# We Want Our Guns Back...



## Roose Hurro (Jan 20, 2009)

Just watched this, thought it might give a good point for discussion on the issue of gun control vs the Rights of the People:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTq2NEUlhDE


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Jan 20, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Just watched this, thought it might give a good point for discussion on the issue of gun control vs the Rights of the People:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTq2NEUlhDE




One of the tags is the British National Party

Tee hee.

OH NO TOO MANY BROWN PEOPLE IN ENGLAND MUST PRESERVE HORRIBLE GENE POOL

Don't care who has guns.

As those noted scholars 311 pointed out, guns are for pussies


EDIT: The guy who posted the video is obviously sympathetic to the BNP if not a member. Just sayin


----------



## Runefox (Jan 20, 2009)

It's easy to look at gun control as a form of oppression, but honestly, if it's done right, it shouldn't make any difference to a person's life.

I personally prefer our system in Canada - Take an exam, get licensed, buy your gun, get it registered, and away you go. Licenses to *carry* are extremely rare, however, and usually reserved for law enforcement (in Newfoundland, they never even had that until about 10 years ago).

I fully support the inability to procure MAC-10's, AK-47's, and other weaponry designed specifically for warfare; However, I also support the ability to procure pistols and hunting rifles/shotguns, which should be more than enough firepower for sport, food, and home defense. I mean, it's not like the Red Army is beating down our doors. In this vein, the British government seems to have forgotten that firearms do, in many more occasions than they would probably care to count, find their way into the hands of the less scrupulous members of society, and that people still hunt for food (though fox hunters can go jump off a cliff as far as I'm concerned).

The video is very sensationalist, but I will give it that the gun control laws do sound like they're not working quite as well as they thought they were, specifically the complete ban on handguns.


----------



## Turbowolf (Jan 20, 2009)

...I'm pro-gun, and I'm not touching this with a 10 foot pole.


----------



## makmakmob (Jan 20, 2009)

Given the current trends among my peers in this country the legalization of handguns looks set to be nightmare. I don't see why (currently) a perfectly legal break action shotgun isn't good enough for home defense anyway. The way I see it, pistols are for concealing. Unless you're breaking the law you have no reason to conceal.


----------



## Darzi (Jan 20, 2009)

The only people that should be prohibited from owning guns are those that have been convicted of a violent crime.  As in assault, robbery, rape, murder, etc.

Just have everyone who wants a gun get a license and you're good.  The licenses should be renewed yearly, and the government should run thorough checks on their criminal history.

As simple as that.  Other than that, give people guns.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 20, 2009)

Turbowolf said:


> ...I'm pro-gun, and I'm not touching this with a 10 foot pole.



Would you touch it with a thirty-nine and a half foot pole...?

Yes, touchy issue... but then, this is FAF, is it not?  Pretty much anywhere you look, where guns have been banned, so too has a person's right to self-defense.  After all, the man in the video defended himself, and now he's in prison... was originally looking forwards to a LIFE SENTENCE for killing someone IN SELF-DEFENSE.  Also, to Runefox, I have to say I don't agree with registration, since it is the first step towards confiscation, as has been proven time and time again, throughout history.  In order for a Government to confiscate the People's right to arms, they must first register those arms, so they know who owns what.  Personally speaking, what I own is none of the Government's business.

Remember, since Brittain banned firearms, firearm crime has risen DRAMATICALLY... same with Australia.  Criminals don't obey the law, buy illegally or steal from others, and just love it when their victims are UNARMED.

Gun control has nothing to do with public safety, only with criminal safety.  So... why does it exist at all, when it is based on a lie?

Edit:



Darzi said:


> The only people that should be prohibited from owning guns are those that have been convicted of a violent crime.  As in assault, robbery, rape, murder, etc.
> 
> Just have everyone who wants a gun get a license and you're good.  The licenses should be renewed yearly, and the government should run thorough checks on their criminal history.
> 
> As simple as that.  Other than that, give people guns.



Excuse me, but... criminals don't get licenses for guns.  In fact, there are people DRIVING without licenses, so the system fails to work on those willing to break the law.  Really, all those criminals you mention should be in prison, not on the streets... and if they are on the streets, and have returned to their lives of crime, then they ain't gonna be bothering with a license, so the law-abiding citizen's "need" for a firearms-license is pointless.  Besides, criminal background is supposed to be the reason we have "background checks" now, for firearm purchases... hey, as a firearms owner, I've filled out enough forms and gone through enough checks of my personal history to fill an encyclopedia.  Oh, and by the way, I do have a "license", of sorts... it shows that I've taken an approved safety course, and I have to show it every time I want to purchase a gun.  No safety cert, no gun.


----------



## Runefox (Jan 20, 2009)

makmakmob said:


> Given the current trends among my peers in this country the legalization of handguns looks set to be nightmare. I don't see why (currently) a perfectly legal break action shotgun isn't good enough for home defense anyway. The way I see it, pistols are for concealing. Unless you're breaking the law you have no reason to conceal.


While this is partially true, pistols are more manoeuvrable in close quarters than a shotgun (or rifle) is, and are much more difficult to disarm, hence making a pistol a much more appropriate weapon for home defense, unless you have mostly large halls and rooms in your home. That said, a shotgun has a better chance of hitting its target when fired, but on the flipside, will do more collateral damage. A shotgun (or rifle) also requires more frequent reloading, is heavy, and has a high amount of recoil, which would put novice shooters at a distinct disadvantage, especially in comparison to an opponent who has more experience (which is likely).



> Also, to Runefox, I have to say I don't agree with registration, since it is the first step towards confiscation


Also true, but legislation preventing this (requiring registration for purely informational purposes and requiring training) would probably be an adequate way around that. Then again, governments tend to be more than capable of retracting what they promise.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 20, 2009)

makmakmob said:


> Given the current trends among my peers in this country the legalization of handguns looks set to be nightmare. I don't see why (currently) a perfectly legal break action shotgun isn't good enough for home defense anyway. The way I see it, pistols are for concealing. Unless you're breaking the law you have no reason to conceal.



Ummm... remember the British guy who's in prison for using a legal firearm to defend his life?  Oh, and people who wish to defend themselves on the street do indeed have a reason to conceal...




Runefox said:


> Also true, but legislation preventing this (requiring registration for purely informational purposes and requiring training) would probably be an adequate way around that. Then again, governments tend to be more than capable of retracting what they promise.



Indeed.  Legislation can be ignored or changed, without consent of the People.  The Government doesn't need my information for purely "informational" purposes... if they have my info, and a list of my firearms, then they can confiscate my firearms at will.


----------



## Darzi (Jan 20, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Excuse me, but... criminals don't get licenses for guns.  In fact, there are people DRIVING without licenses, so the system fails to work on those willing to break the law.  Really, all those criminals you mention should be in prison, not on the streets... and if they are on the streets, and have returned to their lives of crime, then they ain't gonna be bothering with a license, so the law-abiding citizen's "need" for a firearms-license is pointless.  Besides, criminal background is supposed to be the reason we have "background checks" now, for firearm purchases... hey, as a firearms owner, I've filled out enough forms and gone through enough checks of my personal history to fill an encyclopedia.  Oh, and by the way, I do have a "license", of sorts... it shows that I've taken an approved safety course, and I have to show it every time I want to purchase a gun.  No safety cert, no gun.




Oh, I realize it is not at all fool-proof.  The major difference is that when you are driving, you do not have to present your driver's license every single time you want to get into a car and get behind the wheel.  If you wish to purchase a gun from a dealer, I firmly believe that dealer is responsible for making sure he/she is selling to someone who is going to use that weapon safely.

That is also not to say that I think they should be held _legally responsible_ for any crimes committed with said weapon.  I just believe that it should be a requirement for someone wanting to make a living selling guns. 

Other than this simple requirement, I think guns should be unregulated.  And, yes, I realize that criminals often (probably _more_ often) use contacts/black market/what have you to acquire their weapons anyway.  It is, as I said, by no means an end-all be-all.  But it is at least a little margin safer.


----------



## Tycho (Jan 20, 2009)

Firing a 20-gauge shotgun is easier than firing a 9mm handgun.  When I first got into skeet/trap and target shooting, I was introduced to shotguns by way of the 20-gauge version of the Remington 870 Express.  Later on, when I started doing doubles, I used a 12-gauge semiauto Mossberg.  Pathetically easy to manipulate.  More so than the Browning HP I was introduced to for pistol target shooting - it felt rather ungainly and the recoil was annoyingly high IMO.  If you were to get a shortened barrel for the shotgun, it would be a perfect home defense weapon IMO.  As it is the only way I think that could be done is by illegally and unceremoniously chopping a barrel short with a saw (and quite frankly ruining it).  If you were so inclined I bet you could get non-lethal and debilitating rounds for a shotgun instead of deadly and destructive lead shot (or whatever your shot is made of - steel, tungsten polymer, bismuth, etc.).


----------



## dietrc70 (Jan 20, 2009)

Runefox said:


> While this is partially true, pistols are more manoeuvrable in close quarters than a shotgun (or rifle) is, and are much more difficult to disarm, hence making a pistol a much more appropriate weapon for home defense, unless you have mostly large halls and rooms in your home. That said, a shotgun has a better chance of hitting its target when fired, but on the flipside, will do more collateral damage. A shotgun (or rifle) also requires more frequent reloading, is heavy, and has a high amount of recoil, which would put novice shooters at a distinct disadvantage, especially in comparison to an opponent who has more experience (which is likely).


 
True, controllability is absolutely critical, and maneuvering indoors with a long gun is very difficult.  One should not use a gun for self-defence that one cannot shoot accurately.  The muzzle-blast from a shotgun is enormous, and if fired inside it is likely to daze the shooter and permanently damage his or her hearing.


----------



## dietrc70 (Jan 20, 2009)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> Firing a 20-gauge shotgun is easier than firing a 9mm handgun. When I first got into skeet/trap and target shooting, I was introduced to shotguns by way of the 20-gauge version of the Remington 870 Express. Later on, when I started doing doubles, I used a 12-gauge semiauto Mossberg. Pathetically easy to manipulate. More so than the Browning HP I was introduced to for pistol target shooting - it felt rather ungainly and the recoil was annoyingly high IMO. If you were to get a shortened barrel for the shotgun, it would be a perfect home defense weapon IMO. As it is the only way I think that could be done is by illegally and unceremoniously chopping a barrel short with a saw (and quite frankly ruining it). If you were so inclined I bet you could get non-lethal and debilitating rounds for a shotgun instead of deadly and destructive lead shot (or whatever your shot is made of - steel, tungsten polymer, bismuth, etc.).


 
Keep in mind that target loads are much lighter than loads suitable for defense (usually buckshot).  I'm surprised that you thought the Browning HP (my favorite semi-auto) had high recoil.  Then again I shoot pistols far more than I do shotguns.


----------



## Darzi (Jan 20, 2009)

To clarify my position on "registration" and "licenses" a little more, since I think it's confusing the way I worded it...

I believe that _absolutely no information_ other than whether or not a person has been convicted of a violent crime should be registered on that license.  I don't think the government has any place knowing what guns I have purchased nor what guns I own.  The only information attached to that card, in my ideal world, would be violent crime convictions.  Period.

I also realize that this will not prevent, for example, gangs having connections in the black market from which to buy guns.  But it will have an effect on people that get in a fight with someone and decide "well, screw that guy" only to go to a pawn shop, purchase a firearm, and shoot his/her rival.  There are numerous crimes that could have been prevented with a license of this nature.  Very few people are going to be able to negotiate and navigate well on the black market, especially with something as valuable and easily passed as weapons.

I think that covers it a little better.


----------



## Runefox (Jan 20, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Indeed.  Legislation can be ignored or changed, without consent of the People.  The Government doesn't need my information for purely "informational" purposes... if they have my info, and a list of my firearms, then they can confiscate my firearms at will.


Well, the one "informational" purpose that I'm thinking about is if you decided to take your firearm and go on a spree, the authorities would have information about your firearm on file. Of course, they wouldn't have the weapons of criminals on file, which mostly makes that moot.

I'm not entirely used to the governments in the EU and the USA, so the concept of the government taking away things previously granted (such as gay marriage in some parts of the USA) is a little alien to me. Well, that's a lie. Still, the frequency at which it happens seems somewhat lower here, and it's disheartening to see it happening elsewhere with such frequency.


----------



## Tycho (Jan 20, 2009)

dietrc70 said:


> Keep in mind that target loads are much lighter than loads suitable for defense (usually buckshot).  I'm surprised that you thought the Browning HP (my favorite semi-auto) had high recoil.  Then again I shoot pistols far more than I do shotguns.



It wasn't super-high, it just felt strange.  Even the S&W Model 29 I fired later "felt" better, despite the immense recoil.  And of course, compared to some of the really pleasant .22 pistols I fired in competition (Ruger MK.II for example) it felt "rude", but that's to be expected.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 20, 2009)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> Firing a 20-gauge shotgun is easier than firing a 9mm handgun.  When I first got into skeet/trap and target shooting, I was introduced to shotguns by way of the 20-gauge version of the Remington 870 Express.  Later on, when I started doing doubles, I used a 12-gauge semiauto Mossberg.  Pathetically easy to manipulate.  More so than the Browning HP I was introduced to for pistol target shooting - it felt rather ungainly and the recoil was annoyingly high IMO.  If you were to get a shortened barrel for the shotgun, it would be a perfect home defense weapon IMO.  As it is the only way I think that could be done is by illegally and unceremoniously chopping a barrel short with a saw (and quite frankly ruining it).  If you were so inclined I bet you could get non-lethal and debilitating rounds for a shotgun instead of deadly and destructive lead shot (or whatever your shot is made of - steel, tungsten polymer, bismuth, etc.).



I've fired a 12-gauge shotgun and a 9mm... pistol had less recoil that the shotgun.  Oh, and you can shorten the barrel of a shotgun, so long as you don't cut it shorter than 18 inches.  The one 12-gauge I own was sawed down to about 20 inches, by a previous owner.  (I even had the enjoyment of fixing their poor hack-job...)




dietrc70 said:


> True, controllability is absolutely critical, and maneuvering indoors with a long gun is very difficult.  One should not use a gun for self-defence that one cannot shoot accurately.  The muzzle-blast from a shotgun is enormous, and if fired inside it is likely to daze the shooter and permanently damage his or her hearing.



The muzzle blast from any gun, even a .22 rimfire, can deafen in an enclosed space.  Be prepared for a bit of ringing in your ears!




Darzi said:


> To clarify my position on "registration" and "licenses" a little more, since I think it's confusing the way I worded it...
> 
> *I believe that absolutely no information other than whether or not a person has been convicted of a violent crime should be registered on that license.*  I don't think the government has any place knowing what guns I have purchased nor what guns I own.  The only information attached to that card, in my ideal world, would be violent crime convictions.  Period.
> 
> ...



Ummm... I'm sorry, Darzi, but if you have a criminal record, you shouldn't have this "license" anyway!  That's the point.  Such things are pointless.  Criminals will always find some way around the law, while the law-abiding will be left to suffer.  If you are convicted of a *violent* crime, you should not be out of prison, ever... again, the "need" you give is moot.  We have laws against violent crime and the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime.  Enforce those laws, but let the law-abiding alone!  "Without Infringement" isn't just window dressing.




Runefox said:


> Well, the one "informational" purpose that I'm thinking about is if you decided to take your firearm and go on a spree, the authorities would have information about your firearm on file. Of course, they wouldn't have the weapons of criminals on file, which mostly makes that moot.
> 
> I'm not entirely used to the governments in the EU and the USA, so the concept of the government taking away things previously granted (such as gay marriage in some parts of the USA) is a little alien to me. Well, that's a lie. Still, the frequency at which it happens seems somewhat lower here, and it's disheartening to see it happening elsewhere with such frequency.



Law-abiding citizens do not suddenly go on killing sprees... and those that do go on killing sprees are usually caught and imprisoned, so the Government doesn't need this registration information... doesn't need any information that would allow them to track down and confiscate arms from the law-abiding citizen.  So, indeed, moot point.

Oh, and Canada, far as I remember, did have the freedom to keep and bear arms taken from them, probably long before you were born... but I'd have to confirm details, since I'm Californian, not Canadian.  So, yes, I imagine it still is something you'd need to get used to.  To me, a gun is just a tool, like a hammer and chainsaw... those last two can be bought at any hardware store, and it used to be the same with guns.  Now, I have to fill out all this paperwork, pay all these fees, maintain a safety cert, wait ten days to take my purchase home... oh, and I can only buy one a month, on top of all that, if I want to buy new (fortunately, for now, used guns have no monthly limit).  I just remember buying my first firearm a bit over twenty-eight, nearly twenty-nine years ago, and all I had to do was pay my money, and I could freely walk out with my purchase, soon as the shop had its cash (though... well, I may have had to fill out this one tiny form, I think).  Can't do that anymore....

Not to mention my living in the state of Kalifornia....




Tycho The Itinerant said:


> It wasn't super-high, it just felt strange.  Even the S&W Model 29 I fired later "felt" better, despite the immense recoil.  And of course, compared to some of the really pleasant .22 pistols I fired in competition (Ruger MK.II for example) it felt "rude", but that's to be expected.



Revolver recoil feels very different from that of a semi-auto pistol, given the grip design differences between the two.


----------



## capthavoc123 (Jan 20, 2009)

Let the responsible people have guns, and do everything possible to keep them out of the hands of irresponsible people.

That seems a pretty simple concept, no?


----------



## Tomtenizze (Jan 20, 2009)

Why the heck do you want "your gun back"?
A gun is a tool created to kill things easily. Why do you need a tool that helps you kill anything?
If you want hunt, then there is licenses for that and you don't need a AK-47 or whatever to do that.
If you want a gun to protect yourself then you are dumb, in what realistic scenario would you have the chance of pulling a gun on someone in defense? If someone is going trying to rob you by sticking a gun to your head the chance of you being able to do some Kung-fu trick to disable his weapon and pull your own before getting shoot in the head is extremely small. You're more likely getting killed and having the assailant run free. If you want to protect yourself you should learn some martial arts or get some pepper spray (or similar) or just plain run really, really fast.

And about that dude (from the youtube clip) that said gun crimes had increased since the ban, where is the evidence for that?
According to homeoffice.gov.uk, the gun crimes have decreased and they have actual studies to back up their claims.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/gun-crime/


> The number of overall offences involving firearms fell by 13% in 2006/07 compared to the previous year.
> Firearms were involved in 566 serious or fatal injuries in 2006/07, compared to 645 the previous year - a drop of 12%.
> The number of armed robberies involving guns dropped by 3%
> There were 13% fewer serious and fatal injuries related to gun crimes in 2006/07.
> ...



And the "Law-abiding citizens do not suddenly go on killing sprees" argument is not exactly true. Everyone is considered (well, in most countries) a "Law-abiding citizen" when they are born, so there for every criminal was a "Law-abiding citizen" until they commit a crime. I didn't find any studies/statistics about this so if this isn't true then ignore it, but isn't a lot of all the serial killers also first time offenders? Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia tech) was a "Law-abiding citizen" until he decided to kill 32 people. I didn't find any information about him having a criminal history.

Though having that said I do not think a complete firearm ban is the solution.
If there is going to be gun control laws, they must make sense.

The gun control laws in Sweden seems to be doing pretty good, though there is always room for improvement. Anyway, there are two types of gun licenses. One is for target-shooting or hunting and the other is for gun collecting. In order to get a license for target shooting you'll need to be 18years old, have be "law-abiding citizen" (I guess no previous crimes) and you have to have been an active member in a shooting club for at least six month, and the club must be dealing with the kind of gun you're requesting a license for. If you want a onehanded firearm you also need to earn the "gold pistol shooting mark". The shooting club must also be approved by the police. If you want a hunting license you must also have completed a Hunting exam. In other words, you'll have to nr an adult that has no previous crime history and know how to use a gun. You must also always store the weapons in a proper, secure gun locker. If you want a collection license you have to state what kind of guns you're collection (for example, weapons the germans used in WW2) and you may not fire any gun in your collection without special written approval. You are also required to get a seperate license for every gun.

Such gun control laws seems reasonable to me.


----------



## Get-dancing (Jan 20, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> EDIT: The guy who posted the video is obviously sympathetic to the BNP if not a member. Just sayin



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem


----------



## Nalo (Jan 20, 2009)

my view is, my guns, my bisnuess, not the governments, none of the firearms ive owned have been liscensed and i dont plan on buying any that have papers, same thing with ammo, its my bisnuess and i dont want the ATF to bust my door down cause i found a deal on ammo for one of my guns and bought a large stock of it for huting etc...    theyll pry the gun/guns out of my cold, dead paws


----------



## Bambi (Jan 20, 2009)

Runefox said:


> It's easy to look at gun control as a form of oppression, but honestly, if it's done right, it shouldn't make any difference to a person's life.
> 
> I personally prefer our system in Canada - Take an exam, get licensed, buy your gun, get it registered, and away you go. Licenses to *carry* are extremely rare, however, and usually reserved for law enforcement (in Newfoundland, they never even had that until about 10 years ago).
> 
> ...


 
You beat me to it.

I've bolded the part that made your post awesome.


----------



## Ren-Raku (Jan 20, 2009)

oh noes, gunz r bad! *pew pew!*


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Jan 20, 2009)

Get-dancing said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem




I didn't call him a fascist or a right-wing nationalist


Don't flip your wig, man.


Just FYI he also has another video entitled "Jewwatch".


----------



## Get-dancing (Jan 20, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> I didn't call him a fascist or a right-wing nationalist
> 
> 
> Don't flip your wig, man.
> ...



Yeah, an ad hominiem if I ever saw one.

"He says that freedom of speach should be a right from birth for all human-beings, but don't listen to him because he kept slaves."


----------



## Endless Humiliation (Jan 20, 2009)

Get-dancing said:


> Yeah, an ad hominiem if I ever saw one.
> 
> "He says that freedom of speach should be a right from birth for all human-beings, but don't listen to him because he kept slaves."




I also never said don't listen to him.


I believe in freedom of speech too you know. I live in America. I was born here.


If it matters anyway, I agree with him that people have a right to defend themselves in their own homes.


----------



## Runefox (Jan 20, 2009)

> Oh, and Canada, far as I remember, did have the freedom to keep and bear arms taken from them, probably long before you were born...


I'm not sure we ever _explicitly_ had the right to carry firearms here in Canada, but it might be an interesting topic to do some research on. We do, in fact, have the right to keep and bear arms, but we do not, however, have the right to carry them around on our persons except in very specific cases. A brief search for information about the history of gun control here turns up this, which implies that the right to bear arms was never explicitly given nor taken away. In fact, even automatic weapons, which are prohibited by the government as of 1977, are legal to own, but not legal to import. Restrictions on high-capacity magazines exist, however - 10 rounds maximum for a handgun, and 5 rounds maximum for a semi-automatic rifle. Rimshot and bolt-action rifles are not included in this.

Here are the three categories by which firearms are classified, and their legality:



> *Non-restricted licences* allow a person to own and use most semi-automatic and manual action rifles and shotguns, but no handguns. Rifles and shotguns that do not meet length requirements are classed as restricted. Some rifles and shotguns are classed as restricted by name.
> *Restricted licences* allow a person to own most handguns and some restricted semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. Handguns with barrels shorter than 104 mm are classed as prohibited. Some handguns are classed as prohibited by name.
> *Prohibited licences* allow a person to own firearms classified as prohibited, including fully automatic firearms. Generally, these licences are not commonly available and may only be issued by the CFO of a province or the Federal Government. Otherwise, to possess one, the licence must be grandfathered as of December 1, 1998.



