either with a gun or hand-combat means, even though I went along a couple pheasant hunts with some relatives several years back. I just walked the line - armed with a camera. I don't have anything against hunting, or those that hunt.

 

I do own several guns: a shotgun, a rifle, and a handgun. I don't have anything against any requirement of registering what I own. Any responsible gun-owner shouldn't either. I don't buy the old argument (fear) that if I am required to register said guns, that they will somewhere down the line -- come and take them away. But I look at it this way, the 2nd Amendment adds the stipulation of a "militia" for gun ownership. I can't see why anyone that wants to be gun owner should shy away from being called on as a "militia-member" -- should, god forbid, the need ever rise. Even though I am past the age that I can be "recalled" (what is it - either 50 or 55?) -- I wouldn't hesitate to respond to the call -- even knowing full well what that would mean.

 

My guess is that like many hunters that I have known over the years (that talk big and macho) but when push comes to shove - would never venture into the woods on a hunt - if the 'game' was likewise armed. . . when the hunter becomes the huntee.

 

What say you gun-owner activists?

 

P.S. My only comment to the young lady from Texas (in the beginning of the above video) would be a question - why didn't you get a permit to carry - if you felt it was important to be armed? Maybe some of that anger (rightly so) is misplaced? Should we not be held responsible for our own actions - or lack thereof? I became a firm believer 2 weeks into my first tour that if your number is up (and you are prepared "as best as you can be") - it's up. if it is not (and you are prepared "as best as you can be") - it is not.

[sprinter]

I have only a couple points to add. I am a combat vet. I served 2 tours. I killed a significant number of the enemy - both with and without a gun. Many people that have done so are irreparably changed the moment that occurs, even for those that are/were the most staunch gun advocates/lifetime users/lifetime hunters, even when it is in a combat zone and it becomes a -- you or them scenario. I know as I have witnessed it. The brain is like a sponge. For most, killing another human being is like soaking up permanent ink in that sponge. You can squeeze out the "fluid ink", or it can dry over time, but the sponge remains "stained" from the ink. Many people are fooling themselves that given a life-death situation that they will react and perform correctly - even when they are (in their own minds) properly armed. I witnessed just the opposite - with some (experts) that no one would have guessed that it would happen to. . . even after 19 weeks of intensive training. It IS different when you place the sights on another human.

 

I haven't killed any human or animal since - either with a gun or hand-combat means, even though I went along a couple pheasant hunts with some relatives several years back. I just walked the line - armed with a camera. I don't have anything against hunting, or those that hunt.

 

I do own several guns: a shotgun, a rifle, and a handgun. I don't have anything against any requirement of registering what I own. Any responsible gun-owner shouldn't either. I don't buy the old argument (fear) that if I am required to register said guns, that they will somewhere down the line -- come and take them away. But I look at it this way, the 2nd Amendment adds the stipulation of a "militia" for gun ownership. I can't see why anyone that wants to be gun owner should shy away from being called on as a "militia-member" -- should, god forbid, the need ever rise. Even though I am past the age that I can be "recalled" (what is it - either 50 or 55?) -- I wouldn't hesitate to respond to the call -- even knowing full well what that would mean.

 

My guess is that like many hunters that I have known over the years (that talk big and macho) but when push comes to shove - would never venture into the woods on a hunt - if the 'game' was likewise armed. . . when the hunter becomes the huntee.

 

What say you gun-owner activists?

 

P.S. My only comment to the young lady from Texas (in the beginning of the above video) would be a question - why didn't you get a permit to carry - if you felt it was important to be armed? Maybe some of that anger (rightly so) is misplaced? Should we not be held responsible for our own actions - or lack thereof? I became a firm believer 2 weeks into my first tour that if your number is up (and you are prepared "as best as you can be") - it's up. if it is not (and you are prepared "as best as you can be") - it is not.

 

 

From checking on the internet, the shooting event occurred in October 1991. Texas didn't implement the concealed carry until 1995. I am assuming these resources are valid.

 

http://www.gunownersalliance.com/hupp-10.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif

 

 

From U.S. Code

 

 

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(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.

 

The Militia covers a very broad portion of the population. What I have seen in the past, our gun grabbing friends don't mention this.