Regarding carry laws:



> Canada's federal laws also restrict the ability of security guards to be armed. For example, section 17 of Firearms Act makes it an offense for anyone, including a security guard, to possess prohibited or restricted firearms (i.e. handguns) outside of his or her home. There are two exceptions to this prohibition found in sections 18 and 19 of the Act. Section 18 allows for transport of a firearm, if authorized, for certain limited reasons, such as going to and from a range, a training course or repair shop. Such firearms must be unloaded, stored in secure, locked containers and equipped with a trigger lock. Section 19 of the Act allows individuals to carry firearms on their persons to protect their lives or the lives of other persons, or, with authorization, for the performance of their occupation. Such authorization may be granted for protecting money or valuables, or to protect oneself against wildlife when working in a remote wilderness area. It is thus rare for Canadian security guards to be equipped with firearms other than those employed by armoured car companies.



Personally, from what I see, I think our system works out rather well, ensuring that people who are purchasing a firearm must first have a license to use it - In other words, they must know how to operate it, safe ways to transport it, safe ways to move with it, and so on. Just like driving a car, it isn't a person's "god-given" right to carry something that can potentially harm others without a permit. A person with a restricted license here in Canada is educated in how to safely operate and maintain bolt-action rifles, shotguns, revolvers and semi-automatic pistols. A person without a restricted license would miss out only on pistol training.

To me, it makes just as much sense as a driver's license and the classes involved with it.



> To me, a gun is just a tool, like a hammer and chainsaw


This is true, insofar as guns with actual utility for defense, sport, and hunting. However, a silenced weapon, MAC-10, Uzi, M16, AK-47, M60 or M82 are very specifically tools designed to end human life or, as a secondary function of the M82, destroy property (or dispose of unexploded munitions and disable light armoured vehicles, which I'm sure you have a lot of problems with ). I fully support civilians *not* having the right to own anything but the single-fire civilian variations these weapons (and not at all in the case of the M82).



> those last two can be bought at any hardware store, and it used to be the same with guns. Now, I have to fill out all this paperwork, pay all these fees, maintain a safety cert, wait ten days to take my purchase home... oh, and I can only buy one a month, on top of all that, if I want to buy new (fortunately, for now, used guns have no monthly limit). I just remember buying my first firearm a bit over twenty-eight, nearly twenty-nine years ago, and all I had to do was pay my money, and I could freely walk out with my purchase, soon as the shop had its cash (though... well, I may have had to fill out this one tiny form, I think). Can't do that anymore....


Well, while pawn shops apparently can still provide that experience, my understanding of it was that it would make it less convenient for someone to walk into a hardware store, purchase a Desert Eagle, and go to town. I believe it's something along the lines of curbing the "I'm angry, I'm going to take it out on you, but I don't have a gun; Wait here, I'll be back in five minutes." Which honestly I can't see happening all that often (and as a Canadian, I'm obligated to poke fun and say an American would already own a gun anyway).


----------



## capthavoc123 (Jan 20, 2009)

Get-dancing said:


> Yeah, an ad hominiem if I ever saw one.
> 
> "He says that freedom of speach should be a right from birth for all human-beings, but don't listen to him because he kept slaves."



He was pointing out that the guy may be biased, not saying that the man should not be listened to.


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Jan 20, 2009)

Tools designed specifically for killing should be available to everyone.

Riiight.

I live in a country with a good police force, high gun control and low crime. Never needed a gun, never will need. Paranoia's not my thing.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 20, 2009)

> I fully support the inability to procure MAC-10's, AK-47's, and other weaponry designed specifically for warfare; However



http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/index.shtml

that guy up there has a point, even if he is a fucking nutbag... submachineguns can be made by a determined individual in his garage(a rifle with a much more powerful cartridge is a bit more difficult because such systems NORMALLY involve locks). controlling munitions is probably the best hope because making shot for automatic weapons is pretty damn difficult. if you have an effective ban on cartridges even if some determined bastard actually machines a good cartridge i'd like to see him try to make the fulminate primer in his garage....



> The way I see it, pistols are for concealing. Unless you're breaking the law you have no reason to conceal.



a shotgun is actually despite popular belief a TERRIBLE self defense weapon compared to a pistol. it does a hell of a lot more damage and is easier to aim, but its awkward, slow to aim, has less shots and just plain impractical for most self defense situations. such a long large weapon is just plain more difficult to operate indoors(such as your house) then a pistol. at current a shotgun is best suited to defend country property like my family's horse ranch. where a nice pistol is PERFECT for defending a home or every day situations. its just a tighter more compact weapon that is both quicker and easier to use in an emergency. 



> Remember, since Brittain banned firearms, firearm crime has risen DRAMATICALLY... same with Australia. Criminals don't obey the law, buy illegally or steal from others, and just love it when their victims are UNARMED.
> 
> Gun control has nothing to do with public safety, only with criminal safety. So... why does it exist at all, when it is based on a lie?



effective bans on firearms are almost an impossibility in all but the most violently strict governments. even then firearms and munitions are around in the hands of the more determined organized individuals....

the dream of banning firearms rests in the belief that the average criminal goes down to the local walmart buys an sks and robs a bank with it, which honestly is not usually the case. a great deal of the crime with guns in this country is performed with black market firearms just like in britain. here usually those arms are stolen and resold on the streets for cut rate prices. but even with bans in place arms are smuggled along with shots and there are even individuals with the skill to make new ones that do so....



> Oh, I realize it is not at all fool-proof. The major difference is that when you are driving, you do not have to present your driver's license every single time you want to get into a car and get behind the wheel. If you wish to purchase a gun from a dealer, I firmly believe that dealer is responsible for making sure he/she is selling to someone who is going to use that weapon safely.



we got something as good. a complete background check, and we even have a computerized system that does it instantly. if you want them to take a course so often as a requirement to be able to purchase new arms then its easy to add that to the system. however, the current background check system is about as good as you can get with a paper laden system in determining if someone is "safe" to own a firearm.



> Firing a 20-gauge shotgun is easier than firing a 9mm handgun. When I first got into skeet/trap and target shooting, I was introduced to shotguns by way of the 20-gauge version of the Remington 870 Express. Later on, when I started doing doubles, I used a 12-gauge semiauto Mossberg. Pathetically easy to manipulate. More so than the Browning HP I was introduced to for pistol target shooting - it felt rather ungainly and the recoil was annoyingly high IMO. If you were to get a shortened barrel for the shotgun, it would be a perfect home defense weapon IMO. As it is the only way I think that could be done is by illegally and unceremoniously chopping a barrel short with a saw (and quite frankly ruining it). If you were so inclined I bet you could get non-lethal and debilitating rounds for a shotgun instead of deadly and destructive lead shot (or whatever your shot is made of - steel, tungsten polymer, bismuth, etc.).



your right, at the moment the weapon's primary issue is difficulty maneuvering it indoors and the time it takes to bring it to bear. its not just the size of the shotgun though, its also its weight. a lighter weapon can simply leap into action quicker. if your in a bad situation and you have to have a weapon out NOW a shotgun, even short ones may not be the best choice. 



> Revolver recoil feels very different from that of a semi-auto pistol, given the grip design differences between the two.



there is also the difference in the physics of how the backward energy of the cartridge is transmitted to your hand. 



> If you want a gun to protect yourself then you are dumb, in what realistic scenario would you have the chance of pulling a gun on someone in defense? If someone is going trying to rob you by sticking a gun to your head the chance of you being able to do some Kung-fu trick to disable his weapon and pull your own before getting shoot in the head is extremely small. You're more likely getting killed and having the assailant run free. If you want to protect yourself you should learn some martial arts or get some pepper spray (or similar) or just plain run really, really fast.



more like bide your time, play along and wait till his attention leaves you for a moment. but ya tell that ideology to the israeli's who made it a civic duty to carry a firearm and in so doing ended the palistianian attacks on crowds with machineguns and forced palistinians to go for suicide bombing. in other words an armed population actually worked in stoping murders with firearms. even the potential threat that someone is armed is a massive deterrent, and i'm sorry i dont buy that scenario of yours. why does that person have that gun to your head? how did he get so close to you? where are you? 



> However, a silenced weapon



only weapons in pistol calibers can be "silenced" to the point that they are actually stealthy. on a rifle the proper term would be "muffler" because the silencer cant actually reduce the sound to nothing but it rather makes the sound of the weapon more bearable without plugs in your ears. even 5.56 weapons are too powerful for a silencer to really work like people think it does. further .22 cal survival pistols are some of the most prefered weapons of professional murderers. thats because such weapons DONT require a silencer and if they are built well they are incredibly accurate and can get the bullet up to speed to pierce bone and actually kill well.



> I live in a country with a good police force, high gun control and low crime. Never needed a gun, never will need. Paranoia's not my thing.



how long will it take the cops to arrive at your house? your workplace? the parking lot in front of the local store? how able are you to actually dial 911(or whatever you have to dial) while being attacked or mugged? chances are you will be attacked, robbed and quite possibly raped before the cops arrive and the criminal STILL will have time to escape cleanly. a perfect example of this is the famous bank robbers in la that covered themselves in body armor and robbed the bank with ak47's fed by drum magazines. the shootout they got involved in over that bank robbery was just a simple lucky thing for the cops(despite the casualties). they actually had robbed a few other banks successfully before. simple fact is, no matter how good the cops are they wont be there to save your ass in time normally.... 

not saying carry a pistol with you everywhere, just pointing out that the fact is that the cops RARELY save anyone while the crime is progress but rather hunt down the criminal and prevent further crimes.


----------



## Runefox (Jan 20, 2009)

ceacar99 said:


> only weapons in pistol calibers can be "silenced" to the point that they are actually stealthy.



Not entirely. The .300 Whisper cartridge is subsonic and with a suppressor is silent enough that the loudest part of firing the gun is the pin stike (similar to the MP5SD), and can be used with a modified AR-15/M16 series rifle. That said, I was mainly referring to pistols when I mentioned silencers.



> on a rifle the proper term would be "muffler" because the silencer cant actually reduce the sound to nothing but it rather makes the sound of the weapon more bearable without plugs in your ears.


The biggest problem with suppressing a rifle is that its rounds are still supersonic, and the objective behind suppressing them under normal circumstances is to either make the shot sound less distinguishable as gunfire, or to help conceal the shooter's position by making the sound less distinct.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 20, 2009)

These people saying firearm crimes have risen since the ban, I want proof of this rather than mere opinion.


----------



## Tycho (Jan 20, 2009)

Mikael Grizzly said:


> Tools designed specifically for killing should be available to everyone.
> 
> Riiight.
> 
> I live in a country with a good police force, high gun control and low crime. Never needed a gun, never will need. Paranoia's not my thing.



Paranoia's not most countries' thing.  It's something that's peculiarly high in the USA.

Guns don't kill people.  People kill people.  They will kill other people with guns, they will kill other people with knives, they will kill other people with cars and baseball bats and their own bare hands.  People are the problem.


----------



## dietrc70 (Jan 20, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> These people saying firearm crimes have risen since the ban, I want proof of this rather than mere opinion.


 
Which country?

Britain: 
Christian Science Monitor 6/11/08

Britain faces growing knife-crime â€˜cultureâ€™

...Roger Matthews, a criminologist at London South Bank University, says that surveys of youth show that a â€œ very significant percentage
of young people routinely carry knives .â€  He attributes knivesâ€™ increased popularity to Britainâ€™s strong anti-gun legislation. *Though*
*gun crime has also been increasing in recent **years* as a gang culture proliferates in big cities, weapons remain far harder to access than in the US...

Murder rates have increased markedly in Britain since the gun bans.  Now kitchen knives are to blame!

Check out John Lott's work if you want more detailed data.​


----------



## Crossfire21 (Jan 20, 2009)

I am a gun collector but the logical fact is that guns are a leading killer because its a lot easier to pull a trigger than to beat or stab someone.....unless I was a RL furry then I would use my teeth and claws more lol XD


----------



## beyondspecies (Jan 20, 2009)

I have heard that more people die from knife wounds in the U.S. than from gun shots. Knives are easy to conceal, you don't need a permit for them, and anybody who knows how to use one properly is probably not someone you want to mess with.


----------



## Runefox (Jan 20, 2009)

Pretty much all the violent crime you hear about around here is knife-related, but it's a hell of a lot easier to defend against a knife attack than a gun (namely, if you stay out of range, the most they can do is throw their weapon at you, which is still dangerous, but disarms the attacker, whereas a gun can arguably attack a target from any practical range multiple times). There are a lot of weapons or makeshift weapons that can counter a knife - As personal risk to the attacker rises, so, too, does the chance that the attack won't happen.

At the same time, however, that means that it's more likely for the most violent of these sorts of offenders to get their hands on a firearm. While we don't have a huge amount of firearm-related deaths in Canada, our culture is also a bit different from our neighbours, and we're not as likely to see much of this. Taking a nation with traditionally relaxed gun control laws and suddenly restricting or banning firearms will probably be far different from our experience.



> I have heard that more people die from knife wounds in the U.S. than from gun shots. Knives are easy to conceal, you don't need a permit for them, and anybody who knows how to use one properly is probably not someone you want to mess with.


You heard wrong. According to everyone's favourite website:



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> Gun violence in the United States is associated with the majority of homicides and over half the suicides.


----------



## beyondspecies (Jan 20, 2009)

Oh, I have a paintball gun, but I have no aim, so I'm innocuous.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 20, 2009)

dietrc70 said:


> Which country?
> 
> Britain:
> Christian Science Monitor 6/11/08
> ...


Uhm, links. Like I said, not mere opinion or text, actual links that show a link between rising firearm violence and gun control, please.


----------



## Kesslan (Jan 20, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Uhm, links. Like I said, not mere opinion or text, actual links that show a link between rising firearm violence and gun control, please.


 

Then I would like actual links that show a link between rising gun control and decreased violent murders. Because frankly, if you bother to do abit of googling around you can find far more proof of rising or at par murder/crime rates with guns with gun control being strictly enforced as with less. Infact in a few cases it actually drops supprisingly sharply with little to no gun control as anyone who feels like they may be at risk simply carries a firearm and thus gives them a rather... effective means of self defence.

Or say how about proving that the Canadian Gun Registy (as is the case in my country) has actually had the slightest effect on gun crime. Because from everything I"ve seen, lately gun crime has only gone up rather sharply as of late, esepcialy down in Toronto. And not one of those firearms was ever registered or legally aquired. Nor are the blatantly illegal Tech-9's to be found here in Ottawa.


Edit:
Infact here's a good example right here for you: http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen...=9d6762d4-7589-4001-bc69-2dd867a0f320&k=71219

Note the mention of the hand grenades? Not exactly legal for anyone but the army.


----------



## Runefox (Jan 20, 2009)

Good for you. Honestly, though, gun crime in Canada nationwide is much less of a concern than you make it out to be (accounting for 1/3 of all violent crime, which itself makes up 12%-13% of all crime in Canada, making gun-related crime at most 4.3% of all crime here), and here in Newfoundland, there _is none_. I should know, because this sort of thing would be the talk of the town. I guess it has everything to do with population density, but I guess also the whole pollution thing that people have to deal with deep in the mainland affects people a certain way.

Not to harp on immigrants or anything, either, but there are a lot more immigrants in Toronto than many other places in Canada, so I'm sure this has a bit to do with it, too. Another factor might be where Toronto is so close to the American heartland, where it's a lot easier to procure firearms and other weapons.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 20, 2009)

links involving united kingdom and crime....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/violent-crime-underestimated-for-10-years-971489.html

http://www.met.police.uk/crimestatistics/#2008
(go ahead and pour through this one, i dont have the patience to work through all that numerical data to prove such a simple point right now)

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb1200.pdf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/1119896.stm

http://www.csdp.org/research/hosb1203.pdf

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb1107.pdf
(this last one is an excellent source)

yknow i'll stop there. as i filtered through them and read them i discovered a trend. crime in general often falls. however violent crime seems to ignore the regular crime rate and go on its own path. the one thing i noticed as a general trend however was that violent crime was usually rising. the last two links for example show that. the last saying 5% the one before sited a few years earlier said 2% rise in violent crime. ALL of the data supplied is after the uk handgun ban.

what do we see? that for some reason not much has deterred violent crime. it continues to rise, maybe not as dramatically as some say but it does so. also there is some inaccuracy in the data because apparently there are some allegations of police forces improperly filing violent crimes as lesser offenses on purpose.

the united kingdom and the washington dc area are great places to study to see the effects of attempted firearms bans. dc area a lot of people say that the ban failed, in the uk an increasing number says so too.

added: look, im trying to take the scholarly studied stance in this issue. im so pro firearms its ridiculous. i truly and honestly intend to found my own firearms and munitions company and develop and manufacture my own guns in the next couple years. guns are a BIG deal to me but im doing my best so my "report" is not slanted as hell in this issue....


----------



## Jelly (Jan 20, 2009)

Ninja'd. Excellent. M'yes.


----------



## Tomtenizze (Jan 20, 2009)

ceacar99 said:


> more like bide your time, play along and wait till his attention leaves you for a moment. but ya tell that ideology to the israeli's who made it a civic duty to carry a firearm and in so doing ended the palistianian attacks on crowds with machineguns and forced palistinians to go for suicide bombing. in other words an armed population actually worked in stoping murders with firearms. even the potential threat that someone is armed is a massive deterrent, and i'm sorry i dont buy that scenario of yours. why does that person have that gun to your head? how did he get so close to you? where are you?



He has gun to your head (or torso) because his threatening to kill you if don't give him your money. Does distance matter much? He could be next/behind you or up to 10 feet away but a gun shoot would easily kill you either way. It can be in a park, an alley, bus stop or whatever. He could have gotten close to you because he was hiding behind a corner or because most people aren't that paranoid and wouldn't think that a person walking behind you was doing it because he wanted to rob/kill/rape you. Better?

And why would he ignore you for a moment when he's robbing (or anything else for that metter) you? You would also likely be charged for murder or manslaughter if you were to shoot and kill the guy when he's fleeing with your stuff since he's _fleeing_ and not attacking you.

Any source to that israeli who ended a palistianian attack?



ceacar99 said:


> how long will it take the cops to arrive at your house? your workplace? the parking lot in front of the local store? how able are you to actually dial 911(or whatever you have to dial) while being attacked or mugged? chances are you will be attacked, robbed and quite possibly raped before the cops arrive and the criminal STILL will have time to escape cleanly.
> 
> not saying carry a pistol with you everywhere, just pointing out that the fact is that the cops RARELY save anyone while the crime is progress but rather hunt down the criminal and prevent further crimes.



What are you arguing for? Do you want atleast 2 police officers at every street corner on every street in the entire world? Most crimes would be commited in less then 1minute and you can't expect the police to be able to reach any destination within that time frame.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 20, 2009)

Kesslan said:


> Then I would like actual links that show a link between rising gun control and decreased violent murders. Because frankly, if you bother to do abit of googling around you can find far more proof of rising or at par murder/crime rates with guns with gun control being strictly enforced as with less. Infact in a few cases it actually drops supprisingly sharply with little to no gun control as anyone who feels like they may be at risk simply carries a firearm and thus gives them a rather... effective means of self defence.
> 
> Or say how about proving that the Canadian Gun Registy (as is the case in my country) has actually had the slightest effect on gun crime. Because from everything I"ve seen, lately gun crime has only gone up rather sharply as of late, esepcialy down in Toronto. And not one of those firearms was ever registered or legally aquired. Nor are the blatantly illegal Tech-9's to be found here in Ottawa.
> 
> ...



Uhm... That link -still- proves -nothing-, you're not contributing anything to this argument other than opinion, thus far.
In Canada, the place I live, there is strict gun control and I've -never- heard of a firearm based death or injury from a break-in or robbery. Ever.


----------



## Kesslan (Jan 20, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Good for you. Honestly, though, gun crime in Canada nationwide is much less of a concern than you make it out to be (accounting for 1/3 of all violent crime, which itself makes up 12%-13% of all crime in Canada, making gun-related crime at most 4.3% of all crime here), and here in Newfoundland, there _is none_. I should know, because this sort of thing would be the talk of the town. I guess it has everything to do with population density, but I guess also the whole pollution thing that people have to deal with deep in the mainland affects people a certain way.
> 
> Not to harp on immigrants or anything, either, but there are a lot more immigrants in Toronto than many other places in Canada, so I'm sure this has a bit to do with it, too. Another factor might be where Toronto is so close to the American heartland, where it's a lot easier to procure firearms and other weapons.


 
Than I make it out to be? Where did I ever make it out to be some massive OMG WE ARE DOOMED issue? Thats the anti gun lobbiests doing that. Not me. Their the ones calling for bans on weapons that have been illegal since the 1970's. All becuase some outbreak of gang war has and media focus has blown the handgun issue there way out of proporition. And then they like to claim that some how bannin handguns in Canada will make us all safer. Never mind that handgun owners in Canada give up the right to require a warrant from the poliece before they enter your home. Something convicted murderers who have been relased from jail still have the right to. Afterall, simply owning a registered firearm is considered 'legal grounds for entry'. Especially so if it's a handgun.

I also must highly question your theory on polution having anything to do with gun violence. When it infact has nothing at all to do with it. The reason you see larger gun crime numbers in larger Candian cities, is because there are more people period. Hell there are actually more guns in the country and small towns, numerically speaking, than there are in the big cities. Afterall out in the country/small towns it's not too hard to go hunting or sport shooting without having to drive for hours on end. Ottawa for example has one or two indoor ranges, but the nearest outdoor range I know of where you could do say.. skeet shooting is about a 2hr drive away. Where as much further out your property is actually big enough to safely set up your own range on your own private property depending. Like the place one friend of mine owns out near Halifax.

As for immigration being a factor? I'd certainly bet on it. The most notable case in this regard I can bring to mind is back when I was in Highschool. At the time we had -alot- of somali immigrants. Most were ok, hell a few of em I made good friends with. But many others joined gangs, or were even part of one allready when they came over. Hell one guy I knew came from a fairly violent area to say the least. And as he'd explained it to me. It was simply an expected thing that he join a gang amongst other somalie's of his age. Which is not something he wanted to do.

Then there was the addition of some racial tension between the chinese and the somalie's that to this day I honestly dont understand at all. But dear god did they ever start some massive fights. TO the point, one year, the police wound up having to be called in with a full swat team + dogs just to break it up.

And you can bet most of them were armed too. Mostly chains, knives and baseball bats mind you.

Over the years it's settled down again for the most part. Though I'm sure it will start up again sooner or later. And it's not just them, similar issues poped up when there were a whole buch of itallian immigrants, and before them Irish. History is full of such things. Though I've never fully understood what brings it about beyond perhaps, poverty itself and a certian degree of overcrowding.

It's also certianly true that certain parts of Canada are worse than others. BC is terrible for drug related crime in general supposedly. Toronto and Quebec are pretty bad for guns and gang related issues. Ottawa is too to an extent. Though not too many of them that I know of happen to have much in the way of firearms.. I mean s it was the link i gave earlier only mentions two, relativelyc ommon handguns. Though the grenades are the real supprise there if you ask me.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 20, 2009)

> He has gun to your head (or torso) because his threatening to kill you if don't give him your money. Does distance matter much? He could be next/behind you or up to 10 feet away but a gun shoot would easily kill you either way. It can be in a park, an alley, bus stop or whatever. He could have gotten close to you because he was hiding behind a corner or because most people aren't that paranoid and wouldn't think that a person walking behind you was doing it because he wanted to rob/kill/rape you. Better?



well. if someone has a gun flat up against your face, they are asking to loose that gun.... BUT say your a normal average joe who would fuck up with something like that lets walk through this....

defensive manouvers: all of these are about situations and circumstances to give you a chance to either escape or shoot the other guy. they can all backfire, or they can pay off just like every action in this world. just remember the number one rule is BUY time, time is actually one of the most powerful weapons you wield. the longer the situation drags on the more mistakes he can make.

1: the wallet drop. he wants your money? sure, stutter and drop the shit, or if he is at a distance toss it to the ground. however be sure to smile and do EVERY single ounce of body language that you can show that he is a 'friend", itl make it harder for him to pull the trigger. with this his attention for a moment will be off you and then you can act. either run like fucking hell, kick him in the nuts or try to draw. normally i wouldnt recommend trying to draw unless you have him further distracted by physical pain, and just use the gun to finish controlling the situation.

2: the eye waver: stutter and act stupid. buy every last ounce of time you got. all the while CONSTANTLY fixate your eyes off to one of the criminals sides. like your watching someone or something. could pay off. either he picks up on it and looks(opportunity) or he has such tunnel vision that he doesnt catch on. its a chance with little risk until you decide to act(if he does fixate his attention somewhere else).

3: vocal distraction: hardest to do while under this kind of stress. think of something, ANYTHING to say to make him laugh or look away. if he has the gun pretty much pressed to you talking to him in such a way that his finger eases a little is also good. if you position yourself right your arm can move faster then human beings are capible of reacting. bruce lee himself demonstrated this.

4: the run and draw:  potentially the safest. some guy comes around the corner, draws his weapon and demands money while approaching you. run like a little chicken shit as hard as you can. all but the most evil criminal will hesitate to shoot. find some cover, go around a car or ANYTHING and have your gun out. expose it to his vision and the bastard will realize your armed and may decide to leave right there. either way you got out of the danger zone, and ready to fight back if need be. personally i'm most inclined to use this technique. works on the street and feigning outright terror can even work if your defending your work place. scream and dive under the table like a chickenshit and then draw and prepare for him to try to come around and get a view of you.



> What are you arguing for? Do you want atleast 2 police officers at every street corner on every street in the entire world? Most crimes would be commited in less then 1minute and you can't expect the police to be able to reach any destination within that time frame.



stating that relying on the police to stop a current attack is pointless.


----------



## Gavrill (Jan 20, 2009)

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. :serious:


----------



## Kesslan (Jan 20, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Uhm... That link -still- proves -nothing-, you're not contributing anything to this argument other than opinion, thus far.
> In Canada, the place I live, there is strict gun control and I've -never- heard of a firearm based death or injury from a break-in or robbery. Ever.


 

Yeah you know what? Guess where I live? oohh Snap! Canada. Clearly pointed out right under my Icon. YOu too seem to be spouting off no mroe than pure opinion. Clearly Canada's gun controll is working and keeping gun crime down! Never mind that there's an increasing call for a total ban of all handguns, and how the liberals want to ban all 'assault weapons'. Never mind the latter are totally illegal to begin with.

And if you've -never- heard of a firearm based death or injury from a break-in robbery. Ever. In Canada. Then I seriously wonder what if any news you read? One of my old Principals and his wife were gunned down in COLD BLOOD by a 17 year old and a mutliple conviction 21 year old fellon in their own homes. It was all over the newspaper for a good solid month if not more. The guns were illegally obtained. Int his case I belive a handgun and at least one Shotgun which was the murder weapon in this case.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1038301381010_75/

Right there. I actually knew Mr.Dagenais as he was the principle at my highschool that took it from an almost out of control gang overrun school to one people actually felt safe going to. 

Hell we had the first protest the school ever knew that not only stayed peaceful, but was actually to KEEP a teacher/principle rather than get rid of one.

And yet dispite this, dispite how outraged I was at the murder of some one I greatly liked and admired, I am still pro-gun (within reason). I simply acknowledge the plain fact that the gun registry did nothing to save them.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 20, 2009)

Tomtenizze said:


> Why the heck do you want "your gun back"?
> A gun is a tool created to kill things easily. Why do you need a tool that helps you kill anything?
> If you want hunt, then there is licenses for that and you don't need a AK-47 or whatever to do that.
> *If you want a gun to protect yourself then you are dumb, in what realistic scenario would you have the chance of pulling a gun on someone in defense?* If someone is going trying to rob you by sticking a gun to your head the chance of you being able to do some Kung-fu trick to disable his weapon and pull your own before getting shoot in the head is extremely small. You're more likely getting killed and having the assailant run free. If you want to protect yourself you should learn some martial arts or get some pepper spray (or similar) or just plain run really, really fast.



http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/opsd/

http://gunowners.org/sk0205.htm

http://www.kc3.com/self_defense/armed_self_defense_jan_2001.htm

http://www.streetpro.com/usp/stories.html

http://www.apfn.net/Messageboard/02-01-01/mbs.cgi.363.html




Tomtenizze said:


> And about that dude (from the youtube clip) that said gun crimes had increased since the ban, where is the evidence for that?
> *According to homeoffice.gov.uk, the gun crimes have decreased and they have actual studies to back up their claims.*
> 
> http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/gun-crime/



http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/firearms/control/ukutopia.html

http://www.gunblast.com/British_Crime_Soars.htm

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hotline/2007/11/gun-bans-lead-to-increase-in-violent.php... not British-centric, but informative.

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/BritainToyGunsWSJE.html

http://www.newsmax.com/inside_cover/guns_england/2007/08/26/27556.html

http://www.crosswalk.com/1181315/




Tomtenizze said:


> And the "Law-abiding citizens do not suddenly go on killing sprees" argument is not exactly true. Everyone is considered (well, in most countries) a "Law-abiding citizen" when they are born, so there for every criminal was a "Law-abiding citizen" until they commit a crime. I didn't find any studies/statistics about this so if this isn't true then ignore it, but isn't a lot of all the serial killers also first time offenders? *Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia tech) was a "Law-abiding citizen" until he decided to kill 32 people. I didn't find any information about him having a criminal history.*
> 
> Though having that said I do not think a complete firearm ban is the solution.
> If there is going to be gun control laws, they must make sense.



No, not a _criminal_ history, but a history, nonetheless:

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/cho_seunghui/index.html?inline=nyt-per

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/18/AR2007041800162.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/18/AR2007041800162.html

As for serial killers:

http://crime.about.com/od/serial/Serial_Killers_and_Mass_Murderers.htm

http://www.deathreference.com/Py-Se/Serial-Killers.html

http://www.serialhomicide.com/serial-killers.htm... interesting comparison of mass to serial killers.  Seung-Hui Cho would be defined as a mass murderer, not a serial killer.




Tomtenizze said:


> The gun control laws in Sweden seems to be doing pretty good, though there is always room for improvement. Anyway, there are two types of gun licenses. One is for target-shooting or hunting and the other is for gun collecting. In order to get a license for target shooting you'll need to be 18years old, have be "law-abiding citizen" (I guess no previous crimes) and you have to have been an active member in a shooting club for at least six month, and the club must be dealing with the kind of gun you're requesting a license for. If you want a onehanded firearm you also need to earn the "gold pistol shooting mark". The shooting club must also be approved by the police. If you want a hunting license you must also have completed a Hunting exam. In other words, you'll have to nr an adult that has no previous crime history and know how to use a gun. You must also always store the weapons in a proper, secure gun locker. If you want a collection license you have to state what kind of guns you're collection (for example, weapons the germans used in WW2) and you may not fire any gun in your collection without special written approval. You are also required to get a seperate license for every gun.
> 
> Such gun control laws seems reasonable to me.



Thing is, you see, if the Swedish Government decided to ban guns totally, they would have all the information they would need to confiscate all the weapons owned by their *law-abiding* citizenry.  Therefore, it is not reasonable, far as I'm concerned.  No form of gun control that requires registration and licensing is in any way reasonable, due to this fact.

Also, I believe you should have said Switzerland, not Sweden:

http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=78... though this site has some relevant info on many countries.


----------



## Kesslan (Jan 20, 2009)

The problem is abit two fold though Roose.

How many police officers have gotten killed responding to calls becuase they didnt know there were guns involved or around? I certianly have no hard numbers, but I can recall a few stories of such incidents off the top of my head. Several of which included Mounted Police getting shot and killed in the line of duty that have hit the news over the years.

Personally I have no issue with the concept of a registry so long as it actually does what it's actually supposed to do. The canadian registry does.. well jack all to the point they finally killed part of it after it wasted billions of dollars. I mean people were getting lisences for power drills for christ sake. And one guy I know down at the local gunc lub was sent a registration card for a machine gun when he submitted one for his hunting rifle. ALl told he was given 5 seperate registration cards (none of them remotely close to what he had) untill they finally gave him the right one. And under the firearms laws he has to keep them ALL as well as the letters that say they were mistakenly issued.

Becuase he now has to prove he does not infact own 5 firearms, most of which are not legal for a civilian to own in the first place. 

They also serve a secondary, and handy purpose of at least giving police an option to return the firearms to their rightful owners if they happen to get stolen by the criminal element. And I certainly agree with the, at least theory, that the registry helps make sure that criminal offenders are not allowed to own firearms.

Not that that has worked in Canada terribly well either.


----------



## Runefox (Jan 20, 2009)

Kesslan said:


> > http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1038301381010_75/
> 
> 
> And your evidence behind our gun laws doing nothing and shooting deaths continuing to occur left and right is a news story from 2002. Yay.
> ...


----------



## Tomtenizze (Jan 20, 2009)

ceacar99 said:


> well. if someone has a gun flat up against your face, they are asking to loose that gun.... BUT say your a normal average joe who would fuck up with something like that lets walk through this....
> 
> defensive manouvers: all of these are about situations and circumstances to give you a chance to either escape or shoot the other guy. they can all backfire, or they can pay off just like every action in this world. just remember the number one rule is BUY time, time is actually one of the most powerful weapons you wield. the longer the situation drags on the more mistakes he can make.
> 
> ...



Maybe it's just me but that sounds like someone has been watching to many action movies...
But is it impossible to do? No, but way to circumstantial to be a reliable method of protection. You're much better of giving your money and try to remember as much detail about the person as possible and get in contact with the police (Going to nearest house, pub, hotel and call them).


ceacar99 said:


> 3: vocal distraction: hardest to do while under this kind of stress. think of something, ANYTHING to say to make him laugh or look away. if he has the gun pretty much pressed to you talking to him in such a way that his finger eases a little is also good. if you position yourself right your arm can move faster then human beings are capible of reacting. bruce lee himself demonstrated this.



I may be to young to have seen any bruce lee movies or such, but he is hardely an "average joe" type of guy. He as been training martial arts for many years. I doubt many people would be able to stay that cool and focused under a "suprise attack". I find very hard to belive that the chances of that working being more then 0.1%



ceacar99 said:


> 4: the run and draw: the riskiest but also potentially the safest. some guy comes around the corner, draws his weapon and demands money while approaching you. run like a little chicken shit as hard as you can. all but the most evil criminal will hesitate to shoot. find some cover, go around a car or ANYTHING and have your gun out. expose it to his vision and the bastard will realize your armed and may decide to leave right there. either way you got out of the danger zone, and ready to fight back if need be. personally i'm most inclined to use this technique. works on the street and feigning outright terror can even work if your defending your work place. scream and dive under the table like a chickenshit and then draw and prepare for him to try to come around and get a view of you.



That's both stupid and smart, if going by statistics I could agree that high numbers of robbers wouldn't actually shoot. But still, is it worth the risk of your pocket money?
I doubt many people would cary such a large quantity of money that they risk it on that move.



ceacar99 said:


> stating that relying on the police to stop a current attack is pointless.


Well, that I'll agree on but doesn't have much relevance in this discussion?
I didn't notice anyone arguing that the police would be able to stop an attack inprogress.

By studying the http://www.met.police.uk/crimestatistics/ year by year I can't find any thing supporting the idea that the gun ban could have caused an increase or decrease in gun crimes, the murder and statistics goes up and down all the time. The "Violence Against a Person" which seems to be concern on the news links you posted doesn't suggest that gun ban and any lack of defense is cause, but I did noticed that "ABH" and "Harassment" where going up quite a lot from time to time, which elevated the "Violence Against a Person" column which also contain numbers of murders. 



Roose Hurro said:


> http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
> 
> http://www.keepandbeararms.com/opsd/
> 
> ...


A lot of those stories end up with an assailant getting killed which I consider a bad ending (That is, if someone gets killed it's a bad ending). Some articles said that the victim (guy being robbed) open fire multiple times against the assailant but misses. That isn't very good either, what if a pedestrian walked by or someone else was in the location and got hit?



Roose Hurro said:


> http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/firearms/control/ukutopia.html
> 
> http://www.gunblast.com/British_Crime_Soars.htm
> 
> ...



I still can't find out where they get the data to support the claims that gun crimes have gone up so much as 50-70% since the ban.
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/BritainToyGunsWSJE.html
For example claim a increase in murders by 54%, I just wonder how many of those murders were commited using a gun and not say, posion, knife or fists.



Roose Hurro said:


> No, not a _criminal_ history, but a history, nonetheless:
> 
> http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/cho_seunghui/index.html?inline=nyt-per
> 
> ...



I'll admit that "Seung-Hui Cho" was a bit of a cheap shot, but I was also thinking about some post that said a weapon licenses should only consider previous violent criminal offenses. What I wanted to point out, which I failed to, was that past violent criminal offenses isn't good enough to clear a weapons license. I also don't remember any names of any previous massmurder/serial-killer and was too lazy to google up someone else.




Roose Hurro said:


> Thing is, you see, if the Swedish Government decided to ban guns totally, they would have all the information they would need to confiscate all the weapons owned by their *law-abiding* citizenry.  Therefore, it is not reasonable, far as I'm concerned.  No form of gun control that requires registration and licensing is in any way reasonable, due to this fact.


I properly failed to mention that I am opposed to a complete gun ban but in favor of a _very_ strict gun license policy. I got the impression that most of the post argueing for an unban of the gun law in the UK also wanted very "relaxed" laws so I properly messed that up too. 



Roose Hurro said:


> Also, I believe you should have said Switzerland, not Sweden:
> 
> http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html
> 
> http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=78... though this site has some relevant info on many countries.


No, I was taking about sweden. I actaully tried translate (in my own words) the information about the current gun control laws found on the swedish police website ( http://www.polisen.se/inter/nodeid=37960&pageversion=1.jsp ).


----------



## Kesslan (Jan 20, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Kesslan said:
> 
> 
> > And your evidence behind our gun laws doing nothing and shooting deaths continuing to occur left and right is a news story from 2002. Yay.
> ...


----------



## Kesslan (Jan 20, 2009)

Just found something that also happens to show overall crime statistics for Canada as a whole compared to Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and  New Brunswick http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/legal04a-eng.htm

Interestingly, while actual murders and such are far lower, overall violent acts are higher than the average for areas such as Labrador and Nova Scotia.

I belive there is also a lower degree of access to illegally imported firearms down that end of Canada, which may account for part of it when you start to look at gun crimes in general. Which is totaly independant of gun crimes comitted with legally obtained firearms.

So on the whole, there is infact, far more overall violence in some areas of the Maritimes than other parts of Canada.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 21, 2009)

> I may be to young to have seen any bruce lee movies or such, but he is hardely an "average joe" type of guy. He as been training martial arts for many years. I doubt many people would be able to stay that cool and focused under a "suprise attack". I find very hard to belive that the chances of that working being more then 0.1%



while bruce lee's normal punches are assuradly far faster then the average joes his demonstration of the "unblockable punch" was to show that ANYONE can do it and get it in. the reason is that in that punch the amount of distance needed to travel to the target is so minimal that honestly unless your a fat slob who cant lift your arm even the most highly skilled artists cant see it coming in time, and thats pretty impressive considering that the real competitors have reaction times several times faster then the average human being. 

now that ties into my statement "if someone has a gun to your face they are just asking to loose the gun". its simple understanding that unless they are starting to fire that weapon already by the time they realize that you have moved your head they wont be able to pull the trigger in time to blow your brains out. in that case like with fighting someone the best course of action is to charge into the attacker rather then away. if you put your energy forward while moving your head out of the way you can potentially buy yourself much needed time. in a fight as with war every last second you earn yourself is an incredible advantage. 

and ya, no i havent seen too many movies... guess the stuff has to do with my occupation and long history of practice in the martial arts..... 



> That's both stupid and smart, if going by statistics I could agree that high numbers of robbers wouldn't actually shoot. But still, is it worth the risk of your pocket money?
> I doubt many people would cary such a large quantity of money that they risk it on that move.



its better then trying to get his weapon clear of your body when you let him get up close to you and its a HELL of a lot better then having a standoff at 5 feet or so... honestly if you just ran like fucking hell without even drawing a weapon you have a better chance at getting away unharmed with your wallet in tact then dealing with him in some sort of standoff situation. honestly for the average person that is my number one suggestion to do. it doesnt rely on tricky moves, keeping focused to fuck with the guy's head or anything like that. just do whats natural. run the fuck away, regroup yourself and reconsider your options. its also STILL the safest out of all of them because its the only one that will almost 100% promise that you get out of the line of fire for a moment or two.

now all this is assuming its a crime where he wants money. if he intends to murder you, well its a lot tougher situation. not too many cases of people surviving someone just appearing with a gun and an intent to kill even if they themselves are armed.

anyway i was trying to find completely unbiased sources for information on the matter in the uk. what i DID find was that the crime rate has not climbed nearly so much as people say. however i also found that sources citing percent increases in sectors in crime states that violent crime over the past 8 years generally was on the rise. here is a good example



			
				mps page said:
			
		

> 14253
> 14010
> 14327
> 15751
> ...



those numbers are from the "violence against the person total" from each november going back to the year 2000.  now while there are a few hicups in the beginning we see that generally violence is more common now then it 5-6 years ago. its an increase but not a dramatic one when averaged with the few hiccups. one of the unfortunate things is that i havent found statistics of 1997-99....

heh, the issue is that its VERY hard to absolutely 100% prove that guns are the cause of violent crime or aren't. like the pistol ban in washington didnt seem to stop the rising crime, but the question is if that really was a gun problem. was it because the guns were banned or was it because people ignored the law and behaved like washington was the rest of the country? 

my position is that i think the us background check system is good enough. people will get the means to murder each other everywhere, why do you have to punish sportsmen and collectors? hell why do you have to punish the people who use guns to protect their property, such as their boat/ship, ranch or farm? i can understand highly regulating machineguns but banning pistols, semi automatic rifles and even shotguns so far has little evidence of really effecting crime much(as opposed to tightly controlling fully automatic weapons).


----------



## Irreverent (Jan 21, 2009)

Runefox said:


> I'm not sure we ever _explicitly_ had the right to carry firearms here in Canada, but it might be an interesting topic to do some research on.



We did and we still do.  It flows from Magna Carta and was not repealed by the British North America Act of 1867, nor superseded by the so-called "Canadian Constitution" or "Charter of Rights" (neither of which have been ratified by Quebec or the new pseudo-territory, Nunavut.)  Remember Meech Lake?  The Charlottetown Accords?  Canada still has ex-constitutional provinces and territories.  And don't even start me on the "notwithstanding clause."

The penultimate discussion of gun Canadian gun rights can be found in the discussion and legalese sections of www.canadiangunnutz.com.  Come play in my world.  I really don't feel like copy/pasting my 2400+ posts here.

For the record, I'm a rifle coach, Rifle Club director, CSSA certified club level safety instructor, range safety officer and line safety officer, liaison for the Ontario Rifle Association and a completive rifle, skeet and 3-P shooter.  I can and do quote Bill C-68 chapter and verse.

I will never forgive the Liberals for stripping Canadians of their rights.  C68 was not just a firearms act.  It took away the right to remain silent, to not incriminate yourself, forced you to testify against yourself and your spouse; and eliminated any protections against illegal search and seizure.  The Liberals basically ass-raped the recreational firearms community under the guise of public safety.  All because an Islamisist by the name of Ghamil Garhbi (aka Mark Lapine) murdered 14 women at L'ecole Polytechnique.

Yeah, I'm a little bitter.  I'm not picking on you Runefox, I don't mean to dump/vent on you.  I've just been fighting this shit since 1993 and I'm growing weary of the fight.  Its lost me friends, tanked my marriage and pitted east (the CSSA) against West (NFA).


----------



## jagdwolf (Jan 21, 2009)

The reason we have guns here in america is pretty simple.  
1)There are not enough police to defend us against criminals.  And I am not gonna ask an intruder if he will wait for a policeman to show up.  I will kill him defending my life and my property.
2)Because every government needs to fear its citizens.  Our founding fathers knew this.  Its in many many writings by them.  
3) Cause there is a little document that says I can.

People kill.  With cars, and drink and drugs.  Not just guns.   But hey each to their own beliefs, but you can count on this, if I am somewhere, and there is a rape happening I will defend that person.  I will use the firearm to give the attacker a chance to face the justice system.  Cause when it comes down to it, he really would rather take his chance with 12 than with my 1.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 21, 2009)

jagdwolf said:


> The reason we have guns here in america is pretty simple.
> 1)There are not enough police to defend us against criminals.  And I am not gonna ask an intruder if he will wait for a policeman to show up.  I will kill him defending my life and my property.
> 2)Because every government needs to fear its citizens.  Our founding fathers knew this.  Its in many many writings by them.
> 3) Cause there is a little document that says I can.
> ...



Well, honestly you're comparing things not designed for killing to something designed -only- for that. That's like comparing a feather to a anvil.

But anyway, here in Newfoundland we have the lowest number of police forces per capita of any other province, and we have less crime here than anywhere else, and with Canada gun laws enforced we have no firearm issues, at all.
You don't need to protect yourself with a firearm, just because the police aren't there. You don't need to kill them, if you have them at gunpoint. In fact, if you have a firearm and they don't, you killing them in Canada is murder, not self defense; you didn't have to kill them, you could of easily wounder them anyway, don't use them breaking in as an excuse for killing somebody that clearly was at a massive disadvantage.

Most Americans, and any nation with lots of firearm and ability to bear arms without proper control have that attitude, the "I'll shoot them bad guys dead if they wrong me" even if they have the disadvantage, or are running away; then fleeing and you shooting them is also murder, even if they stole your property.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 21, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Well, honestly you're comparing things not designed for killing to something designed -only- for that. That's like comparing a feather to a anvil.



No, it isn't... any tool used to kill counts as a deadly weapon.  More people are killed in car crashes than are murdered, even though cars were not "designed" to kill.  All that matters is, people die.  The tool used is irrelevant.  Murder is murder, death is death, be it with bare hands, rope, bat, knife, car... or gun.




NewfDraggie said:


> But anyway, here in Newfoundland we have the lowest number of police forces per capita of any other province, and we have less crime here than anywhere else, and with Canada gun laws enforced we have no firearm issues, at all.
> *You don't need to protect yourself with a firearm, just because the police aren't there.* You don't need to kill them, if you have them at gunpoint. In fact, if you have a firearm and they don't, you killing them in Canada is murder, not self defense; you didn't have to kill them, you could of easily wounder them anyway, don't use them breaking in as an excuse for killing somebody that clearly was at a massive disadvantage.



Actually, you do, if there is an intruder in your home, intent on causing you harm.  As for killing them... you have this falacious belief that someone under the stress of life-threat will be able to accurately place their shots to wound.  No, doesn't work that way.  Aim for center of mass, shoot till the threat is over, and so the intruder is stopped swiftly as possible... a wounded intruder can still attack and kill.  And, of course, no shooting anyone in the back, if they are no longer a threat (AKA, if they're running away).  If they don't have a firearm is also irrelevant... if they continue to threaten physical harm, even with their fists, and refuse to back down, then shooting them will be necessary, to stop their threat.  However, if they give themselves up, or run, then they don't need to be stopped, do they?