[Trimdingman]

Criminals do not have permits to carry concealed weapons. Non-criminals can't take the risk of being prosecuted and losing their legal jobs. All I would like to see is a levelling of the playing field. Criminals just ignore the law. That is their profession. This puts them at an advantage. A law should not exist if it gives the criminal the advantage over the non-criminal. "Fighting" and "prosecuting" crime is a huge industry of the government. It gives them much of their power. Without crime, many costly government agencies could be dis-mantled, and the money returned to the tax-payers. If drugs were legalized, most gun crime in the streets would stop. Whole police divisions could be eliminated or decimated. Prisons could be closed. Court houses could be closed. The government doesn't want that. They want to expand, not contract. If people are allowed to carry hand guns, crime would diminish. There would be some accidental deaths, but they would also diminish over time as people learned safety measures. How many people die fighting for our freedom? Being allowed to defend one's self is a basic freedom. I would rather be free, and take risks, than be safe in a prison.

Edited February 10, 2009 by Trimdingman

[No_Fear]

From checking on the internet, the shooting event occurred in October 1991. Texas didn't implement the concealed carry until 1995. I am assuming these resources are valid.

 

http://www.gunownersalliance.com/hupp-10.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif

 

 

From U.S. Code

 

 

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(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.

 

The Militia covers a very broad portion of the population. What I have seen in the past, our gun grabbing friends don't mention this.

 

Reacting to the massacre, in 1995 the Texas Legislature passed a shall-issue gun law allowing Texas citizens with the required permit to carry concealed weapons. The law had been campaigned for by Suzanna Hupp. Hupp testified across the country in support of concealed-handgun laws, and was elected to the Texas House of Representatives in 1996. The law was signed by then-Governor George W. Bush and became part of a broad movement to allow U.S. citizens to easily obtain permits to carry concealed weapons.

[Trimdingman]

Reacting to the massacre, in 1995 the Texas Legislature passed a shall-issue gun law allowing Texas citizens with the required permit to carry concealed weapons. The law had been campaigned for by Suzanna Hupp. Hupp testified across the country in support of concealed-handgun laws, and was elected to the Texas House of Representatives in 1996. The law was signed by then-Governor George W. Bush and became part of a broad movement to allow U.S. citizens to easily obtain permits to carry concealed weapons.

 

Carrying a handgun should be a right. No permit should be required. What right does the government have to restrict your right to defend yourself?

[akirby]

Carrying a handgun should be a right. No permit should be required. What right does the government have to restrict your right to defend yourself?

 

To make sure felons and dangerous people don't get them and to make sure that those who do get them are trained in safety. It also helps track guns used in crimes.

[Trimdingman]

To make sure felons and dangerous people don't get them and to make sure that those who do get them are trained in safety. It also helps track guns used in crimes.

 

Felons and dangerous people can and do get guns illegally. While the law-abiding citizen is doing the paper work, the assassin is gunning for him. The cops won't act until there is a victim. If you catch a murder weapon, what do you charge it with? Registering guns just creates a lucrative industry for criminals and police in the un-registered gun trade. Government will never solve anything; just make it worse. Long gun registry was tried in Canada. It failed, and is being scrapped. Hand gun registry creates more crime than it prevents. That is why governments want it. If you eliminate crime, you can eliminate much of government.

 

Just imagine if you were to use common sense and eliminate all government programs that weren't accomplishing anything, and gave all of that tax money back to the people. Taxes could be cut by over 90%.

Edited February 10, 2009 by Trimdingman

[the_spaniard]

Thank you for deleting meanness, as it is never necessary.

 

I understand that most of what I said, was nothing new to this thread. However, it did put it in one post, as it all ties together.

 

I directed my post to you, as you have changed your direction, through the length of this thread. In the beginning, you were railing against "semi-auto assault weapons (contradiction of terms)," and you were advocating the return of the "assault weapons ban." This was the point of my "ugly" guns paragraph. Meaning, the "assault weapons ban" was nothing of the sort................ it was an "ugly gun ban."

 

As the thread progressed, so did your posts.................... to the point where you are now railing against Class 3 firearms and large capacity magazines.