NewfDraggie said:


> Most Americans, and any nation with lots of firearm and ability to bear arms without proper control have that attitude, the "I'll shoot them bad guys dead if they wrong me" even if they have the disadvantage, or are running away; then fleeing and you shooting them is also murder, even if they stole your property.



*see above*

Yes, some people do have that attitude, but that is in the minority.  However, if someone threatens my life, or the lives of others, I will use whatever means I have at my disposal to stop them.  But only if the law allows... which is the crux of the gun control problem, since it denies me the right to legal self-defense.  As well as giving the Government a means to disarm me and every other previously lawful gun owner in America.  I should think also that the video I linked in my original post should make clear what happens to lawful citizens in Britain who dare to protect their own lives and property from violent criminal loss.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 21, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Well, honestly you're comparing things not designed for killing to something designed -only- for that. That's like comparing a feather to a anvil.
> 
> But anyway, here in Newfoundland we have the lowest number of police forces per capita of any other province, and we have less crime here than anywhere else, and with Canada gun laws enforced we have no firearm issues, at all.
> You don't need to protect yourself with a firearm, just because the police aren't there. You don't need to kill them, if you have them at gunpoint. In fact, if you have a firearm and they don't, you killing them in Canada is murder, not self defense; you didn't have to kill them, you could of easily wounder them anyway, don't use them breaking in as an excuse for killing somebody that clearly was at a massive disadvantage.
> ...



WITHOUT PROPER CONTROL!!!@#!!!!!

i call bullshit on that one! its not like we fucking go "oh wow, you look old enough, here have a mac 10!!!!". hell for an automatic firearm you actually know what i'd have to go through to own it? 

the whole buy at a gun show thing is STILL as secure as buying at a gun store too. they run a background check on the computer, if it comes up that you committed certain crimes or have other flags such as that you dont get the damn weapon. what else can you fucking do? send him to mr freud for a clean bill of mental health? seriously, without having 10 government officials for every civilian wanting to own a weapon there really ISNT something more you can do. i mean even with those resources the only thing more you could do is have the government say "our records show you got picked on every day in high school, write an essay on how that wont cause you to use this weapon for evil", which we all agree is just plain damn silly of a requirement.....

http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/GunsinCanada.htm

on "gun control" in canada.... you got more guns then your admitting. 

also saying that firearms are the cause of murder is like blaming spelling mistakes on your pencil its just plain fucking retarded..... take this case, man stabs 6 people to death in one spree. didnt need semi automatic weapons like those columbine pussies.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_...6_killed_in_south_korean_arson_stabbing_.html

further, the protection that a firearm can provide is undeniable. look at american football players. generally they are considered all round badasses, however they are several times more likely to be the victim of violent crimes, as such more and more are carrying firearms in the hope that one day the pistol will defend them when they get jumped by a bunch of idiots or someone tries to shoot them. the facts show that even the big he men of the football league honestly have trouble defending themselves when they are attacked, what chance do we have?



> You don't need to protect yourself with a firearm, just because the police aren't there. You don't need to kill them, if you have them at gunpoint. In fact, if you have a firearm and they don't, you killing them in Canada is murder, not self defense; you didn't have to kill them, you could of easily wounder them anyway, don't use them breaking in as an excuse for killing somebody that clearly was at a massive disadvantage.



even under the most violent us law killing a non threatening individual is murder. if someone is on your property and is threatening in many places of the country your free to blow his brains all over the sidewalk with a shotgun, however if he isn't currently a threat to your life you cant pull the trigger.


----------



## Irreverent (Jan 21, 2009)

Kesslan said:


> Indeed much of the Gun Registry that was supposed to keep us all nice and safe, has even been abolished. Yet still people seem to be intent on crying for ever tighter gun control laws.


 
For the record, the $2-6 Billion dollar Canadian Long-gun registry (rifles and shotguns) and the 1937-implemented Restricted Registry (pistols, revolvers, some rifles and shotguns deemed restricted/prohibited) is still fully in place.  Neither have been dismantled or abolished at of the date of this posting.

It would take an OIC or a new law to rescind it and that hasn't happened yet.  And without a CPC majority in the House, its unlikely to happen at all.



NewfDraggie said:


> you're comparing things not designed for killing to something designed -only- for that. That's like comparing a feather to a anvil.



While I agree with most of your post, I'll take exception to this.  My target guns (Walther's, Anschutz's, Brownings) were all purpose engineered and built from the ground up to be target guns.  They were no more "designed for killing" than an F1 race car is designed to be a daily commuter car.

This makes then no less lethal if used inappropriately, but really, if someone drives a Bic ballpoint pen through your neck, you'll die too.  The doctrine of need is a logical fallacy, the focus needs to be on use and intent of the user.


----------



## Get-dancing (Jan 21, 2009)

capthavoc123 said:


> He was pointing out that the guy may be biased, not saying that the man should not be listened to.



None the less that would still be ad hominen.

"You obviously would be in favour of blanket banning abortions because you are a priest."


----------



## Kesslan (Jan 21, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> For the record, the $2-6 Billion dollar Canadian Long-gun registry (rifles and shotguns) and the 1937-implemented Restricted Registry (pistols, revolvers, some rifles and shotguns deemed restricted/prohibited) is still fully in place. Neither have been dismantled or abolished at of the date of this posting.
> 
> It would take an OIC or a new law to rescind it and that hasn't happened yet. And without a CPC majority in the House, its unlikely to happen at all.


 
Ah, I stand corrected then. My understanding was that they had removed the long gun portion of the registry and made it a requirement for handguns only.

I'm glad to see all our tax dollars are still swirling down the drain, instead of doing useful things like buying the CF the equipment it needs to do it's assigned jobs, or improve hospitals, or otherwise actually help people's lives rather than simply waste a whole lot of time on trivial crap that's likely only saved.. 2 people? One? None? I dont know but not a whoel hell of alot.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 21, 2009)

Irreverent said:
			
		

> While I agree with most of your post, I'll take exception to this.  My target guns (Walther's, Anschutz's, Brownings) were all purpose engineered and built from the ground up to be target guns.  They were no more "designed for killing" than an F1 race car is designed to be a daily commuter car.
> 
> This makes then no less lethal if used inappropriately, but really, if someone drives a Bic ballpoint pen through your neck, you'll die too.  The doctrine of need is a logical fallacy, the focus needs to be on use and intent of the user.



Well, again there's a difference between something designed for killing (all hunting rifles, military weapons) and target firearms, BUT firearms began (you know, when they were created) for killing. They wouldn't exist right now if we didn't need them to kill, well, they might. But you get what I'm saying, the other thing is most target firearms are not what you'd want in a combat situation anyway, usually they sacrifice power for accuracy and the like, usually.



			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> No, it isn't... any tool used to kill counts as a deadly weapon.  More people are killed in car crashes than are murdered, even though cars were not "designed" to kill.  All that matters is, people die.  The tool used is irrelevant.  Murder is murder, death is death, be it with bare hands, rope, bat, knife, car... or gun.


Just like other people, you're comparing DEATHS to MURDERS. The amount of people killed in cars from MURDER is above the amount of people MURDERED from firearms, correct? There's a big, BIG difference between an accidental death, and someone dieing on purpose.




			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> Actually, you do, if there is an intruder in your home, intent on causing you harm.


Nope, seriously the odds of that happening are so far fetched it's not funny, and even if they do having a rifle compared to a handgun is just as dealy, you saying you can shoulder a rifle in time and fire isn't going to help because a handgun will only give an extra 2/3 a second to get up and fire. As well, if you did training in hand-to-hand combat, at all, which would take just as much time as training a firearm, you would be able to take someone down in your home, especially if you have other weapons besides a firearm, I mean honestly if somebody broke into my place with anything under a firearm, I would win. If they broke into my home with a firearm, EVEN if it had a firearm my chances of winning would be the same as if I didn't, just because it all depends who gets the first shot off, or if I'm too close to him for him to fire anyway.



			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> As for killing them... you have this falacious belief that someone under the stress of life-threat will be able to accurately place their shots to wound.  No, doesn't work that way.


Then they shouldn't operate a firearm if they cannot control it under stress.



			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> Aim for center of mass, shoot till the threat is over, and so the intruder is stopped swiftly as possible... a wounded intruder can still attack and kill.


Again, you're not a cop. You do not need to do this, if just holding them at gunpoint isn't enough shoot them lower mass, it will stop them. If you have no firearms and they charge you with a deadly weapon, it's your fault for not having the training (like it's hard to get, just as easy as training a firearm) and even if you don't you should be able to properly defend yourself with a weapon (other than a firearm) in your own home, where you have the advantage.



			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> And, of course, no shooting anyone in the back, if they are no longer a threat (AKA, if they're running away).


This is *murder*, shooting even a fleeing assailant in the back, is MURDER to the 3rd degree. They are no longer causing a threat to you.



			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> If they don't have a firearm is also irrelevant... if they continue to threaten physical harm, even with their fists, and refuse to back down, then shooting them will be necessary, to stop their threat.  However, if they give themselves up, or run, then they don't need to be stopped, do they?


If they have a baseball bat and you have a knife, you killing them is manslaughter unless they harm you enough.
If they have a knife, and you have a handgun, you killing them is manslaughter.
If they have a handgun and you have a semi-automatic/automatic rifle or shotgun, you killing them is manslaughter.

That's how it works here. Even if they are attacking you, you have no need to use anything more dangerous to take them down than what they're using against you. If you do, then simply you're at a massive advantage and anybody in this situation would give up, you killing them is going to be difficult to prove in a courtroom that it was in self defense, when you had such a massive advantage, who's to say you didn't kill him just because you can, even after he gave up.




			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> Yes, some people do have that attitude, but that is in the minority.  However, if someone threatens my life, or the lives of others, I will use whatever means I have at my disposal to stop them.


But don't get under stress, or else you won't be able to operate your firearm effectively and possibly in this situation you might kill people close to you without knowing it, if all you can do is shoot center mass.



			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> But only if the law allows... which is the crux of the gun control problem, since it denies me the right to legal self-defense.


There's other means of self-defense, firearms are not the only form, at all. I'm perfectly self-defended, and I don't own a firearm.



			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> As well as giving the Government a means to disarm me and every other previously lawful gun owner in America.  I should think also that the video I linked in my original post should make clear what happens to lawful citizens in Britain who dare to protect their own lives and property from violent criminal loss.


If the government wishes to disarm you, it's with good reason. They're in charge, they know what's best. Even if you, the people, don't think it's correct, they have people that are much more intellectual than you are, and they may make mistakes, but so can you. You could accidentally kill somebody just as easily as somebody attacking you.
If you want a firearm, you should have to pass a rigorous test, a psycho evaluation, and registration of all firearms.


----------



## Kesslan (Jan 21, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Well, again there's a difference between something designed for killing (all hunting rifles, military weapons) and target firearms, BUT firearms began (you know, when they were created) for killing. They wouldn't exist right now if we didn't need them to kill, well, they might. But you get what I'm saying, the other thing is most target firearms are not what you'd want in a combat situation anyway, usually they sacrifice power for accuracy and the like, usually.


 
Most of the things we take for granted in civilan life these days has miltiary roots belive it or not. Many major advances for aircraft came about because of war, computers exist largely becuase of war, the first computers were designed with military use in mind, even the interent was intially concieved with a military goal in mind. Jet aircraft? Yeah designed for killing. The technology behind getting man into outerspace and beyond? Initially designed for killing people. Fireworks? Yeah pretty much same deal there and can be increadibly dangerous in the wrong hands.

Super glue? Intially designed to quickly close up wounds on the battlefield. Simply put, so many of the things mankind has created has also been used to destroy, and for everything that's been created to destroy, we seem to find ways to adapt it to improve life in general for people.

The problem with guns is not the guns themselves, it's the fundamental basics of human kind and it's desire to kill itself.


----------



## Kesslan (Jan 21, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Just like other people, you're comparing DEATHS to MURDERS. The amount of people killed in cars from MURDER is above the amount of people MURDERED from firearms, correct? There's a big, BIG difference between an accidental death, and someone dieing on purpose.


 
Yes and no. I would personally arugue anyone driving heavily intoxicated or unsafely is effectlive trying to get themselves or some one else killed. Espeically since almost all 'accidental' deaths are entirely avoidable.





> Nope, seriously the odds of that happening are so far fetched it's not funny, and even if they do having a rifle compared to a handgun is just as dealy, you saying you can shoulder a rifle in time and fire isn't going to help because a handgun will only give an extra 2/3 a second to get up and fire. As well, if you did training in hand-to-hand combat, at all, which would take just as much time as training a firearm, you would be able to take someone down in your home, especially if you have other weapons besides a firearm, I mean honestly if somebody broke into my place with anything under a firearm, I would win. If they broke into my home with a firearm, EVEN if it had a firearm my chances of winning would be the same as if I didn't, just because it all depends who gets the first shot off, or if I'm too close to him for him to fire anyway.


 
I take it you've never handled a gun before? Cause there is a HUGE difference in the ammount of time it takes to properly line up a shot with a rifle than with a handgun. ESPECIALLY in close quarters. Infact, the same reasoning that lead to making short swords and other close combat weapons smaller than a full sized sword is also the same line of thinking behind handguns. You simply cannot beat the manuerability combined with accuracy given proper training. 

I also find your claims that you would win hands down if some one broke into your house with anythign other than a gun is.. odd. Whwat if it's more than one intruder? And what if they happen to be equally trained, oreven better trained in hand to hand combat? Such people exist afterall even if they are uncommon. And sometimes it's numbers and/or supprise. Since you seem to automatically assume you'll get the drop on them first as well as keep the upper hand. Considering even black belts have been taken out by common thugs or caught off guard in competitions etc at times, I wouldnt be quite so cocky myself. 



> Then they shouldn't operate a firearm if they cannot control it under stress.
> 
> Again, you're not a cop. You do not need to do this, if just holding them at gunpoint isn't enough shoot them lower mass, it will stop them. If you have no firearms and they charge you with a deadly weapon, it's your fault for not having the training (like it's hard to get, just as easy as training a firearm) and even if you don't you should be able to properly defend yourself with a weapon (other than a firearm) in your own home, where you have the advantage.


 
The main reason people teach you to aim for center mass is because it's a far easier target to hit, and on the whole even a leg shot can become lethal very quickly. There's plenty of major arteries one can hit in the legs that willc ause some one to bleed to death in a -very- short period of time. Thats simple basic human anatomy.  The issue I find is not so much an issue of controling aim under stress, but instead of properly judging when to fire or not. And even police get that bit wrong on a fairly regular basis. There's plenty of case out there where cops have killed people that, in hind sight, they should never have had to shoot in the first place. And using knives is just as dangerous in the long run.

 I also find it funny that you automatically assume that just because your in your own home you'll have the advantage every time. Or that everyone can master hand to hand self defence anywhere near as quickly as a gun. Proper mastery of hand to hand combat takes YEARS. And not just one or two, but 18, 20.. more.And evne then you can still loose to an amature under various circumstances.




> If they have a handgun and you have a semi-automatic/automatic rifle or shotgun, you killing them is manslaughter.


 
In this particular instance, actually. It's pretty much tit for tat. A gun is a gun when firearms crimes are under consideration. A handgun can be just as, if not more lethal than a shotgun. There are people who go deer hunting with revolvers for example.



> That's how it works here. Even if they are attacking you, you have no need to use anything more dangerous to take them down than what they're using against you. If you do, then simply you're at a massive advantage and anybody in this situation would give up, you killing them is going to be difficult to prove in a courtroom that it was in self defense, when you had such a massive advantage, who's to say you didn't kill him just because you can, even after he gave up.


 
How is it necessarily a 'massive advantage'? Gun vs Knife ok I could perhaps buy that. But a knife in the right hands with the intent to kill can kill you just as readily and quickly as a gun. And a shot to the arm is not necessarily going to stop anyone. And what if the guy is hopped up to hell on crack? There's plenty of recorded instances where guy were so hopped up on police had to shoot them mutliple times to stop them. There was even one fairly notable case a number of years ago where they shot a guy in the head TWICE before he dropped and 14 times all told. An exception of sorts sure, but the point is a single gun shot will not necessarily allway sstop some one, especialy if their on an adrenaline high or you fail to hit them somewhere vital.

Personally I'm certainly of the mindset that if some one seems to be set on killing me fuck the law I'll kil them if thats what it takes to stop them. Because in the end? I treasure my life far to much to iddiotically trust that the other ugy wont kill me if I just kick him or stab him a few times. And in such situations people rarely give up. There's one notable case where one youth recently got charged with murder here after he stabbed a guy to death on the bus. All because the two of em started fighting over the knife the kid pulled in an attmept to fighten him into handign over his Ipod.



> But don't get under stress, or else you won't be able to operate your firearm effectively and possibly in this situation you might kill people close to you without knowing it, if all you can do is shoot center mass.


 
Even if your nto using a gun youc an kill some one in self defence without intending to. History is full of examples of such things and guns or not, that wont change. Maybe you didnt intend to kill that guy with that knife he attacked you with, but you went and did it anyway. Or maybe you broke his neck without intending to cause you wound up pushing him down some stairs in an attempt to get away. Frankly criminals deserve it if you ask me.



> There's other means of self-defense, firearms are not the only form, at all. I'm perfectly self-defended, and I don't own a firearm.


 
Honestly? Its cool you feel secure unlike so many people. But the simpel fact is, for all the precautions you take, if some one realy wants to harm you they can. People have murdered tohers with cars in fits of road rage, people have shot or stabbed other people in the process of robbing them. And the victim is not allways some one who lacks training. Your more likely to come out of it alive sure, but even people with combat training have been killed in muggings.



> If the government wishes to disarm you, it's with good reason. They're in charge, they know what's best. Even if you, the people, don't think it's correct, they have people that are much more intellectual than you are, and they may make mistakes, but so can you. You could accidentally kill somebody just as easily as somebody attacking you.
> If you want a firearm, you should have to pass a rigorous test, a psycho evaluation, and registration of all firearms.


 
Ah yes, of course the government knows what's best! Allways! Totally infailable. Never mind that they start wars on false pretence, give billions uppon billions of dollars to companies that prove they dont know how to properly handle money, they spend millions on personal transportation aircraft while emergency search and rescue and military helicopters are LITTERALLY falling out of the sky becuas their so old.

And oh yeah.. privatization of the health care system in Canada was -such- a great idea! Leading to poorer food standards. Or how about the various scandals in Canada at least with gross missmanagement of water treatment and sewage that's lead to plenty of deaths? Or how about how they burried solid scientific evidence of the dangers of treated lumber to children due to extreme concentrations of harmful chemicals leaching into things like the ground around the playstructures, not to mention yoru skin when in contact with it? They burried that one for 10 YEARS.

Or how about how they keep denying that Global Warming actually exists? Regardless of the reasons for it. Cause you know.. it's totaly normal for iceformations that have been around for thousands to millions of years to completely vanish in a small handful. Or waht about all the war crimes various governments have commited? Both Canada and the US have been rather guilty of such things with the whole mess in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yep. They clearly know what's best for us at all times. Never question the government!


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 21, 2009)

If somebody really wishes to kill you, you won't know. Despite the amount of firearms you own or have on you, you're dead.

I also said they can be wrong, just liek you can be.

And also, shooting somebody with a shotgun -anywhere- or a rifle will stop them, more than likely. Unlike a handgun where you have to aim the thing, you won't have too with a rifle. And yes, I've probably fired more than you have, or at least got to handle more than you have (not more times, just more types).


----------



## Kesslan (Jan 21, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> If somebody really wishes to kill you, you won't know. Despite the amount of firearms you own or have on you, you're dead.
> 
> I also said they can be wrong, just liek you can be.
> 
> And also, shooting somebody with a shotgun -anywhere- or a rifle will stop them, more than likely. Unlike a handgun where you have to aim the thing, you won't have too with a rifle. And yes, I've probably fired more than you have, or at least got to handle more than you have (not more times, just more types).


 

Keep in mind Newf, I may nto have been in the military but I have been invited to compete on the provincial level based purely uppon my accuracy with firearms. And I've fired everything from rifles to most calibers of handguns as well as handled automatic weaponry while on a trip to Norway when I was visiting family I have over there. One of which just so happens to be a now retired Major. I actually got to check out their armory, mess about with their anti aircraft training center and all sorts of fun stuff like that. (And I must say they had a supprisingly large collection of WWII German weaponry in excellent condition in their armory to boot.)

Also, clearly you dont know mucha bout guns if you claim you dont have to aim a rifle. It's just as important to properly aim a rifle as it is a handgun. ANd, indeed due to the weight of most decent rifles, it arguably takes you abit longer to draw a proper bead on your target compared to a handgun. I've managed to pull off a 4 inch MOA with a .45 fired 3 times in a two seciond period at 20 yards (And i'm hardly some sort of crack shot). But there's no way in hell I can do that with a semi auto rifle. Nor, admitteldy could I likely pull off a 4 MOA with a .45 handgun in that short a time span without working at it again as I've largely fallen out of the practice of going to the local range in the past few years largely over financial issues. Since given the cost of ammunition and club membership runs a few hundred a year easy.

A shotgun with buckshot is pretty much the only thing I'd agree with you not having to aim terribly well. I would however disagree that it would necessarily stop them dead if all you managed to do was clip them. Especialy as the spread depends on both range to the target and the choke.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 21, 2009)

I your home, it takes longer to draw a bead on your target... HA, that's right, not only are they further away then a few meters, but they're also moving at such a fast sprinting speed it takes so much longer to just point and pull the trigger.

Clearly, you still need further training. No offense.


----------



## Kesslan (Jan 21, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I your home, it takes longer to draw a bead on your target... HA, that's right, not only are they further away then a few meters, but they're also moving at such a fast sprinting speed it takes so much longer to just point and pull the trigger.
> 
> Clearly, you still need further training. No offense.


 
I'm quite well aware they are liable to be a moving target Newf. I still say a handgun is easier to quickly move and train about in a crowded environment than a rifle. Certainly when I'm running around playing CQC in Airsoft I've allways tracked the target far better and more accurately with a pistol than I ever have with my Armalite. And the JG M4, even modified is MUCh lighter than a real rifle.

Sprinting full out it's hard to hit some one period, though most people dont make a habbit of sprinting all over the place especially in a strange house.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 21, 2009)

Kesslan said:
			
		

> I'm quite well aware they are liable to be a moving target Newf.


They won't be moving side to side much, unless your home is massive.



			
				Kesslan said:
			
		

> I still say a handgun is easier to quickly move and train about in a crowded environment than a rifle.


Yes, you're correct. But that doesn't mean a rifle is difficult, just harder. Which isn't much, unless you're room clearing or don't know where he is, a rifle will work. In fact, I would shoot through my walls, if need be.



			
				Kesslan said:
			
		

> Certainly when I'm running around playing CQC in Airsoft I've allways tracked the target far better and more accurately with a pistol than I ever have with my Armalite. And the JG M4, even modified is MUCH lighter than a real rifle.


But people don't see a greater fear coming from a pistol or a rifle in airsoft, it's the same, and it's less on both parts. In real life, you see a rifle and you have nothing or a handgun, chances are the assailant is going to be in a high stress situation compared to you. Also, that is airsoft, and I've played the airsoft and paintball, and I've even done the real paintball using real ammo but instead of brass it's plastic and paint, hurts like a bitch, but still not the real thing.



			
				Kesslan said:
			
		

> Sprinting full out it's hard to hit some one period, though most people dont make a habbit of sprinting all over the place especially in a strange house.


Not for me, at all actually. I could do it from the hip no problem with a rifle at 20 meters, if your home is larger than that in any open area, then wow. And again you're right, they won't be running around.

Seriously, there's no need to have a handgun OTHER than having it tucked away with you while walking around outside, and that's the reason they want them removed. I can easily understand this because just about anyone can be walking around packing, and that isn't a good thing at all. You can take mace, a tazer, a knife, etc you do not need a handgun hidden away. There's plenty LTL (Less than lethal) solutions to a firearm, unless you have a license and are wearing it on a holster, you shouldn't walk around with it.

Most people are saying home defense, but the chances of your home being targeted are low, being targeted while you're there is lower, while you're awake even lower, and if you have your firearms loaded and out, not locked up (if you have a family and this is true you need to have them removed, anyway) then you're just so lucky you're able to get anything out if somebody comes in and doesn't just kill you in your sleep, that a rifle or a handgun won't really change much.


----------



## makmakmob (Jan 21, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Ummm... remember the British guy who's in prison for using a legal firearm to defend his life?  Oh, and people who wish to defend themselves on the street do indeed have a reason to conceal...



I was referring more to the people who are silly enough to keep a gun in their house. I don't want to lose or take a life over a an old TV or a computer. Besides, how many people assault you on the street with the intention of killing you?
(also for the record, I'm happy to admit I don't have any technical knowledge on the subject - please do correct me)


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 21, 2009)

> Most of the things we take for granted in civilan life these days has miltiary roots belive it or not.



well, i did post how one of the things that pushed us into the first industrial revolution and thus our rise as a massive power was the rifle....



			
				ceacar99 in gaza strip discussion said:
			
		

> alright my boy lets discuss one thing that americans recognize as what universally made us so successful at the start of the 1900s. mass production, specificly of things like cars, refrigerators and so on.
> 
> now all of that relied on a single piece of rather difficult complex technology. completely universal replaceable parts. before then every last machine was unique in some way or another and had to be hand fitted, ESPECIALLY firearms.
> 
> ...





> I take it you've never handled a gun before? Cause there is a HUGE difference in the ammount of time it takes to properly line up a shot with a rifle than with a handgun. ESPECIALLY in close quarters. Infact, the same reasoning that lead to making short swords and other close combat weapons smaller than a full sized sword is also the same line of thinking behind handguns. You simply cannot beat the manuerability combined with accuracy given proper training.



if you have the rifle out of your shoulder it will take longer to bring into fire then a pistol. it takes actually in terms of combat quite a long fucking time, which is why modern soldiers and marines are trained that in a combat situation they are to keep the buttstock in their shoulder at all times and hopefully not even lower the weapon more then they need to get a good view of the situation when not fireing. 



> The main reason people teach you to aim for center mass is because it's a far easier target to hit, and on the whole even a leg shot can become lethal very quickly



modern studies have shown that often in a fight you dont have time to aim anywhere else. you got like a quarter second to aim so you just point the weapon dead center and pull the trigger. knowing this police and arms industries have designed the body armor to protect center mass, where limb protection is not too common because the criminal under such a situation wont be aiming for the limbs.



> If they have a handgun and you have a semi-automatic/automatic rifle or shotgun, you killing them is manslaughter.



not by law... if he is showing intent on killing you with the handgun its NOT manslaughter, superiority of weaponry does not mean your not entitled to defend yourself. and believe me bud that pistol is VERY lethal....



> shooting somebody with a shotgun -anywhere- or a rifle will stop them



NOPE, not true... a 5.56 round for example if it hits someone at point blank range actually has a high chance of just piercing the person and not doing much of anything, like the early krag and mouser rifle rounds(which during the spanish american war were notorious for not being able to kill someone. men took 7-8 hits and continued to fight). actually all modern rifle rounds at point blank range can behave like that and can actually take substantial amount of shots to take someone out. where a shotgun can have extreemily close range regardless of how the pellets spread. sawn off shotguns for example are notorious for not piercing human skin beyond point blank range for example. 

FACT: a low to moderate speed slug can inflict as much if not more damage then a high powered rifle round. a perfect example are 9mm and .45 rounds lacking the copper jacket over the tip of the round(usually such rounds are hollow points). both rounds also are larger in diameter then the average military round maximizing their damage if they zip through and helping improve chances that the round will deform on impact. 

heh, i keep wanting to make myself some low velocity un-jacketed bullet cartridges. just some good ol flat head bullets flying at around 800-1000 fps. MASSIVE damage.... kinda like our springfield breach loader that we had before the krag rifle, incredibly lethal rifle, low velocity(cant have a un-jacketed round in higher velocities anyway, the rifling will tear the bullet apart).



> I was referring more to the people who are silly enough to keep a gun in their house.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Kesslan (Jan 21, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> They won't be moving side to side much, unless your home is massive.
> 
> 
> Yes, you're correct. But that doesn't mean a rifle is difficult, just harder. Which isn't much, unless you're room clearing or don't know where he is, a rifle will work. In fact, I would shoot through my walls, if need be.


 
Yes, but people who are not so skilled with firearms will tend to choose the handgun, and a .45 will likely go through the average household wall relatively well. Even 9mm ammo will do that as happened not too long ago when police fired uppon an assailant and accidnetlaly killed some one in another appartment when the 9mm round wne throught he drywall and hit the guy in the head. Hell of a fluke, but it still happened.



> But people don't see a greater fear coming from a pistol or a rifle in airsoft, it's the same, and it's less on both parts. In real life, you see a rifle and you have nothing or a handgun, chances are the assailant is going to be in a high stress situation compared to you. Also, that is airsoft, and I've played the airsoft and paintball, and I've even done the real paintball using real ammo but instead of brass it's plastic and paint, hurts like a bitch, but still not the real thing.


 
 Airsoft, paintball, tagball. All pretty damn similar to be honest. I've played all 3, Airsoft is simply my preerence because it's got a slightly higher degree of visual realism. And if find it stings about the same. Afterall the BBs fly fast enought o chip teeth at range and they've been known to imbed into skin at closer ranges. Where real guns are a factor,  I dunno, personaly I'm no more affraid of a shotgun or rifle than a handgun. Either, pointed at me, is just as likely to kill. Considering you can kill some one with even a .22 if you hit them in the right spot.



> Not for me, at all actually. I could do it from the hip no problem with a rifle at 20 meters, if your home is larger than that in any open area, then wow. And again you're right, they won't be running around.


 
Yeah but the average person is not likely to be able to accurately shoot from the hip. That sort of thing tends to take a very solid familarity with firearms as well as very good hand/eye co-ordination.



> Seriously, there's no need to have a handgun OTHER than having it tucked away with you while walking around outside, and that's the reason they want them removed. I can easily understand this because just about anyone can be walking around packing, and that isn't a good thing at all. You can take mace, a tazer, a knife, etc you do not need a handgun hidden away. There's plenty LTL (Less than lethal) solutions to a firearm, unless you have a license and are wearing it on a holster, you shouldn't walk around with it.
> 
> Most people are saying home defense, but the chances of your home being targeted are low, being targeted while you're there is lower, while you're awake even lower, and if you have your firearms loaded and out, not locked up (if you have a family and this is true you need to have them removed, anyway) then you're just so lucky you're able to get anything out if somebody comes in and doesn't just kill you in your sleep, that a rifle or a handgun won't really change much.


 
On the issue of handguns having no place but to be illegally carried around, I must strongly disagree. Personally I dont aim to own any firearms for personal safety but competition and sport shooting, and, in my oppinion at least, the handgun aspect is far more fun than rifle or skeet shooting etc. Personally I've never seen firearms as a first choice for home defence, simply because safe storage, as you've pointed out, means you waste time far better spent simply calling the cops and grabbing a knife or baseball bat or something.

Unless of course for some reason you have some previous warning. At which point I'd rather question why you dont just vacate the premisis before the assailants get there or something. *shrug*

That doesnt mean however, I wont support one's desire to own a firearm for such a potential purpose however. Because it's like the saying goes. Guns dont kill people. People kill people.


----------



## Nylak (Jan 21, 2009)

I was gonna stay away from this topic since I'm actually pretty undecided regarding my opinion on the subject, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents about the "hand guns as a means of self defense in the home" bit.

Honestly, if you can't handle the gun or are hesitant in your actions, having the gun is more of a curse than an advantage (assuming you can even get ahold of it in time for it to be "useful"). An intruder seeing you unarmed is much less likely to shoot you than if they see you fumbling with a firearm. They're gonna be, "Oh shit, 'tard's packing heat," and they're gonna try to get you before you get them. And they're going to have the advantage of already having the weapon at the ready while you're fumbling to get it out and load it and take off the safety, etc.

Anyway, I live alone downtown in a high-crime area, and I do own a licensed S&W special, but it is kept locked up and is not available for quick defense purposes. So why do I even have it? I have _no idea_. It seemed like a good idea at the time. I've since reconsidered, but I don't want to part with it just yet (it's still fun at the range).


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 21, 2009)

ya... i wouldnt suggest owning a weapon and not practicing with it. you could even somehow manage hurt yourself with it. 

and as for the s&w you got. well, its up to you on how you store it. some people keep it locked up and the ammo locked somewhere else(safest most secure), a few nutbags have a loaded one in their bedside drawer. if you want it for a home defense weapon you gotta have it unsecured to a degree, but i wouldnt advise that if you live with children in the house or even just another person. 

its a problem, someone should come up with a way of keeping the weapon secure while still allowing the owner to be able to draw it quickly if there is a need.


----------



## Nylak (Jan 21, 2009)

Yeah, even if I wanted to have it available for defense purposes, I couldn't.  I have ferrets, and they can both open my drawers and take off the safety of my gun, so...bad idea all over the place.


----------



## Armaetus (Jan 21, 2009)

On top of that, how would the UK defend themselves against a large army such as Russia or China?


----------



## Kesslan (Jan 21, 2009)

mrchris said:


> On top of that, how would the UK defend themselves against a large army such as Russia or China?


 
By simple virtue of being British of course!


----------



## Armaetus (Jan 21, 2009)

I meant a CNC/Red Alert style invasion.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 21, 2009)

For you, Newf (and anyone else interested):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk7LPklNFRw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLnmvseCseI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYdkt7yIFLY&feature=related

If you want more data, I can dig it up for you....




makmakmob said:


> I was referring more to the people who are silly enough to keep a gun in their house. I don't want to lose or take a life over a an old TV or a computer. *Besides, how many people assault you on the street with the intention of killing you?*
> (also for the record, I'm happy to admit I don't have any technical knowledge on the subject - please do correct me)



http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/lethalforce.html... I would also recommend you do further research on the subject.




Nylak said:


> I was gonna stay away from this topic since I'm actually pretty undecided regarding my opinion on the subject, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents about the "hand guns as a means of self defense in the home" bit.
> 
> Honestly, if you can't handle the gun or are hesitant in your actions, having the gun is more of a curse than an advantage (assuming you can even get ahold of it in time for it to be "useful"). An intruder seeing you unarmed is much less likely to shoot you than if they see you fumbling with a firearm. They're gonna be, "Oh shit, 'tard's packing heat," and they're gonna try to get you before you get them. And they're going to have the advantage of already having the weapon at the ready while you're fumbling to get it out and load it and take off the safety, etc.
> 
> Anyway, I live alone downtown in a high-crime area, and I do own a licensed S&W special, but it is kept locked up and is not available for quick defense purposes. So why do I even have it? I have _no idea_. It seemed like a good idea at the time. I've since reconsidered, but I don't want to part with it just yet *(it's still fun at the range)*.



Yes, guns can be fun... my Savage 1907 Pocket Pistol (.32ACP) is pushing near to a century old, yet it shoots perfectly.  And ejects empty casings with surprising vigor.  Still has most of its original finish, as well.  At ten yards, I was able to keep all rounds easily center-mass (though I was shooting at a standard bullseye-style target).  Also had lots of fun shooting my 70 year old (1938 made) Winchester Model 61... very neat .22 rimfire rifle, a classic.  Busted a dirtclod at over fifty yards, first shot.

Anyway... if you wish to use your S&W for home defense, just get it out, load it, and slip it under your pillow before you go to bed.  When you wake up, unload and resecure.  I keep my Savage under my pillow... though I also keep my 1954-made S&W Highway Patrolman (loaded with .38 target wadcutters) under the opposite side of my pillow, so I have a gun in reach no matter which side I sleep on.  Overkill, perhaps, but I don't want the Savage to feel lonely....




ceacar99 said:


> ya... i wouldnt suggest owning a weapon and not practicing with it. you could even somehow manage hurt yourself with it.
> 
> and as for the s&w you got. well, its up to you on how you store it. some people keep it locked up and the ammo locked somewhere else(safest most secure), a few nutbags have a loaded one in their bedside drawer. if you want it for a home defense weapon you gotta have it unsecured to a degree, but i wouldnt advise that if you live with children in the house or even just another person.
> 
> its a problem, *someone should come up with a way of keeping the weapon secure while still allowing the owner to be able to draw it quickly if there is a need*.



http://www.gunvault.com/


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 21, 2009)

Nylak said:


> Yeah, even if I wanted to have it available for defense purposes, I couldn't.  I have ferrets, and they can both open my drawers and take off the safety of my gun, so...bad idea all over the place.



if thats the situation buy yourself a revolver. really i actually suggest a revolver over anything as a self defense weapon. in terms of shooting to defend yourself hopefully you wont need more then 5 rounds(i know you guys are thinking six but the 5 round limit reason is coming), and while the thing can be slower to fire with proper trigger pull(and that trigger pull can really throw you off with a pistol) the weapon simply wont let you down. in a semi automatic if you have a failure to fire for some reason you have to reach up to pull the slide back and try again, but with a revolver you just pull the trigger and try again. if the failure to fire was a bad round it wont take you forever to recover, like i said just pull the damn trigger again. if its something else such as a sharp firing pin well.... your screwed anyway, lol. 

however there is one more reason to go for it. if you load five rounds in that weapon instead of six its downright safe. you either a: have to pull long and hard on the trigger in a double action to make it go off or b: pull the hammer back in double actions or in single action only revolvers. nylak, this will solve your safety problem. get a good ol "crappy" revolver(just god dont get a snub nose) in like 38 or something and make sure the double action trigger pull is pretty damn heavy. keep five rounds in the weapon, the empty chamber being the one under the hammer. its not the same as having a grip safety or a safety switch but not only will your weapon be safe as shit in the drawer but if you actually need it then you just have to draw and pull the trigger and not worry about anything else. the next best thing is some sort of firearm with a grip safety that ensures that you have a good firm grip on the pistol grip before it will let you fire. but ya... a regular safety switch like that on a berreta 92 is not good for you....

oh and btw roose that safe is flippin awesome 140 bucks to secure a self defense weapon while still being able to get it quickly in an emergency is an incredible deal.

added: nylak didnt see the special after you wrote s&w, lol you already have a revolver.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 21, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> For you, Newf (and anyone else interested):
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk7LPklNFRw
> 
> ...



I dare you, I will pay you money in fact, if you can shoot as fast as somebody that holds 18 world records.

In fact, I will dare you to shoot a SSA (Single Action Army) without burning your hands, and hitting a target easier than a rifle, faster.

Also, gunvaults are good, but $500-$900 is a lot, granted if you can afford a firearm you should be able to afford one of these. But like I've said, the chances of someone breaking into your home are very low, the chances of you being able to do anything (you're awake, not jacking it, not drunk, etcccccc) even with a firearm, again very low. So, realistically a handgun for home defense is pointless, and is no different than walking around wearing Kevlar because you fear being shot in the chest.

If I lived in the USA, I myself would probably own a handgun, but if they didn't allow it, I wouldn't care enough to bitch about it. A rifle is just fine because I'd also like to own one of those.

Also, ceacar99 a "double safety" (the grip plus switch) is what you're talking about, this type of safety is far greater than a revolvers 5 round, or 7 round leaving one empty per cation because pulling the trigger will flick the cylinder (and the rounds) under the hammer and firing the gun. A double safety means you must have a firm grip on the weapon as well the safey switch off, and with weapons such as the FN FiveseveN where the fireing pin drops down until the trigger is pulled so far, with the double safety, this is again extremely safe. 

But my argument isn't you shouldn't be allowed to own a handgun, it's just not everyone should be able to. You should have to pass a test to be able to use non-semi automatic weapons, such as pump actions and bolt actions, a different test afterwards for semi-auto weapons such as handguns and rifles, and again another test to have these weapons on your person while in public. All of these require registration, too. Just because it's safer, it's not that hard, and means people can defend themselves and not be a moron with a handgun in his pocket.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 21, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I dare you, I will pay you money in fact, if you can shoot as fast as somebody that holds 18 world records.
> 
> In fact, I will dare you to shoot a SSA (Single Action Army) without burning your hands, and hitting a target easier than a rifle, faster.
> 
> ...



You know, Newf, I do believe I provided quite a few links, some posts back, that dealt with the issue of personal defense and how it does work... did you even bother to read those links?  If not, I can dig them up again, or find more.  As for registration, I have said it before... "Registration leads to confiscation."  Therefore, any registration or licensing of gun owners is unacceptable.  I'd rather see the registration and marking of criminals:  People kill people, not guns.  Register and restrict the "meat" of the problem, that is a far better service to public safety.  Oh, and as I said, I already have a safety cert, and it is needed by law if I wish to purchase a gun... however, this testing and certification was done by a gunshop, not by a Government agency, so my privacy is secure.  I've been handling guns since I was eight, and I'm fourty-six now, with a clean safety record.  No "accidental" anything.  I can keep a gun in my pocket without being a moron, thank you....


Oh, found something interesting:

http://www.gunlaws.com/GunshotDemographics.htm

And Nylak?  If you want to ask any gun related questions, since you are officially an S&W owner, I'd recommend going here:

http://smith-wessonforum.com/eve/


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 21, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> You know, Newf, I do believe I provided quite a few links, some posts back, that dealt with the issue of personal defense and how it does work... did you even bother to read those links?  If not, I can dig them up again, or find more.
> 
> Oh, found something interesting:
> 
> http://www.gunlaws.com/GunshotDemographics.htm



How about you don't just toss links all over the place, and instead quote the part in the link you wish for me to focus my attention on. Also, use something a bit more... less biased than GUNLAWS.COM, please.



			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> As for registration, I have said it before... "Registration leads to confiscation."  Therefore, any registration or licensing of gun owners is unacceptable.  I'd rather see the registration and marking of criminals:  People kill people, not guns.  Register and restrict the "meat" of the problem, that is a far better service to public safety.


OK, that's enough. *YOU* don't deserve to own a weapon, ever. Never able to fire, own, operate, or even clean one. Only because you think the government will take away your weapons if you have them registered. There's a reason for registering, so they can trace the striations on the bullets back to you when you murder 10 people. So they can monitor how many you own, and what types you own. NOT so they can take them away for no reason. GROW up, LEARN something, STOP being so PARANOID. People this paranoid shouldn't own a firearm or be allowed to touch them. End of story.



			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> Oh, and as I said, I already have a safety cert, and it is needed by law if I wish to purchase a gun... however, this testing and certification was done by a gunshop, not by a Government agency, so my privacy is secure.


Your...privacy is...secure? *Paranoia*, read above.



			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> I've been handling guns since I was eight, and I'm fourty-six now, with a clean safety record.  No "accidental" anything.  I can keep a gun in my pocket without being a moron, thank you....


I love how you're like "I'm so good I can keep it in my pocket!". Yeah, lets see you handle a firing out of battery then, thank you............ Just because you haven't had a accidental anything in your long life of operating something you have little training in and massive paranoia and possession issues over, you must of forgot about that one subject. You know, handling a firearm. You don't just shove it into your pocket, that can get you killed or injured even with the safety on.

I've never had a weapon misfire or malfunction, ever in my life. That doesn't mean I believe it can't happen. I've watched somebody (probably) die at a range from a misfire and mischamber at the same time. This person who had a handgun with 15+1 rounds, firing off the 15 and checking the chamber for the final round, that round detonating and pieces of the firearm, mostly the slide, hitting him in the face and neck. Me and three other people rushed to his aid because I have Ambulance First Aid, we kept him alive until a ambulance arrived and took him away. This was at a range, with four people trained able to rush to his side instantly. Lets see you walking down the road and this happening to you.

tl;dr: A holster is fine.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 21, 2009)

> pulling the trigger will flick the cylinder (and the rounds) under the hammer and firing the gun.



rule number four of firearms safety(as it was drilled into my head). KEEP YOUR FINGER STRAIGHT AND OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOU INTEND TO FIRE. i dont care if the weapon has sixteen different forms of safeties on it and all of them are turned on, unless you damn well intend to fire that weapon your finger should NEVER be on the damn trigger and sure as hell should not be drawing that thing back. sometimes even the safeties fail, so you shouldnt even be touching that trigger unless you want to shoot something. 

as i said, if you have children in the house even a weapon with a double safety(fancy marketing gimic there....), a single safety(either the grip or the switch, some guns are weird) or even the rare pistol that requires a key to unlock the safety is just not safe to have out. that can go true if your living with someone else, or even have a guest over. you never know what some moron is going to do. 

and yes, its still called a damn grip safety. the SYSTEM if you have the grip and the switch can be referred to as a "double safety system" because duh there are two. however some pistols have the switch, a grip safety, AND a firing pin block. guess you'd call it a triple safety?


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 21, 2009)

ceacar99 said:
			
		

> rule number four of firearms safety(as it was drilled into my head). KEEP YOUR FINGER STRAIGHT AND OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOU INTEND TO FIRE.


Even with your finger off of it, in your pocket could still mean the trigger gets pulled, leaning over, bumping into something, etc. It's better to have a safety, or double safety than just having a round removed on a revolvers chambers, where pulling the trigger somehow still results in a fire. Though you're correct, even with the weapon drawn ready to fire, until you're going to fire keep your finger off it, always.



			
				ceacar99 said:
			
		

> And yes, its still called a damn grip safety. the SYSTEM if you have the grip and the switch can be referred to as a "double safety system" because duh there are two. however some pistols have the switch, a grip safety, AND a firing pin block. guess you'd call it a triple safety?



I know this, and I don't think the firing pin block is a safety, though. It's safer, yes. Unless you're speaking of something I'm not thinking, in my example of the FiveseveN where the firing pin drops down, this is to prevent a firing out of battery or misfire, not really a safety but a precaution.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 21, 2009)

> OK, that's enough. YOU don't deserve to own a weapon, ever. Never able to fire, own, operate, or even clean one. Only because you think the government will take away your weapons if you have them registered. There's a reason for registering, so they can trace the striations on the bullets back to you when you murder 10 people. So they can monitor how many you own, and what types you own. NOT so they can take them away for no reason. GROW up, LEARN something, STOP being so PARANOID. People this paranoid shouldn't own a firearm or be allowed to touch them. End of story.



um..... *cough*.... MOST weapons in the us aren't registered... the paper part of the process rather is doing the background check and stating that you were sold a gun at some point. farther then that, well its not done. there are some advantages of registering every serialized firearm but it could turn into a big mess too. and oh ya, if i make a firearm myself unless i intend to transfer ownership i dont have to stamp a serial number on it. 



> firing off the 15 and checking the chamber for the final round, that round detonating and pieces of the firearm, mostly the slide, hitting him in the face and neck.



what? was it a hangfire?