 

My opinion never changed or altered. I just realized that mentioning assault rifles was the wrong thing to do, as that is a hot catch phrase for people. My problem is with full automatic weapons of all kinds....limiting the discussion to assault rifles was not the point with full auto UZI's, Tech-9's, M10-M11's, etc out there. And yes, I do have a beef with high-capacity magazines.

 

My point being, Class 3 firearms are already VERY HEAVILY regulated, and are used less, in the commission of a crime, than any other firearm or weapons class. Owners of said firearms are enthusiasts and collectors who have the desire, and means to own one. Many of them are ex military. To completely ban these guns, would be the upmost in futility, as they are already so heavily regulated, and we know where all of the legal ones are already.

 

So no legal fully automatic assault weapons were never stolen? They are ALL accounted for? Thank heavens. And once again, I understand the TINY percentage these weapons comprise.....it doesn't change my opinion on the matter. Or make my opinion any less relevant than yours.

 

The criminals who acquire such weapons are already felons the second they do so illegally............... and not just any felon, but Federal felons. Yet, they do not care in the slightest. They are, after all, criminals. Also, understand that most of the illegally obtained Class 3 firearms, are ex military firearms, and were imported into this country (black market).

Yep, I get this.

 

As for the gentleman who stated how easy it is to convert a semi-auto into a full auto................. you are wrong. At one time, when civilian AR15's first were made available, this may have been true. Now, not at all. They share next to no parts with their Class 3 siblings................. other than looking similar. Frankly, it would take an entire machine shop and casting facility to convert them now................ and frankly, it is much easier and cheaper to just buy an illegally imported one.

 

I agree, but there are a host of different types of weapons which can be converted. I could argue they range from easier to convert to damn near impossible, but my original point had nothing to do with illegally converted firearms anyway.

 

There is nothing simple about the quest to control people, but one thing remains a constant................ the first step to controlling your people, is to take away their means of defending themselves, and their country. This has been proven time and again, throughout history. The other means, is to make them dependent on their government............... by praying on the low income/poor class.............. which is happening today, as we speak. And no, I do not trust my government, as it is full of people who are power hungry, arrogant narcissists. Such is the nature of politics, and I don't expect this to change any time soon.

 

And once again, if you believe for a second that any domestic-bred militia would stand a chance against our military, I wish you luck. That doesn't mean I don't understand the intent of the legislation. It's just a tad outdated with the advances in weaponry made by our government.

 

Spaniard, there are many thousands of gun laws on the books, at this very moment. The problem is, many of them are not enforced to any degree. Making more of them, will not change anything, but to make the stack higher................. and make many law abiding people into instant criminals. We are not "gun nuts" as the anti gunners would like you to believe................. we are your neighbor, your friend, and your relative. If you walk into my home, you would never know that I own firearms, or am a member of the NRA............ and I plan to keep it that way. I respect that you are a firearm owner, and I know that you are trying to be logical in what you say................... as is evidenced by you changing your own opinion along the length of this thread. I must say, I respect that more than you can know, as most people are incredibly nieve of the subject................. yet fein that they are experts. You sir, did not do that, and that is to be commended.

Believe me, I am no expert, but I do have an opinion. No more valid than yours, but still an opinion. As someone that grew up with firearms all his life, I don't think I qualify as anti-firearm, or a "gun grabbing liberal".

 

BTW, I worked in the firearms industry for 4 years, and was a certified pistol instructor. Even though I have been out of the industry for 15 years, I still follow it, and am an enthusiast. I had the opportunity to converse with FBI agents, Secret Service agents, Bomb squad agents, and even, occassionally, BATF agents (scary), and this is where some of knowledge comes from. Our 6-year-old is currently in the education portion of responsible firearms ownership. We are working with him with a soft air gun, and have purchased him a cricket 22lr single shot rifle, for when we feel he is responsible enough to learn to shoot with it. Also, my posts are not meant to be condescending in any way, so if they appear as such, in any way, I apologize in advance. This is an issue that I do know alot about, but would never consider myself close to an expert............ as there is no such thing.