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 21, 2009)

> I know this, and I don't think the firing pin block is a safety, though. It's safer, yes. Unless you're speaking of something I'm not thinking, in my example of the FiveseveN where the firing pin drops down, this is to prevent a firing out of battery or misfire, not really a safety but a precaution.



well the weapon im most familiar with that has a fireing pin block is the berreta 92f. the firing pin has a lil notch cut into it. now a specially shaped piece of metal fits into that notch and is held there by spring tension, so that the firing pin literally cant move. then when the trigger is pulled it also lifts the block up and out of the way. it prevents stupid things from happening mostly. like dropping a weapon that has  the safety off and it firing or someone lowering the hammer a bit too quick without turning the safety off and so on. and its not that unusual of a feature.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 21, 2009)

ceacar99 said:


> well the weapon im most familiar with that has a fireing pin block is the berreta 92f. the firing pin has a lil notch cut into it. now a specially shaped piece of metal fits into that notch and is held there by spring tension, so that the firing pin literally cant move. then when the trigger is pulled it also lifts the block up and out of the way. it prevents stupid things from happening mostly. like dropping a weapon that has  the safety off and it firing or someone lowering the hammer a bit too quick without turning the safety off and so on. and its not that unusual of a feature.



Yeah, that's the same thing as the pin dropping down in the FiveseveN, only FN also went a extra step and included the slide position into it, not just trigger.

Because this isn't a switch or latch, it's not a safety. If the trigger is pulled the gun still goes off, so it's more a precaution or misfiring prevention system than a safety like the handgrip or switch.



			
				ceacar99 said:
			
		

> um..... *cough*.... MOST weapons in the us aren't registered... the paper part of the process rather is doing the background check and stating that you were sold a gun at some point. farther then that, well its not done. there are some advantages of registering every serialized firearm but it could turn into a big mess too. and oh ya, if i make a firearm myself unless i intend to transfer ownership i dont have to stamp a serial number on it.


yeah, I know. I'm just saying they should register them with your name, just because of tracking. It's not a bad thing, and it's not difficult, unless you're paranoid that they won't allow you to purchase for some reason, or they'll take them away from only you for no reason.



			
				ceacar99 said:
			
		

> what? was it a hangfire?



I'm not sure, it happened when I wasn't really paying attention, it's the only time I've even had to actually use my ambulance training to any extent of saving a life, and will probably be the last I hope. It's pretty gruesome and I wasn't there long afterward for an inspection, other than a statement I don't know what happened to this person afterward or how it was caused (I don't watch the news, or didn't much back then).

I'd guess the round got struck when he snapped the slide forward, maybe something was blocking it and it just exploding with nowhere to go. He did check the chamber by pulling the slide back, I remember that perfectly.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 21, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> How about you don't just toss links all over the place, and instead quote the part in the link you wish for me to focus my attention on. Also, use something a bit more... less biased than GUNLAWS.COM, please.



How about you read the WHOLE LINK?  That's why I provide the link, and not just a quote.  "Sorry" that GUNLAWS.COM doesn't meet your "approval"... guess a place that uses actual, factual information just isn't good enough.  However:

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jul/28/local/me-pasadena28

http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?renderforprint=1&id=916&wit_id=2617

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/5852... probably not up to your standards.

http://safestate.org/index.cfm?navID=12

http://www.ncjrs.gov/yviolence/youthgangs.html

That enough for you?  Should keep you busy for a while...




NewfDraggie said:


> OK, that's enough. *YOU* don't deserve to own a weapon, ever. Never able to fire, own, operate, or even clean one. Only because you think the government will take away your weapons if you have them registered. There's a reason for registering, so they can trace the striations on the bullets back to you when you murder 10 people. So they can monitor how many you own, and what types you own. NOT so they can take them away for no reason. GROW up, LEARN something, STOP being so PARANOID. People this paranoid shouldn't own a firearm or be allowed to touch them. End of story.



http://attrition.org/technical/firearms/open_defiance.html... again, perhaps not to your liking, but it is informative.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=4... this has relevance for you, Newf, since you live in Canada.

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/registration_article/registration.html

http://www.jpfo.org/common-sense/commonsense08.htm

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/slippery.htm... long, but informative.

http://www.wikiprotest.com/index.php?title=Gun_Control... thought I'd throw in a little Wiki...

http://www.haciendapub.com/gunpage11.html

Well, I could list more, but this is enough homework...




NewfDraggie said:


> Your...privacy is...secure? *Paranoia*, read above.



*See Above Links*




NewfDraggie said:


> I love how you're like "I'm so good I can keep it in my pocket!". Yeah, lets see you handle a firing out of battery then, thank you............ Just because you haven't had a accidental anything in your long life of operating something you have little training in and massive paranoia and possession issues over, you must of forgot about that one subject. You know, handling a firearm. You don't just shove it into your pocket, that can get you killed or injured even with the safety on.
> 
> I've never had a weapon misfire or malfunction, ever in my life. That doesn't mean I believe it can't happen. I've watched somebody (probably) die at a range from a misfire and mischamber at the same time. This person who had a handgun with 15+1 rounds, firing off the 15 and checking the chamber for the final round, that round detonating and pieces of the firearm, mostly the slide, hitting him in the face and neck. Me and three other people rushed to his aid because I have Ambulance First Aid, we kept him alive until a ambulance arrived and took him away. This was at a range, with four people trained able to rush to his side instantly. Lets see you walking down the road and this happening to you.
> 
> tl;dr: A holster is fine.



Excuse me, Newf?  Didn't I just tell you that I have a safety cert REQUIRED BY THE LAW in order for me to even purchase a gun?  Excuse me, but the very fact I _have_ a long lifetime _experience_ handling firearms, without incident, indicates that I have quite a bit of training... all the training I need to be safe in my handling habits, all the knowledge I need to understand the dynamics involved.  All I lack is _professional_ training... but, since my work has never involved the professional use of firearms, everything I've learned... I've learned by means of personal study.  Yes, it is possible for me to slip up, but I take my firearm handling seriously, and I follow the safety rules, so any risk is minimal.  Also, yes, a weapons misfire or malfunction could happen, and I have had issues, but I know the malf drills, and I know what to do in case of a misfire.  Since I don't know all the facts, and since I wasn't there at the time, the person you saw killed (?) could indeed have suffered some freak misfire... but I suspect he didn't know how to handle a misfire, and made the mistake of trying to clear his weapon by unlocking the breach... a major mistake.  However, I wasn't there, so I can't really say.  Still, such incidents are rare, thank goodness.  As for me?  If I'm walking down the road, it won't happen to me... guns don't just "go off" by themselves.  They only go off if the trigger is pulled.

And, yes, a holster is fine...


Oh, thought you might like to learn about my Savage 1907:

http://www.vintagepistols.com/1907/index.html


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 22, 2009)

I've played games all my life, does that mean I have training in it? No. There's a difference between self taught, training, and knowing exactly what a random variable will do. Sorry, but again you have no idea how to link a source of information, you don't throw out 10 links with 70% being completely pro-gun sites, and a few actual government sites. I have -no- idea what I'm looking for in these sites, you have to tell me, or quote to me what you find on these sites that you think has relevance to what's being discussed, not throw a thousand links at me randomly, tell me to read them, and not tell me what to take from them. I can -easily- Google anti-gun sites, and probably get more link than you can of pro-gun.

Seriously, do -not- use sites to argue, argue and then quote a source for the information. This isn't a situation where an external source, links like the NRA for example, will argue for you. You don't give "homework" as you put it, but you place your argument onto the table, not just copy+pastas, either. Then you back up said argument with a source for the information where people can confirm what you're saying is true with the reliable source you linked.

Again, thinking a gun can't go off by itself is -way- off, thinking just because you have experience with them makes you invulnerable to *firing out of battery*, no it doesn't. AT ALL. If you have so much experience, you should know what that means.


----------



## makmakmob (Jan 22, 2009)

> On top of that, how would the UK defend themselves against a large army such as Russia or China?



Nukes. That's why it hasn't happened yet. Besides, isn't that what the army's for?


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 22, 2009)

makmakmob said:


> Nukes. That's why it hasn't happened yet. Besides, isn't that what the army's for?



Exactly, and they have NATO as well every other nation under the queen to come to their aid. And the UN will assist, don't forget the USA will want to hop onto the bandwagon of war no sweat.


----------



## Bambi (Jan 22, 2009)

> Therefore, any registration or licensing of gun owners is unacceptable. I'd rather see the registration and marking of criminals: People kill people, not guns.


 
That's the problem -- the state would rather everyone register their weapons due to the danger of a non-registered but legal gun owner still having the potential to commit a crime (with his firearm) -- and without a weapon of personal defense (a handgun for example) being legally documented in the states gun ownership records, it makes it harder for the state officials and members of law enforcement to track specific individuals who may have violated the law using their firearms.

For example, if there is a legal purchase for a .22 Ruger Handgun (being general, non-specific) but no legal registry for that weapon in the states database, a person owning that weapon could open fire on someone, kill them, and possibly get away with it. How would they get away with it? 

Well who could the state go after first? If noone is in the states database as a legal, .22 Ruger owner, and they don't have access to any names, phone numbers, and addresses, then they similarly won't know who owns which gun and when. In effect, this will put state officials on a wild, and undecisive goose chase for anyone owning a .22 calibre firearm; and unless other non-specific details come together that lead to a suspect and his or her eventual prosecution, than the original shooter will still be at large.

It would be at this point, that the police can only hope for survelliance equipment to capture someone brandishing or using a .22 calibre firearm illegally, or that a witness comes forward with valuable information concerning the previous crime.

Registration isn't about facism -- but if the right valves were opened, we could see an abuse of policy. However, since that is not the case, firearms owners should not be afraid of registering their weapons if they also believe in preventing crime amungst illegal and legal gun "owners" alike.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 22, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I've played games all my life, does that mean I have training in it? No. There's a difference between self taught, training, and knowing exactly what a random variable will do. Sorry, but again you have no idea how to link a source of information, you don't throw out 10 links with 70% being completely pro-gun sites, and a few actual government sites. I have -no- idea what I'm looking for in these sites, you have to tell me, or quote to me what you find on these sites that you think has relevance to what's being discussed, not throw a thousand links at me randomly, tell me to read them, and not tell me what to take from them. I can -easily- Google anti-gun sites, and probably get more link than you can of pro-gun.
> 
> Seriously, do -not- use sites to argue, argue and then quote a source for the information. This isn't a situation where an external source, links like the NRA for example, will argue for you. You don't give "homework" as you put it, but you place your argument onto the table, not just copy+pastas, either. Then you back up said argument with a source for the information where people can confirm what you're saying is true with *the reliable source[b/] you linked.
> 
> Again, thinking a gun can't go off by itself is -way- off, thinking just because you have experience with them makes you invulnerable to firing out of battery, no it doesn't. AT ALL. If you have so much experience, you should know what that means.*


*

No one knows what a RANDOM variable will do... no one!  Experience and training helps minimize the variables.  Oh, self taught or professionally trained, experience is what matters... and I have nearly 30 years experience, Newf.  I read, I study, and I follow the safety guidelines, so I minimize the risk of "accidents".

I also note another problem.  Who determines what a reliable source is?  If I give acurate, truthfull, proveable information from a pro-gun site, if it doesn't agree with your views, you will simply call it biased, and ignore whatever I've quoted out of it.  Therefore, I leave it up to you to do the research... to read ALL the material, and confirm whether it is true.  Funny, though, how you pull 70% out of the air, yet say only "a few actual government sites".  You meant to say 30% on that point, didn't you?  That's the problem with the anti-gun crowd, they ignore provable facts from a pro-gun source, yet will believe pure fabricated fiction on an anti-gun site.  So, do your own work... no freebies!  Read ALL the material, learn what is true and what is false, and make your determination without bias.  All the links I've provided have been in response to the words of others, so all you need it to look at the quote above, read the material, and learn.

No... a gun can't "go off" by itself.  Put a loaded gun on a table, and it will stay there till it rusts away.  The only time a gun can "go off" is when a human hand is messing with it.  Just like any other tool...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-battery

http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/thread?id=795409... a thread discussion of a possible out-of-battery incident.  Or not....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rjwonof61_s... for your information, sear disconnects are present on more guns than the Colt 1911.




Bambi said:



			That's the problem -- the state would rather everyone register their weapons due to the danger of a non-registered but legal gun owner still having the potential to commit a crime (with his firearm) -- and without a weapon of personal defense (a handgun for example) being legally documented in the states gun ownership records, it makes it harder for the state officials and members of law enforcement to track specific individuals who may have violated the law using their firearms.

For example, if there is a legal purchase for a .22 Ruger Handgun (being general, non-specific) but no legal registry for that weapon in the states database, a person owning that weapon could open fire on someone, kill them, and possibly get away with it. How would they get away with it? 

Well who could the state go after first? If noone is in the states database as a legal, .22 Ruger owner, and they don't have access to any names, phone numbers, and addresses, then they similarly won't know who owns which gun and when. In effect, this will put state officials on a wild, and undecisive goose chase for anyone owning a .22 calibre firearm; and unless other non-specific details come together that lead to a suspect and his or her eventual prosecution, than the original shooter will still be at large.

It would be at this point, that the police can only hope for survelliance equipment to capture someone brandishing or using a .22 calibre firearm illegally, or that a witness comes forward with valuable information concerning the previous crime.

Registration isn't about facism -- but if the right valves were opened, we could see an abuse of policy. However, since that is not the case, firearms owners should not be afraid of registering their weapons if they also believe in preventing crime amungst illegal and legal gun "owners" alike.
		
Click to expand...


Bambi, the problem is, I have a conundrum.  Do we mark the law-abiding citizen as a possible criminal, and use resources better spent on police investigations into crime to monitor the innocent, or do we follow the law that it is "Innocent Till Proven Guilty"...?  You see, I have this problem being marked as a future criminal, simply because I use my Right to Keep and Bear Arms.  That is a stigma I should not have to stand for... especially from people who, in the very next breath, might demand that I show tolerance for Gay Rights... or whatever other personal rights issue is presently on the menu.  This is a double standard:  I shouldn't have to tolerate being marked with a legal stigma, simply because I own a gun, any more than a homosexual should tolerate the social stigma of prejudice, simply because they are gay.  I also note you seem to have avoided the links I provided, just like Newf.  REGISTRATION LEADS TO CONFISCATION.  That is the only ligitimate reason for registering arms, rather than violent criminals.  Oh, and for your information:

http://wheelgun.blogspot.com/2005/12/legal-gun-ownership-and-youth-crime.html

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=3431

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/crime/gun-violence/ownership.htm

http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/Centers/Miscelaneous/opinioneditorials/06_barnes_guncontrol.html

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

http://www.saf.org/default.asp?p=gunrights_faq... very informative on the issues under discussion in this thread.  Though I expect most to dismiss it as biased....

http://www.bigeye.com/gunownership.htm... good material here, as well.

Freedom always entails risk... I should not be forced to give up my Rights and Freedoms for a false sense of security.  I should not be marked a criminal, simply because I want to own a gun.  The police need to be allowed to do their jobs, and they need the money wasted on gun control efforts in their pockets, so they can have the resources they need to do their jobs... Protect And Serve, that's what they do.  But when they can't do so, then I falls upon me to defend myself... to protect and serve my own defensive needs in the fight against crime.  Another phrase:  "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."  Remember that...*


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 22, 2009)

Honestly, Rose had to look up what out of battery was, he didn't even know after 30 years experience and still believes that training can stop it from occurring. That's experience! har.

I also said walking around with it in your pocket can have it go off, and I would be so inclined to say with a handgun in your hands, I would run away as fast as possible from your location, just because I would never trust somebody like you with a firearm, ever.

He also tosses links left and right without meaning, at all. Flooding with paranoia, I hope that this type of person is forced to only own one gun, ever, and have that one gun registered. Just to really get on his nerves.

Like I said, this isn't homework. Please for the love of god, don't just spew out a pile of links and bullshit: 





> So, do your own work... no freebies! Read ALL the material


 Har.

Basically it's like: "HERE, this relates somehow *WALL OF TEXT LINK*, and this one here might interest you because you're in Canada *WALL OF TEXT LINK* and this talks about a possible out of battery incident *WALL-O-TEXT*, OH and this has good material! *WALL OF TEXT, AGAIN*. Now, read all of them, fully, or else you don't know anything or get what I'm saying."

Your -entire- argument is that you think people should be allowed to carry arms that aren't properly recorded, and regulated, and these people should be able to walk around with them, with pure experience as their training.

No. You're wrong, I'm sorry. This isn't an opinion, you're not thinking modern society, you're thinking revolutionary days.
If the government wants to take away every weapon you own, they can, they should, and they will. If they have good reason, ie. people like yourself, they should have your weapons registered, and if they feel they need to take them away, they have good reason, they won't do it for no reason at all.

If you think a government should fear its citizens, you're wrong. They don't because no matter how many unregistered weapons you own, they have more and more powerful, and better trained soldiers to boot. You attempting to take arms against them will have you branded as a traitor and executed anyway. Even with a small army, you'll need a damn large, intelligent, well trained one. Not going to happen, ever. Stop thinking revolutionary, think modern. *Paranoid*.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 22, 2009)

> Because this isn't a switch or latch, it's not a safety. If the trigger is pulled the gun still goes off, so it's more a precaution or misfiring prevention system than a safety like the handgrip or switch.



depends on how you look at a safety. i think of a safety as a device that prevents the weapon from going off on mistake. as stated before NOTHING should be touching that trigger unless you intend to shoot that weapon. unless you removed the trigger guard so you can shoot with a glove i cannot honestly think of a intelligent situation where something would be yanking on that trigger without you actually intending to fire. further, the firing pin block enhances the safety of the first safety. even though the first safety is SUPPOSED to prevent the hammer from cocking stupid things can happen(i've had to replace a lot of safeties and decocking levers in my time....) and even though the striker is turned out of possition to hit the firing pin its potential that a hammer drop or a sudden large movement(see dropping the damn weapon) could make it fire if it didnt have the firing pin block. fulminate is some of the most unstable explosive the world has ever seen and the only thing really keepin that primer from goin off is the semi strength of a piece of metal slightly thicker then tin foil. you can see how sometimes even a lil tap from a firing pin can make it go off. but ya point is, my opinion is that just because you dont have to flick an extra switch to operate the weapon doesnt mean its a safety, it still prevents it from going off on mistake.

take this all from someone who fixes firearms for a living. 



> yeah, I know. I'm just saying they should register them with your name, just because of tracking. It's not a bad thing, and it's not difficult, unless you're paranoid that they won't allow you to purchase for some reason, or they'll take them away from only you for no reason.



nope, its the question of benefit gained through effort. we'd have to create another branch of bureaucracy similar in massive size as the department of homeland defense and for what? what does it really accomplish? so the government can say "that guy there has 16 guns"? i mean if the weapon gets stolen and used in crime(as so many do) it doesnt really actually do any good for the government to have previous records of its serial number. its not like that actually tells where the weapon is or who it just robbed... all it does is comfort PARANOIA cases like yourself into thinking that the government actually knows where all the arms are and has a bead on which one is going to be used in the next crime, even though even with complete registration that wouldnt be true.... so quite likely billions(the way the government pays high prices it'l be billions) so the state can think its heavily monitoring the traffic of arms in the country even though its incapible of doing even that. ya, real bright idea.....



> I'd guess the round got struck when he snapped the slide forward, maybe something was blocking it and it just exploding with nowhere to go. He did check the chamber by pulling the slide back, I remember that perfectly.



prolly hangfire. just take that as a lesson that next time you shoot and you have a failure to fire wait a couple seconds to see if the round goes off BEFORE charging the weapon or clearing it.


----------



## Kesslan (Jan 22, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> But my argument isn't you shouldn't be allowed to own a handgun, it's just not everyone should be able to. You should have to pass a test to be able to use non-semi automatic weapons, such as pump actions and bolt actions, a different test afterwards for semi-auto weapons such as handguns and rifles, and again another test to have these weapons on your person while in public. All of these require registration, too. Just because it's safer, it's not that hard, and means people can defend themselves and not be a moron with a handgun in his pocket.


 
I'm just currious Newf, since your Canadian as well. I take it your wanting to see that largley in the US? Because most of what you've described is allready required by Canadian law and has been for years.

To own a firearm at all you must have a lisence, to get that lisence you must pass both a written and practical test. The practical test requires you to prove you can safely handle a firearm, properly identify ammunition by type and what gun it goes into, as well as safely handle, load and accurately fire a loaded and live firearm.

And it comes in three flavours. Only two of which are normally avialable. Non Restricted (Rifles and Shotguns) and Restricted (Firearms and certain rifles and the like). With a sort of tacked on addition for crossbows. It's odd my PAL states I can own crossbows too, but I've never even handled one. 

Then of course there's a prohibited lisence, but thats usually only something people who allready own automatic weapons have. Though it is still posisble to get under very very strict regulations. Such as proven 'need' as part of 'private security' or something like that. Securitas for example has guards that have automatic weapons. Though none that I'm aware of in Securitas Canada itself. They are however a private security firm found world wide. And you technically get one for at least the use of such weapons if your a member of the military or police I suppose.

And then of course there's collectors lisences.


----------



## Tycho (Jan 22, 2009)

Nylak said:


> Yeah, even if I wanted to have it available for defense purposes, I couldn't.  I have ferrets, and they can both open my drawers and take off the safety of my gun, so...bad idea all over the place.



I just had humorous thoughts of your ferrets robbing a store with a handgun you had purchased for self-defense.  They've already got bandit masks, sorta.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 22, 2009)

> In fact, I will dare you to shoot a SSA (Single Action Army) without burning your hands, and hitting a target easier than a rifle, faster.



just had to pick one of the crappiest guns around huh? just for the record colt wasn't even that great of a gun maker(though he did have the great idea of a revolver) he was a FANTASTIC salesman. he even tried selling his pistols at his own brother's murder trial(murdered by an axe) by having a demonstration that no bladed weapon could compete with a colt firearm, lol. 

and ya i'll take that challenge. 5 round load in the gun(im a paranoia case that way, dont like the idea of the hammer resting on a round), drawing from a holster right hand, clapping my left hand on mid draw while cocking hammer and firing when the weapon gets up. might take my slow deliberate ass .7-1.0 seconds from the moment my right hand touches the hilt of the weapon. actually firing double action would take me about as long because again im slow and deliberate and would likely draw back the trigger perfectly to ensure my shot hits(heeding wyat urp's advice that one good shot is better then the fastest wild shots in the world). 

fact is that the rifle was made for LONG RANGE combat. compared to a pistol is slow and unwieldy. its cartridge even(save for "full rifles" that use intermediate cartridges like the .223) is made for long range and actually doesnt kill as easily as close range as pistol and intermediate cartridges. its bigger and slow to maneuver as well as having difficulty operating inside of a building such as your own home. look, if a full fucking rifle were so capable in every environment there wouldnt be call for weapons like the m4 and folding stock "snub nose" rifles like the ak74u. its just the plain facts of the matter that the shorter the weapon the easier it is to use in a closer situation. quicker to draw, quicker to aim, and less cumbersome. its for those very reasons that for the past 50 years weapons have been aiming at getting lighter and lighter and shorter and shorter. it was finally realized by the military establishment that 1000 yard shots aren't common in combat amongst the average "grunt" and the civilians as they had known durring the 1800's still know that such long range shots are both un necessary in self defense and not going to happen. thus the carbines, thus the pistols. so ya, at a 10 or 20 yard target i'll take your challenge and im a pretty lousy shot too.


----------



## BigPuppy_Stuart (Jan 22, 2009)

Load_Blown said:


> guns are for pussies



Sometimes mountain lions come into the areas right outside of town and once into town.
I guess wanting something to defend myself against a predatory mass of teeth and claws makes me a pussy.


----------



## Kesslan (Jan 22, 2009)

BigPuppy_Stuart said:


> Sometimes mountain lions come into the areas right outside of town and once into town.
> I guess wanting something to defend myself against a predatory mass of teeth and claws makes me a pussy.


 

To defend oneself against attacks from wildlife is definately a necessity in some places. A friend of mine used to do IT support/setup for an ISP out on an indian reseve in northern Alberta. On average 4-6 peopl would be killed by wild animals year up there. And as it was, the guy he was replacing was stuck up in one of the satelite relay towers while working on it because a pack of wolves showed up and camped out waiting for him to get down. FOrtunately some one else that lived out that way noticed his problem and scarted them off after chasing them around with his truck for a little while.

After that the company made it mandatory for all their workers to get their PALs and issued rifles to everyone in such areas.

But I dont think the argument is against such things, I think most, if not all the people here, are speaking specifically in regards to home defence against other people. Not wild animals.


----------



## Irreverent (Jan 22, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> But my argument isn't you shouldn't be allowed to own a handgun, it's just not everyone should be able to. You should have to pass a test to be able to use non-semi automatic weapons, such as pump actions and bolt actions, a different test afterwards for semi-auto weapons such as handguns and rifles, and again another test to have these weapons on your person while in public.



I'm actually OK with this.  We license doctors, pilots, engineer's, pharmacists, bus drivers, restaurants, dog owners......the list is endless really.  I teach the CSSA club level safety course, I'm ok with licencing owners for proficiency.  But that's where it ends.



> All of these require registration, too. .



Registration means confiscation.  Its happened about a dozen times already in Canada since 1937.

As a law abiding citizen that has had legally bought, stored and registered firearms confiscated by the Liberals without compensation, I'm not so big on the registration thing.  10's of thousands of law abiding gun owning Canadian citizens lost guns back in '93, 94, and 96.  Simply because the guns looked evil.  They took the SPAZ 12's, but left the Remington 1187's behind.  Black plastic stocks...bad.  Polished walnut....good.  Even to-day, the AR15 is restricted, but the Sigarms 550, RobArms 96 and Armalite 180b are non-restricted.  Go figure.  Bill C-68 banned guns by name, not by function or feature, unlike the so-called "assault weapons ban" in the US.  At least that peice of crap legislation sunsetted.

The Liberals, NDP, Greens and the Bloc have all stated that they will ban, and confiscate registered handguns and semi-automatic long guns if they form a government.  Its not paranoia when they *are* out to get you.  The weight of history is on my side of the argument.

45 days after the Harper government falls (whenever it falls) the new Justice Minister will sign an Order In Council (no need for an inconvenient vote in the House) and the confiscations will begin.  Been there, done that before.  

This time, I applied for a green-card.


----------



## Kesslan (Jan 22, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> As a law abiding citizen that has had legally bought, stored and registered firearms confiscated by the Liberals without compensation, I'm not so big on the registration thing. 10's of thousands of law abiding gun owning Canadian citizens lost guns back in '93, 94, and 96. Simply because the guns looked evil.


 
This particular piece reminds me of when they first put in the gun registry. Some guy who had a firearms collection worth over something like $2 million dollars was given like.. no time at all to register every single one of his collected firearms. In the end he could do nothing. The government took all those guns, and destroyed them. Most of those pieces were so old they pretty much deserved to be in a museum.

He was not compensated in any way, shape, or form. 

The NDP, Green party and Liberals all want to ban guns based uppon apperances, and constnatly mix up 'assault weapon' with anything that has the 'apperance' of one rather than actually being what is defined as an assault weapon. The actual item having been probited in the 1970's.

And why do they want to do this? Because it will clearly keep us safe from all the horrible black market handguns, SMGs, grenades and assault rifles smuggled in illegally.

A few months ago, I dont recall if it was Ottawa or Toronto they sized some massive cache of illegal firearms, all of which were prohibited. SMGs, Assault rifles possibly even a machine gun or two. I've been unable to find the artcile but I know it ran in the Ottawa Citizen at one point.

The problem with Canadian gun law, is that there is not an ounce of common sense applied to it.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 22, 2009)

parties that preach "for the common good" rarely push things in that direction. so far i have yet to see ONE positive reason for gun registration. it does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for the citizens and only really empowers the government's ability to destroy arms for often silly paranoid reasons. 

so ya, whoever is out there reading this and is pro gun registration tell me exactly what we get out of it. exactly what good will it do. it wont stop violent crimes with them, it wont do much to control their traffic and it wont aid in the recovery of stolen arms. its just a big fucking waste of money unless you want to rip arms out of the hands of your own people.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 22, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Honestly, Rose had to look up what out of battery was, he didn't even know after 30 years experience and still believes that training can stop it from occurring. That's experience! har.
> 
> I also said walking around with it in your pocket can have it go off, and I would be so inclined to say with a handgun in your hands, I would run away as fast as possible from your location, just because I would never trust somebody like you with a firearm, ever.
> 
> ...



Newf, you need to _think_, period.

No, I didn't have to look it up... but I did anyway, FOR YOUR BENEFIT.  Also, you apparently failed to note I said *"Experience and training helps minimize the variables."*  I didn't say STOP.

Yes, you did say that.  And I disagreed.  A loaded gun in a pocket will not go off, if all you have in that pocket is the gun, and if you have that gun secured in a proper pocket holster, so the trigger is protected.  Even if not, the gun cannot go off unless any and all safety mechanisms are disabled, and the trigger is pulled.  Or the trigger has been messed with, resulting in a "hair trigger" condition.  As for you running away?  Well, if you were the one with the gun, I'd be more inclined to take it away from you, so you don't hurt yourself or others.  But that's just me....

Yes, I provided quite a few links, but they were all relevant to the subject under discussion, and to the points made.  Just because you don't like reading, that isn't my fault.  Do your own homework, or fail the class.  Well, since you already live where the Government leads you around on a leash, I guess I shouldn't expect a slave to know any better.

And, yes, this is homework... unless you're not on your home computer, but somewhere else.




NewfDraggie said:


> Har.
> 
> Basically it's like: "HERE, this relates somehow *WALL OF TEXT LINK*, and this one here might interest you because you're in Canada *WALL OF TEXT LINK* and this talks about a possible out of battery incident *WALL-O-TEXT*, OH and this has good material! *WALL OF TEXT, AGAIN*. Now, read all of them, fully, or else you don't know anything or get what I'm saying."
> 
> ...



As ceacar99 has mentioned, "it's the question of benefit gained through effort."  You, Newf, seem to be unwilling to put our the effort.  Therefore, you are failing to benefit.  Yes, I've changed the intended context of those words, but then, I like playing with words in my writing... especially when it comes to making a point.

Yes, people should be allowed to carry arms, WITHOUT THE NEED FOR GOVERNMENTS APPROVAL.  You see, in America, we have this document called The Constitution, and in that Constitution, we have a Bill of Rights... the first Ten Amendments.  The second of those Ten Amendments makes clear to the Goverment that the People's Right To Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.  Here you go, a small link, so you know what the word "infringed" means:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringed

Now that we have that taken care of (yeah, sure), we have to take care of this belief you have that the Government is all-powerful, and that the People have no Voice.  See, the problem is, you didn't do your homework.  So:

http://wmugop.blogspot.com/2008/04/registration-leads-to-confiscation.html... found this, use it as a refresher.

http://www.ravnwood.com/archives/004520.php... this, too.




> Wednesday, December 7, 2005
> [David Kopel, December 7, 2005 at 11:46pm] Trackbacks
> Canadian Government to Ban Handguns: Facing elections in late January, due to a no-confidence vote in Parliament that resulted from a corruption scandal, Canada's ruling Liberal party will announce a handgun ban on Thursday. All legally-owned handguns have been registered in Canada since the 1930s.
> 
> ...



Okay, you wanted a quote, you got one.

More?  Fine:



> More Hypocricy from Gun Controllers
> by Ari Armstrong, March 24, 2000
> 
> This article was updated April 2, 2000 to include Dick Sugg's reply and additional comments by Ari Armstrong. That material follows the main article.
> ...


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 22, 2009)

This caught my interest:  http://www.rense.com/general67/rgis.htm

And still more:



> GUN CONTROL AND PATTERNS OF GENOCIDE
> 
> by Alan W. Bock in Orange County Register, 9-11-94
> 
> ...



http://www.bigeye.com/guns.htm

Aaand more:



> From Berlin on January 6th the German official radio broadcast--"The German military commander for Belgium and Northern France announced yesterday that the population would be given a last opportunity to surrender firearms without penalty up to January 20th and after that date anyone found in possession of arms would be executed."
> 
> So the Nazi invaders set a deadline similar to that announced months ago in Czecho-Slovakia, in Poland, in Norway, in Romania, in Yugo-Slavia, in Greece.
> 
> ...



http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/registration_article/registration.html

Further:

http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/GCA_68.htm

Futher still:

http://www.stopthenorthamericanunion.com/videos/UntoldStoryGunConfiscation.html... this happened in America.

I could give you more, but this post is long enough... for now.




BigPuppy_Stuart said:


> Sometimes mountain lions come into the areas right outside of town and once into town.
> I guess wanting something to defend myself against a predatory mass of teeth and claws makes me a pussy.



Wouldn't the cat be the real pussy in this scenario?


----------



## Kesslan (Jan 22, 2009)

I wonder if there is a Common Sense Party of Canada or some similar body to vote for....

If not, we should really make one. The Liberals are corrupt, the Conservatives are power hungry/crazy, the NDP are.. the NDP. The Green party has some good ideas on the enviromental side, but they seem to be rather lacking in common sense just about everywhere else... The Block Quebeqois are a bunch of seperatists....

And I don tconsider some of the smaller parties such as the Marijuana Party, Communist Party, or I belive the Beaver party (or was it elephant Party?) are terribly good choices. The latter because their sole promise is to litterally do nothing 

What I'd personally love to see is a government party that aims for -reasonable- gun laws (Mandatory training for (Continued) ownership etc, kinda like a drivers lisence, but for guns. The graded version is a good idea too I think), actually gives a crap about the environment and especialy will take the impact to the North and the clearing of ice in the North-West/North-East passages in the Canadian artic seriously. And will actually give our military the kind of budget it needs to properly do the job(s) assigned to it (Such as.. you know actually replacing the aircraft that have been litterally falling out of the sky since the Liberals were in majority)


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 22, 2009)

Found this PDF with many quotes, something I'd been looking for:

http://www.joebrower.com/RKBA/RKBA_FILES/QUOTES/Quotes_from_the_Enemy.pdf


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 22, 2009)

ceacar99 said:
			
		

> depends on how you look at a safety.


No it doesn't, it's safer, but not a safety. You can't turn it off.



			
				ceacar99 said:
			
		

> nope, its the question of benefit gained through effort.


Easier to track firearms, make sure people aren't getting an armys amount, illegal ones, etc, also it will make solving firearm related crimes MUCH easier. I'd say in a modern 1st world society, any of those far exceeds the extra few minuets to register your weapons. Most Americans, and yes I'm damn serious, can't wait a few days for a background check on a firearm because they want it now. Impatience runs ramped, it wouldn't take as much effort you're saying it would.



			
				ceacar99 said:
			
		

> prolly hangfire. just take that as a lesson that next time you shoot and you have a failure to fire wait a couple seconds to see if the round goes off BEFORE charging the weapon or clearing it.


Clearly it wasn't me, so why you're telling me this and not the other guy is beyond me, as well I've never heard of a fuse on a round so I have no idea how hitting it will magically crate one, never seen a hangfire on a handgun or rifle round nor heard of one. Like I said it went off the second he snapped the slide forward.



			
				ceacar99 said:
			
		

> just had to pick one of the crappiest guns around huh? just for the record colt wasn't even that great of a gun maker(though he did have the great idea of a revolver) he was a FANTASTIC salesman. he even tried selling his pistols at his own brother's murder trial(murdered by an axe) by having a demonstration that no bladed weapon could compete with a colt firearm, lol.
> 
> and ya i'll take that challenge. 5 round load in the gun(im a paranoia case that way, dont like the idea of the hammer resting on a round), drawing from a holster right hand, clapping my left hand on mid draw while cocking hammer and firing when the weapon gets up. might take my slow deliberate ass .7-1.0 seconds from the moment my right hand touches the hilt of the weapon. actually firing double action would take me about as long because again im slow and deliberate and would likely draw back the trigger perfectly to ensure my shot hits(heeding wyat urp's advice that one good shot is better then the fastest wild shots in the world).


What are you talking about? Did you even bother to continue reading? I also said fire it like that guy with 18 world records, go ahead. Do the challenge now that you've already accepted it. If you fail, give me the cash. This is where reading would come in handy, y'know?

Also, the SSA was the best handgun at the time, and even today is one of the best of all time; somebody does hold 18 world records for shooting firearms, and he got them all with a SSA.




			
				Irreverent said:
			
		

> Registration means confiscation.  Its happened about a dozen times already in Canada since 1937.
> 
> As a law abiding citizen that has had legally bought, stored and registered firearms confiscated by the Liberals without compensation, I'm not so big on the registration thing.  10's of thousands of law abiding gun owning Canadian citizens lost guns back in '93, 94, and 96.  Simply because the guns looked evil.  They took the SPAZ 12's, but left the Remington 1187's behind.  Black plastic stocks...bad.  Polished walnut....good.  Even to-day, the AR15 is restricted, but the Sigarms 550, RobArms 96 and Armalite 180b are non-restricted.  Go figure.  Bill C-68 banned guns by name, not by function or feature, unlike the so-called "assault weapons ban" in the US.  At least that peice of crap legislation sunsetted.
> 
> ...


Ok, what happens then if they catch you with you unregistered weapons, the ones they want to take away? You know, you're shooting them and people call the cops on you, you're at a range and they realize they're not registered,etc. Then you go to jail and get them taken away, yay for breaking order!


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 22, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> Newf, you need to _think_, period.


I call you paranoid, you call me a moron. You're a real slice of asshole. Paranoia is clearly present, and clearly I'm thinking.



			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> No, I didn't have to look it up... but I did anyway, FOR YOUR BENEFIT.  Also, you apparently failed to note I said *"Experience and training helps minimize the variables."*  I didn't say STOP.


There was no need, I know what it is, and no matter how trained you are it can still happen with certain weapons, they mean if you don't maintain them properly becuase the way you fire it won't change anything.



			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> Yes, you did say that.  And I disagreed.  A loaded gun in a pocket will not go off, if all you have in that pocket is the gun, and if you have that gun secured in a proper pocket holster, so the trigger is protected.  Even if not, the gun cannot go off unless any and all safety mechanisms are disabled, and the trigger is pulled.  Or the trigger has been messed with, resulting in a "hair trigger" condition.  As for you running away?  Well, if you were the one with the gun, I'd be more inclined to take it away from you, so you don't hurt yourself or others.  But that's just me....



Now you add a holster into our argument, changing it. Nice job, glad you finally seen what you were saying and decided to correct it. Now that's safe.

I guess you finally thought.

And actually, unlike you I've had a FAC (which is a license to carry, mine is expired so i no longer have one, but I no longer have a weapon either) and did the slight bit of training required for that, as well the test. I also have military training in the use of firearms, I can guarantee me at age 20 right now could shoot just as well or better than yourself, and I've never had an incident myself with any firearm. Does that mean it can't happen? No, but I literally have it minimized as low as possible, I won't even use most weapons unless I inspect them, field strip them, and clean them up a bit myself. Just because of a slight paranoia on my side.



			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> Yes, I provided quite a few links, but they were all relevant to the subject under discussion, and to the points made.  Just because you don't like reading, that isn't my fault.  Do your own homework, or fail the class.  Well, since you already live where the Government leads you around on a leash, I guess I shouldn't expect a slave to know any better.
> 
> And, yes, this is homework... unless you're not on your home computer, but somewhere else.


No, and again you have *no* idea what you're doing, at all. Now instead of proving links you're quoting the entire page with a copy paste, instead of crucial bits.

*This isn't homework, this isn't work at all. This is a discussion, an argument if you will. We are here to talk about a subject, hear other peoples ideas on this subject, and comment back with our own. If you can't contribute anything on your own, but instead refer to walls of text in links or quotes, without simply taking the crucial bits out of the links and using the link as simply a source for the information rather than "homework" for other users, then you need to learn how to debate.*


----------



## Kesslan (Jan 22, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Easier to track firearms, make sure people aren't getting an armys amount, illegal ones, etc, also it will make solving firearm related crimes MUCH easier.


 
Yeah cause the Canadian Gun Registry has clearly done soooo much in reducing firearm related crimes in Canada and preventing illegial weapons peopel are not going to ever register from entering the country.

If your getting an illegal weapon your NOT going to be exactly going down to the police station to tell them "OH hey by the way I just bought a bunch of illegal guns today, jst an FYI incase you ever want to find me after I kill some one."

The gun registery has done jack all for helping to solve gun related crimes in Canada. It has done nothing to affect gun related deaths in Canada. And it sure as HELL has done nothing to prevent the flow of illegially imported and owned firearms in Canada. Of which there are now more than ever before at the last 'official estimates' I heard. 

And so what if some one want's an army's worth of guns? There are people called collectors, and by extension a gun collectors lisence for a reason. Most of the time you can get these pinned/disarmed sure. But like anything in the world of collecting it detracts from the value, and generally negatively impacts the 'look' of the firearm.

I also find it funny, that if i had the bolt for the pre WW1 nitro shell shotgun I have that was long ago turned into a lamp, I would have to register it. Never mind that it has a cracked breach, and if you tried to fire a gun of that era with a modern shell, even without said crack, you'd make the gun likely explode (And this one sure as hell will, even if you can find the aluminum nitro powder shells it's intended to use).

Actually if the Liberals have hteir way they'll probably make it illegal anyway, you know incase I ever try to shoot some one with my lamp.


----------



## Kesslan (Jan 22, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> *This isn't homework, this isn't work at all. This is a discussion, an argument if you will. We are here to talk about a subject, hear other peoples ideas on this subject, and comment back with out own. If you can not contribute anything on your own, but instead refer to walls of text in links or quotes, without simply taking the crucial bits out of the links and using the link as simply a source for the information rather than "homework" for other users, then you need to learn how to debate.*


 
Part of debating, is knowing what the hell your going on about. Also using reference material is a valid method of arguing one's point when said reference material backs up the point you are making. 

All he's done is offered people reference material to look at so they know what their talking about and have a better idea and understanding about what he's talking about.

Where as, I must say, I must seriously question some of your own ideas on certain things. Since you go on about how we need this or that. Now personally, since your Canadian I take that to mean you think Canada needs things like firearms lisences that are graded etc such as we allready covered. When we allready DO. 

I'm currious in the end, where exactly all your firearms experience stems from? You've never, at least that I've seen in this thread, stated such. I've allready given exmaples of my own experience with various firearms. The fact that I hold a restricted firearms permit, etc etc. That hardly makes me an expert, but it at least gives a people an idea of the extent of the sort of background and exposure i've had to firearms in general. Irreverent has allready stated his. I don tthink Roose has in his case, but he clearly does his homework as it were on the matter.

I'm just kinda currious, not for sake of argument, but simple curriosities sake, what yours is.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 23, 2009)

Kesslan said:
			
		

> Part of debating, is knowing what the hell your going on about. Also using reference material is a valid method of arguing one's point when said reference material backs up the point you are making.


Exactly, but he's not doing anything other than posting a ton of links that unless I read fully I won't have any idea how it actually relates, or if it even brings anything new to the table, at all. In a few it went on to talk about nazis. Seriously.



			
				Kesslan said:
			
		

> All he's done is offered people reference material to look at so they know what their talking about and have a better idea and understanding about what he's talking about.


No, he's just tossing out as many links he can find that even relates to his idea of thinking. And after I said why not just take select information in quotes and link the source he then quoted the entire page, several pages.

How many other people on this entire forum have I mentioned this too? Ever? Why him? Because maybe it's wrong!.



			
				Kesslan said:
			
		

> Where as, I must say, I must seriously question some of your own ideas on certain things. Since you go on about how we need this or that. Now personally, since your Canadian I take that to mean you think Canada needs things like firearms lisences that are graded etc such as we allready covered. When we allready DO.



Does it work? Yes. Do we have some of the lowest firearm crime and related death/injury of any 1st world nation in the world? Yes. tell me where my ideas are flawed, thank you.



			
				Kesslan said:
			
		

> I'm currious in the end, where exactly all your firearms experience stems from? You've never, at least that I've seen in this thread, stated such. I've allready given exmaples of my own experience with various firearms. The fact that I hold a restricted firearms permit, etc etc. That hardly makes me an expert, but it at least gives a people an idea of the extent of the sort of background and exposure i've had to firearms in general. Irreverent has allready stated his. I don tthink Roose has in his case, but he clearly does his homework as it were on the matter.
> 
> I'm just kinda currious, not for sake of argument, but simple curriosities sake, what yours is.



I said in this thread already, if you would read. I said military, granted it was only a year, but also Cadets for many years (though I didn't mention that until now). I also said I had FAC, in this thread.

Again, I will say it twice just in case you missed it, Military. Canada Military base in Edmonton, Alberta to be exact. As well several years experience in Cadets being the number one shot in the corps. Like you, I also have the firearms license, though now mine is expired and I simply don't need to get it again because I don't own or operate firearms anymore.

Please learn how to read, and at least use a spellchecker. I know spelling mistakes are an ass, but most browsers come standard with them now, we all make the mistakes.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 23, 2009)

Kesslan said:


> *Part of debating, is knowing what the hell your going on about. Also using reference material is a valid method of arguing one's point when said reference material backs up the point you are making.
> 
> All he's done is offered people reference material to look at so they know what their talking about and have a better idea and understanding about what he's talking about.*
> 
> ...



Thank you, Kesslan.  And Newf?  You still fail.  I quoted all the material I did because it is all relevant and/or helpful and informative.  Just check out the last link I provided, the PDF document.  All those quotes, pointing to the fact that gun registration is one of the first steps to confiscation... even IN AMERICA!  Read, learn... then _you_ can debate without spewing bias.  This is all I'm asking for.  This is why I give you all these links, so you can read and learn facts you show yourself unaware of.  Do.  Your.  Homework.  Or FAIL.

Oh, and see?  I provide the quotes and the links to back them up, the very things you asked for, and you still brushed me off.  I win, you lose....

Oh, by the way:  This is *my* thread, remember?


----------



## Kesslan (Jan 23, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Does it work? Yes. Do we have some of the lowest firearm crime and related death/injury of any 1st world nation in the world? Yes. tell me where my ideas are flawed, thank you.


 
Well, going by Wikipedia at least, were actually 25th when it comes to overall lowest percentage of gun related homicide (Though this does not account for crimes other than homicide). Jumps to 17th for homicides per 100k population. So I'm not quite sure how accurate that is. And by the statistics, it looks like I'd be far safer in other parts of the world such as Singapore, New Zealand, or Poland. Though I'm not certain what their gun laws are.

If you care to check it out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence 

I couldnâ€™t find any statistics without doing a lot more digging around than I cared, but here's an interesting site listing violent crimes (With plenty of gun crimes listed) for Britain, where their totally outlawed:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/ukguns

Yep! Their definitely doing just grrreat! Total ban, no shootings.. right? Ooops. Guess not.

Oh well at least it cuts down on crime!