 

Well I respect your credentials. I'm not trying to change your mind, take all guns away from everyone, etc. My beef is with certain weapons, but it is my beef. I grew up on the east coast a stone's throw from Washington D.C., and had a lot of experience with agents of all types in my previous career. Daily experience with a ton of people from DOJ, Treasury, you name it. Some people here would be very surprised to know some agent's opinions on whether or not the average civilian should own ANY gun...period. But again, that's not my view either.

 

I own guns and have been shooting for over twenty years. I don't like certain weapons and don't feel anyone should have access to them. It doesn't make me anti-gun, a gun-grabbing liberal or any other such nonsense. I will never support the NRA (again, like 95% of all registered gun owners), though.

Edited February 19, 2009 by the_spaniard

[grbeck]

I have only a couple points to add. I am a combat vet. I served 2 tours. I killed a significant number of the enemy - both with and without a gun. Many people that have done so are irreparably changed the moment that occurs, even for those that are/were the most staunch gun advocates/lifetime users/lifetime hunters, even when it is in a combat zone and it becomes a -- you or them scenario. I know as I have witnessed it. The brain is like a sponge. For most, killing another human being is like soaking up permanent ink in that sponge. You can squeeze out the "fluid ink", or it can dry over time, but the sponge remains "stained" from the ink. Many people are fooling themselves that given a life-death situation that they will react and perform correctly - even when they are (in their own minds) properly armed. I witnessed just the opposite - with some (experts) that no one would have guessed that it would happen to. . . even after 19 weeks of intensive training. It IS different when you place the sights on another human.

 

Except that there are countless examples of law-abiding gun owners who have done just that. Interestingly, a gun expert speaking at a continuing legal education course on the Heller decision I attended noted that, among those who have actually fired a gun to stop an attack, WOMEN are the ones who feel more justified in shooting the assailant.

 

I do own several guns: a shotgun, a rifle, and a handgun. I don't have anything against any requirement of registering what I own. Any responsible gun-owner shouldn't either. I don't buy the old argument (fear) that if I am required to register said guns, that they will somewhere down the line -- come and take them away.

 

Registration makes confiscation easier....check the experiences of Great Britain and Australia. The reason many gun owners don't support registration is because they have been paying attention to what has happened in the real world after registration was implemented.

 

But I look at it this way, the 2nd Amendment adds the stipulation of a "militia" for gun ownership. I can't see why anyone that wants to be gun owner should shy away from being called on as a "militia-member" -- should, god forbid, the need ever rise. Even though I am past the age that I can be "recalled" (what is it - either 50 or 55?) -- I wouldn't hesitate to respond to the call -- even knowing full well what that would mean.

 

The United States Supreme Court in the Heller decision specifically held that the right to own a gun is an individual right, not connected to membership in a militia. This, incidentally, was a unanimous holding in the final decision.

Edited February 19, 2009 by grbeck

[fmccap]

Felons and dangerous people can and do get guns illegally. While the law-abiding citizen is doing the paper work, the assassin is gunning for him. The cops won't act until there is a victim. If you catch a murder weapon, what do you charge it with? Registering guns just creates a lucrative industry for criminals and police in the un-registered gun trade. Government will never solve anything; just make it worse. Long gun registry was tried in Canada. It failed, and is being scrapped. Hand gun registry creates more crime than it prevents. That is why governments want it. If you eliminate crime, you can eliminate much of government.

 

Just imagine if you were to use common sense and eliminate all government programs that weren't accomplishing anything, and gave all of that tax money back to the people. Taxes could be cut by over 90%.

I thought this article has alot to say about this.

 

From One Assault On The Constitution To Another

Will it turn out that we enjoyed more liberty under Bush than we will under Obama? At least the Republicans left us the Second Amendment. The Obama Democrats are not going to return our other purloined civil liberties, and they are already attacking the Second Amendment.

 

Rep. Bobby L. Rush (D, IL) has introduced the Blair Holt Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009. As the British and Australians learned, once firearms are registered, the government knows where they are. The government’s next step is to confiscate the firearms.

 

Moreover, the Act would permit the government to negate Second Amendment rights by refusing to issue a license. Any parents who bequeathed family antique or historic firearms to heirs would be in violation of the act, as it bans any transfer of a firearm other than via a licensed dealer.

 

"Gun violence" is not something committed by the vast majority of gun owners. "Gun violence" is the preserve of the criminal elements, such as gangs fighting over drug turf. Criminals are already prohibited from owning guns, but criminals pay no more attention to this law than they do to laws against robbery, rape, and murder. Why do Democrats think that disarming law-abiding citizens will disarm outlaws? For how many decades have drugs been banned? Does any Democrat think that the ban on drugs has succeeded?

All the ban on drugs has done is to make the drug trade profitable. Now people fight over it. How can guns be successfully banned when the war on drugs is a failure? All a gun ban would do is to create a new criminal activity.

 

England, in violation of its unwritten constitution, banned ownership of pistols and rifles. But now the police have to be heavily armed, because criminals are now armed, but not law-abiding citizens. When I lived in England, the police were not armed with firearms. I remember reading a few years after the passage of England’s gun ban that criminals were selling submachine guns on London street corners. The police discovered a warehouse in London filled to the brim with machine guns that were being sold to all comers.

 

So much for gun bans. They only disarm the law abiding and leave them defenseless.

[Mikem]

My guess is that like many hunters that I have known over the years (that talk big and macho) but when push comes to shove - would never venture into the woods on a hunt - if the 'game' was likewise armed. . . when the hunter becomes the huntee.

 

What say you gun-owner activists?

 

P.S. My only comment to the young lady from Texas (in the beginning of the above video) would be a question - why didn't you get a permit to carry - if you felt it was important to be armed? Maybe some of that anger (rightly so) is misplaced? Should we not be held responsible for our own actions - or lack thereof? I became a firm believer 2 weeks into my first tour that if your number is up (and you are prepared "as best as you can be") - it's up. if it is not (and you are prepared "as best as you can be") - it is not.

 

Well lets see:

 

Russia

Germany

Cambodia

the list goes on. they registered then confiscated the firearms then killed millions of unarmed citizens making it unlawful to own an unregistered gun is the first step. Yeah, I know we live in America that is what they said in Europe as well.

 

I saw the quote made about the crimes relating to British gun crimes compared to ours. Did they also quote the rates for crimes with clubs, knives etc. NO? hmm maybe because all the related crimes sky rocketed after the control laws went into effect.

 

It like locks on your house the only reason the locks are there is for the honest people, if a criminal wants in your house the locks or laws dont matter.

 

I have had weapons of several calibers all my life, I was presented a 22 rifle when I 10 years old and immediately taught what it was for.

 

I'll keep my weapons and if I have to hide them from the gove I will; I will become a criminal before I give a criminal my guns. I have the right to defend my home,family and neighborhood and I will fight to keep that right.

[fordxer]

My guess is that like many hunters that I have known over the years (that talk big and macho) but when push comes to shove - would never venture into the woods on a hunt - if the 'game' was likewise armed. . . when the hunter becomes the huntee.

 

What say you gun-owner activists?

 

P.S. My only comment to the young lady from Texas (in the beginning of the above video) would be a question - why didn't you get a permit to carry - if you felt it was important to be armed? Maybe some of that anger (rightly so) is misplaced? Should we not be held responsible for our own actions - or lack thereof? I became a firm believer 2 weeks into my first tour that if your number is up (and you are prepared "as best as you can be") - it's up. if it is not (and you are prepared "as best as you can be") - it is not.

 

 

Well lets see:

 

Russia

Germany

Cambodia

the list goes on. they registered then confiscated the firearms then killed millions of unarmed citizens making it unlawful to own an unregistered gun is the first step. Yeah, I know we live in America that is what they said in Europe as well.

 

I saw the quote made about the crimes relating to British gun crimes compared to ours. Did they also quote the rates for crimes with clubs, knives etc. NO? hmm maybe because all the related crimes sky rocketed after the control laws went into effect.

 

It like locks on your house the only reason the locks are there is for the honest people, if a criminal wants in your house the locks or laws dont matter.

 

I have had weapons of several calibers all my life, I was presented a 22 rifle when I 10 years old and immediately taught what it was for.

 

I'll keep my weapons and if I have to hide them from the gove I will; I will become a criminal before I give a criminal my guns. I have the right to defend my home,family and neighborhood and I will fight to keep that right.

AMEN. After all, that is what the constitution is for, to protect us against the very type of government that is now running this country.