Not so according to some reports at least
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_153_25/ai_75211996

A sentiment apparently shared by the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1741336.stm




> I said in this thread already, if you would read. I said military, granted it was only a year, but also Cadets for many years (though I didn't mention that until now). I also said I had FAC, in this thread.


 
I do read, and as I said, when I asked the question, that I may have missed it somehow. You know.. since I tend to actually focus more on the discussion at hand in case you haven't noticed. As for having served in the military, cool beans. I can most certainly respect that to say the least as the basis for a solid understanding of firearms in general among other things. I had, as I had said, only asked out of a matter of curiosity because I'd not noticed it. Given how we've all been responding with wall of text responses, both of us included. Things like that can get missed.

As for picking on my spelling *shrug* knock yourself out in that regard. My spelling is, and has always been terrible. As for spell checking, yeah I donâ€™t use it anywhere near as much. Since I'm not picky about spelling, but more the conversation/discussion or what have you going on. To much so at least to care about a few spelling mistakes here and there regardless of who makes them.

But whatever, if youâ€™re going to pick on it anyway, here you go! All nice and spell checked. Shall we pick on my poor grammatical skills next?

Edit:
Here is a far more up to date report from the BBC. Interestingly their crime figgures have been going down steadily, but this apparently, according to one report points out that the falling crime rates apparently have very little to do with their gun control:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7478034.stm

On the whole I'm all for some controls, since well... look at the USA that has some of the least in the world with the most gun deaths. I'm all for controls. But -reasonable- controls. And I do not consider a total ban a reasonable control.

Edit 2:
Actually, that report also brings to mind comedian, Chris Rock's solution. Give everyone a gun, for free. But make the bullets cost $5000.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 23, 2009)

Please Rose, tell me how you're massive quote about the nazies stealing firearms from citezens had to be there, but instead just had to say : The nazies were confiscating firearms so there would be less resistance, there was campaigns to get the civilians their firearms back" *Quote source link here*

But no, that's too simple, instead you post several copy+paste quotes from the source, instead of summarizing it really quickly, then linking the source of the information for people to read more if they wanted to.

Sorry, but you "fail". You do not own this thread, you're the OP, the onyl thing you can do is get it locked, you have no control over who talks or what they bring to the table in any thread, ever.

Grow up, actually learn a thing or two. Stop being a child, calling people morons, or saying people fail, telling people they lose over a topic of discussion, and telling people you're an authority figure and are always right simply because you created the discussion.

You do not give homework, you may wish to look up the definition of the term. You do not expect people to -have- to read everything you post, or they will know nothing. Instead tell them what they should know exactly, summarize a page/pages and quote the source of the information.

Some of your links are quite good, yes. I'm not saying everything you've posted is wrong, just how you're presenting it is. The whole thing about the civilians needing their arms (albeit, old times) to fight off a imposing threat, is quite valid. Just don't expect people to read all of it just to understand what the hell you're talking about. I don't think people come here to FAF to do homework and read 15 pages filled with mostly useless information that could of been summarized in one sentence or paragraph by the poster.


You've already changed one thing of what you were arguing about, placing a hangun in your pocket as not being dangerous. You changed it to placing a handgun in a pocket holster with nothing else in the pocket, as being safe. Now tell me, what kid, or most citizens carrying a firearm around in their pocket are going to have a pocket holster, and if they don't have one of those who's to say their going to have nothing else in those pockets? 

Not saying people with experience like yourself won't, but the average idiot that goes out and gets a handgun not just for protection but because it's "cool". And guarantee if they're not hard to get a lot of morons are going to own them, and a lot are going to carry them around with them probably not even in a holster.


----------



## Kesslan (Jan 23, 2009)

To add abit of humor to this discussion, as it seems to be getting a little too heated. Here's the actual quote from Chris Rock:

*â€œGun control? We need bullet control! I think every bullet should cost 5,000 dollars. Because if a bullet cost five thousand dollar, we wouldn't have any innocent bystander .â€*

Edit: Woops forgot to cover my ass from plagarism: Quote is taken from here: http://thinkexist.com/quotation/gun-control-we-need-bullet-control-i-think-every/347003.html (You can find the video on youtube still I think)

And here are the bullets I would suggest to answer his proposition:
http://www.bulletforge.com/expensive.php

And yes, some of them can infact fire. Though I have no idea why you would want to.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 23, 2009)

Kesslan said:
			
		

> Well, going by Wikipedia at least, were actually 25th when it comes to overall lowest percentage of gun related homicide (Though this does not account for crimes other than homicide). Jumps to 17th for homicides per 100k population. So I'm not quite sure how accurate that is. And by the statistics, it looks like I'd be far safer in other parts of the world such as Singapore, New Zealand, or Poland. Though I'm not certain what their gun laws are.
> 
> I couldnâ€™t find any statistics without doing a lot more digging around than I cared, but here's an interesting site listing violent crimes (With plenty of gun crimes listed) for Britain, where their totally outlawed



Well, those are some interesting links there, but if you've ever watched the movie Bowling for Columbine they discuss in this move (though, I'm not sure how this movie holds up in a argument) about the massive difference between the USA and Canada when it comes to gun violence. 





			
				Kesslan said:
			
		

> I do read, and as I said, when I asked the question, that I may have missed it somehow. You know.. since I tend to actually focus more on the discussion at hand in case you haven't noticed.


Understandable.



			
				Kesslan said:
			
		

> As for having served in the military, cool beans. I can most certainly respect that to say the least as the basis for a solid understanding of firearms in general among other things. I had, as I had said, only asked out of a matter of curiosity because I'd not noticed it. Given how we've all been responding with wall of text responses, both of us included. Things like that can get missed.


Again, understandable.



			
				Kesslan said:
			
		

> As for picking on my spelling *shrug* knock yourself out in that regard. My spelling is, and has always been terrible. As for spell checking, yeah I donâ€™t use it anywhere near as much. Since I'm not picky about spelling, but more the conversation/discussion or what have you going on. To much so at least to care about a few spelling mistakes here and there regardless of who makes them.


Well actually there was a lot, and I said we all make them. It's just easy to fix, and makes your part of the discussion more...valid, where people don't take away credibility because of poor, or seemingly poor education. As I've said, we all do it and you've brought good arguments, with good links to this topic.



			
				Kesslan said:
			
		

> But whatever, if youâ€™re going to pick on it anyway, here you go! All nice and spell checked. Shall we pick on my poor grammatical skills next?


No, we all do that far too much and they don't give you a tool that makes it basically flawless like spelling. I don't really care if your grammar is way off, just as long as it's legible.




			
				Kesslan said:
			
		

> Here is a far more up to date report from the BBC. Interestingly their crime figgures have been going down steadily, but this apparently, according to one report points out that the falling crime rates apparently have very little to do with their gun control:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7478034.stm


Well, I honestly believe it's probably linked, even if it's only slightly. I mean, it can't be just pure coincidence, people will rage out and it will die down.



			
				Kesslan said:
			
		

> On the whole I'm all for some controls, since well... look at the USA that has some of the least in the world with the most gun deaths. I'm all for controls. But -reasonable- controls. And I do not consider a total ban a reasonable control.


Yes, I agree with you there. But that's why I said maybe they should be a tad bit more like Canada, compared to these other countries and statistics you've linked we have more firearms than them, and have firearm owner per-capita less related crimes and deaths than a lot of them. 

Reasonable control is more than fine, even with a ban there would be gun crime, so might as well let people have the ability to get them anyway, but registration should be there I believe, even if others think it's only there so they can take them away, I think i has positives possibilities that outweigh that negative one. 

Also, we would have the proper testing to get a license, yadda yadda yadda, you know, make sure people know at least the basics to use certain weapons, more advanced for the more advanced weapons, and make sure they use holsters when carrying in public. Just be safe and knowledgeable, and there should be a lot less issues without having to remove them completely.





			
				Kesslan said:
			
		

> Edit 2:
> Actually, that report also brings to mind comedian, Chris Rock's solution. Give everyone a gun, for free. But make the bullets cost $5000.


Quoted for epicness and truth.

I personally wouldn't need to fire it, I enjoy cleaning and maintaining a firearm just as much as taking it to the range. though not much beats getting a solid group at 600 meters with others watching. I love firearms myself, but safety has alway come firts, when I was a kid my father had many rifles and a single Colt 1911 clone, he had the ammo locked up very tightly but the rifles wern't and from almost as far as I can remember he taught me abotu them, the dangers and how to hold, operate, clean, strip, etc. When I was about 11 or 12 he got me an air rifle, pelet gun to be exact. At age 12 or so I fired my first .22 and that was with him before I did it in Cadets. After than I fired off many types ranging from 5.56 in cadets to my fathers .306 and 30-30. 

You see, growing up they weren't kept away from me so I didn't urge to use them, and they weren't given to me with ammo (I've seen youtube videos of 3 Year old children firing 9mm weapons with their fathers watching, no joke look) and grew into it, safety always first. Then came accuracy and precision.


----------



## Kesslan (Jan 23, 2009)

Yeah but Newfie, the thing people here are laregely protesting that I see (or at least we of the canadian contingient) isnt against certian forms of gun control... indeed I really like how we have hte mandatory testing, practical and written for our various grades of firearm lisences. Testing you have to pass again to renew.. 

Its that we have bullshit like the liberals, NDP, Greenpart etc all screaming their heads off about how a total handgun ban (and eventual total gun ban) will save us all from aweful, terrible gun violence!

Where as my theory is, we'll have just as much if not more than before. If onlyb ecause we are right next to the US and it's stupid easy to smuggle stuff across the border. I mean the last time the USA tried to actually FIND the border along it's entire length, they didnt even know where it started and ended. They were doing this, specifically to place cameras all along the ENTIRE lenght of the US/Canada border post 9/11.

I think they eventually worked it out. But I think it makes a rather notable point about potential smuggling routes when one country cant even find it's own borders.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 23, 2009)

Yeah, well eventually it will be all worked out, other than that one thing the NDP are the best for the job of prime minister and most seats. I vote for them always, just because they're the best in my mind. And remember, even if they vote to have guns removed we have 4 other parties with seats able to vote against it, our government is pretty good remember. Also with this sort of topic we would most likely include a public vote to boot, as well. A party can't just do what it wants in Canada once it gets the most votes, it's set up so they can't do that.


----------



## Kesslan (Jan 23, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> And remember, even if they vote to have guns removed we have 4 other parties with seats able to vote against it, our government is pretty good remember. Also with this sort of topic we would most likely include a public vote to boot, as well. A party can't just do what it wants in Canada once it gets the most votes, it's set up so they can't do that.


 
Problem is most of the parties are right up there with total irrational weapons laws/bans.

I'm also not keen on how the NDP, last I checked seems to follow the liberals thinking on military spending. 

It kinda sucks really. I dont trust the Conservatives, I hate Harper, but they have the closest platform that I agree with at the moment. In the end I wind up voting only for what ever party I think will take the government in the direction I'd like to see. Which has in a few elections means I've abastained from voting since.. well.. there wasnt anyone I saw worth voting for.

I'm sure as hell not voting LIberal after the mess they did. I dont really want to vote Conservatives beuase in many ways their as corrupt as the liberals. I really hate the NDP, and I only occasionally vote Green party if I want more focus on environmental issues, but I really really hate their stance on well.. pretty much eveyrthing else.

One coudl argue I could make a 'protest vote' Excep the only othe rparties that seem to show up on my ballto are things like the pot party and the commies. ANd i' not voting for either of those.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 23, 2009)

While we've gotten way off-topic at this point, I respect your political views, seeing as they always get seats it can't be a wrong choice at all. The main reason I vote NDP is their attitude towards the gay community, socialism, and industry. I don't really care about weapon laws seeing as I no longer own them, if I did then my choice might not be the same.

Might want to drop off Canadian political talk and get more on-topic, though. :3


At what point though does one draw a line on what type of firearm, handgun or otherwise, the public should be allowed to own, or own that's operational?
I'd draw the line at the 7.62x54mmR or higher for operation myself, just because that round can cut through a cars engine block no problem, and even the firewall killing a driver. It's able to punch through most types of armor, including bulletproof glass and some bulletproof metals, and it's completely pointless to own. Yet, there are weapons people in the USA own that use this exact round, or higher.

For a handgun the .50 AE is a bit much, though I don't mind it myself. Anything above is just outrageous and hard to get anyway.

And for non-operational I've seen several people that own LAWs, SRAWs, and Barrett .50 (m82, m95, m107) that don't actually work. Honestly, I'm fine with that or even paintball/airsoft versions.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 23, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Please Rose, tell me how you're massive quote about the nazies stealing firearms from citezens had to be there, but instead just had to say : The nazies were confiscating firearms so there would be less resistance, there was campaigns to get the civilians their firearms back" *Quote source link here*



First off, it's R*oo*se...

Not stealing... registering and then confiscating.  You have insisted that registration does NOT lead to confiscation, and I have been providing overwhelming proof that it does:

http://www.joebrower.com/RKBA/RKBA_FILES/QUOTES/Quotes_from_the_Enemy.pdf

Not only quotes from Hitler, but from Stalin and other European dictators... and FROM POLITICIANS IN THE US GOVERNMENT.  Yes, REGISTRATION LEADS TO CONFISCATION, Newf.  It's proveable, historical fact.  And it is recorded from the mouths of those in positions of power and authority, GIVEN TO THEM BY THE PEOPLE...




NewfDraggie said:


> But no, that's too simple, instead you post several copy+paste quotes from the source, instead of summarizing it really quickly, then linking the source of the information for people to read more *if they wanted to*.



I already summerized earlier, then provided the links to show you the info, and you rejected it.  You asked for quotes, I gave you quotes... and you still rejected them, still spout your bias.  I don't have to be right, I just need you to acknowledge the material, SO WE CAN HAVE AN UNBIASED DISCUSSION.  I want to know your response to the facts presented.  I don't want to hear you reject my material, then turn around and continue from where you left off.  Learn, and then we can move forwards in this discussion.

My problem is, you *don't want to*...




NewfDraggie said:


> Sorry, but you "fail". You do not own this thread, you're the OP, the onyl thing you can do is get it locked, you have no control over who talks or what they bring to the table in any thread, ever.



I started this thread, so I have the right to control its direction, to provide information to those involved, so they can discuss with all the facts present... especially when I have people like you, who assert falicies.  Read the material provided, and discuss it.  I've taken one view, you have taken another.  You have had quite a few links to study on my views, given so you can't say that the _one link_ I provided, for briefness' sake, is pro-gun biased.  Which would imply that any site with a pro-gun focus is lying about their facts.  Learn to separate the wheat from the chaff, please...




NewfDraggie said:


> Grow up, actually learn a thing or two. Stop being a child, calling people morons, or saying people fail, telling people they lose over a topic of discussion, and telling people you're an authority figure and are always right simply because you created the discussion.



I never said I was an authority figure.  I said this was my thread... I started it, I have the right to direct its focus, if I feel the need.  This all started when you asserted that REGISTRATION *DOESN'T* LEAD TO CONFISCATION.  I have provided quite a bit of information to refute that assertion, but you ignored it.  I WANT TO HEAR WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THE MATERIAL I'VE PROVIDED, NEWF.  I want you to ask questions, provide links to counter-arguments.  You made an assertion, you need to back it up or shut it up or admit you were uninformed.  I'm not perfect, but I do try to provide educational information, best as I can.  Use it, then do your own searching.




NewfDraggie said:


> You do not give homework, you may wish to look up the definition of the term. You do not expect people to -have- to read everything you post, or they will know nothing. Instead tell them what they should know exactly, summarize a page/pages and quote the source of the information.



Yes, I do in fact expect people to read the material... how else are you going to learn?  You'll note, Newf, that out of all the people who've posted in this thread, you are the one I'm focused on educating.  Show me that you've learned something valuable... something you didn't know before... so I can know if your assertions come out of a lack of information, or if you truely believe that all the information I have provided, showing that REGISTRATION LEADS TO CONFISCATION, is a lie.  The ball, as they say, is in your court...




NewfDraggie said:


> Some of your links are quite good, yes. I'm not saying everything you've posted is wrong, just how you're presenting it is. The whole thing about the civilians needing their arms (albeit, old times) to fight off a imposing threat, is quite valid. Just don't expect people to read all of it just to understand what the hell you're talking about. I don't think people come here to FAF to do homework and read 15 pages filled with mostly useless information that could of been summarized in one sentence or paragraph by the poster.



Ahhh, so you agree.  Then tell me what is good about them, please!  I want to hear you examine what has been presented, so that I and everyone reading here will know what you think about the information.  In other words, counter-debate the information provided, rather than repeating past assertions.  This debate is not about presentation, it is about content.  It started with a video of people who have already suffered registration and confiscation, and their plea to Freedom, to the Restoration of their Civil Rights.  And the fact a man is in prison, simply for defending his own life.  I consider that an insult... I consider that a desire to see the innocent dead, and the criminal's "rights" to other people's property being "preserved".  That should NEVER HAPPEN.

That enough of a summary for you, Newf?




NewfDraggie said:


> You've already changed one thing of what you were arguing about, placing a hangun in your pocket as not being dangerous. You changed it to placing a handgun in a pocket holster with nothing else in the pocket, as being safe. Now tell me, what kid, or most citizens carrying a firearm around in their pocket are going to have a pocket holster, and if they don't have one of those who's to say their going to have nothing else in those pockets?



You brought up use of a holster, Newf.  Do I have to give every little excruciating detail pertaining to concealed carry?  See, this is why I ask for you to do your homework.  Yes, people do pocket carry without holsters... and, yes, I have read incidents of people CARELESSLY leaving items in the same pocket as their gun, and that object violating the trigger guard, and firing the gun BY MANIPULATING THE TRIGGER.  Not the gun's fault, Newf.  The fault lies with the person who acted CARELESSLY.  Guns DO NOT GO OFF BY THEMSELVES.  Ever.  There is *alway* a CARELESS HUMAN involved.  Oh, funny thing, though... in a way, you can be partly right, but then, well... GUNS ARE MADE BY HUMAN HANDS.  And once a gun is sold, what happens to it depends on the owner/user.  A bit of home-brew gunsmithing butchery, and, like I believe I mentioned, you could end up with a hair trigger... and a dangerous gun.  This, of course, applies to any tool, and should be automatically understood by any tool-user.  Freedom entails risk... but freedom also entails responsibility.  HOWEVER!  You cannot punish someone for something they haven't done:



> "We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes.  By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that.  If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime."
> 
> Vermot State Senator Mary Ann Carlson



I find this attitude insulting and intolerable, especially in a US Senator!  This is an example of SERVING THEMSELVES,  rather than SERVING THE PEOPLE.  "Innocent until *proven* guilty."  However, Mary Ann Carlson thinks she is above the law... and she isn't the only one!  Read that PDF link above, all eight pages.  It goes by fast...




NewfDraggie said:


> Not saying people with experience like yourself won't, but the average idiot that goes out and gets a handgun not just for protection but because it's "cool". And guarantee if they're not hard to get a lot of morons are going to own them, and a lot are going to carry them around with them probably not even in a holster.



Newf... Newf...

You keep showing your bias.  "Average idiot"...?  You keep showing your lack of knowledge, as well, with this whole holster obsession... their are many safe, practical methods of carry that don't involve holsters.  And sometimes, a holster won't prevent accidents, either.  Nothing is perfect.  Tell me something, Newf... since all these gun laws didn't exist, way back when, does that mean that all the gun owners of the past (who never even had to fill out a single form or pay any fees whatsoever) were morons?  Are you even aware how many people in America DO carry?  And why some do?  Here:

http://www.usconcealedcarry.com/10/index.html

For now, I'll stick with this one link, so you're not overwhelmed, Newf...


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 23, 2009)

Still stuck in the 30's and 40's, eh Roose?

I've already said that registration has only that one negative -possibility-, confiscation. And honestly, if you get caught with these firearms when they take in the ones registered then you will go to jail to boot. That's so much better...somehow, you know going behind the governments back and breaking law. If they want the firearms taken away, they can do it without registering them, it will just be harder, but they will be able to jail you then.

They have several benefits I've already mentioned, and still only one negative remains. Modern, not 30's and 40's. Modern society, you register you car too.

And yes, not average person, but average idiot. How's that biased? At all?There's also cases of firearms just going off, like you said laying them down on a table with no human interaction and boom. Granted these are older weapons with lower up-keep. I'm jsut saying it's not totally impossible, just highly unlikely. 

Moving around with it in your pocket, even with nothing in there with it, can lead to it going off. -Can-, not it -will-, but a holster will protect the trigger further, so if they bump into something or what ever. Also not having a round in the chamber is a good idea. But like I said, the average moron doesn't know this. We're not talking about people that know what they're doing, whether that's majority or not.

And please, don't focus on educating me about things I mostly already know, and things from that far in the past, a different time, a different lifestyle and way of life completely. Though I agree they do hold some weight, it's not near as much you're giving it credit. 

Irreverent gave a better example of here in Canada having our registered firearms confiscated and the weapons that "look" scary taken away, too. And I can see you massive fear of losing your precious weapons, oh yes, they're the only thing that gives you solitude and safety, so I can understand focusing a portion of your life around them. But still, if the government wish to take them away, even unregistered, they catch you firing them or using them at a range, people rat you out, etc; you're going to thrown in jail and/or slapped with a fine. You lose no matter what, basically. You might be able to keep them quiet but you won't be able to use them much, if at all.

I can also see the issue with setting up a new section of government to track all these registered firearms, but it wouldn't be that large of a deal to do so.

Either way, to own a handgun you should at least need a special license that should be hard to get, easy to lose, and needing to be renewed regularly.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 23, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> *At what point though does one draw a line on what type of firearm, handgun or otherwise, the public should be allowed to own, or own that's operational?*
> 
> I'd draw the line at the 7.62x54mmR or higher for operation myself, just because that round can cut through a cars engine block no problem, and even the firewall killing a driver. It's able to punch through most types of armor, including bulletproof glass and some bulletproof metals, and it's completely pointless to own. Yet, there are weapons people in the USA own that use this exact round, or higher.
> 
> ...



Ahhh!  Finally, a good question...

Really, I don't see any need for a line to be drawn.  If someone can afford it... and afford to feed it... so long as they do no harm with it, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to own it.  In fact, I fully support the Right To Keep And Bear Arms, "Without Infringement".  However, I also support laws that state:  "Use a gun, go to the gas chamber."  I've already stated that with Freedom comes Responsibility.  Mandatory execution for those who commit a crime with a gun.  Of course, for me, even if I had the money, it would be a matter of practicallity.  However, if someone wanted to collect and *safely* enjoy, say, one of those .50 BMG monsters, then let them do so.  If they wish to collect cannons and Gattlings and Thompsons... or whatever... again, let them.  Me?  Personally, I'm looking to collect .32ACP and .380ACP pocket pistols, with perhaps a few choice .25ACPs thrown it for good measure.  But I just happen to like the small-bore stuff.  And the old stuff.

I agree, Newf... the .50 AE is a bit much, but I will not begrudge anyone who likes it or wants a gun in that caliber.  And, like you said, anything above that is hard to get... and expensive.

However, I question the capabilities of the 7.62x54mmR, as you have stated them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62x54mmR

http://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/MosinAmmo.htm

I tried to find more specific info towards your claims, but couldn't.  What I did find showed that the 7.62x54mmR is equivalent to the 30-06 in power... so, no, I wouldn't restrict anything above that.  Not when cartridges like this have been used safely (and legally) for ages.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 23, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> Really, I don't see any need for a line to be drawn.  If someone can afford it... and afford to feed it... so long as they do no harm with it, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to own it.


That's all fine in theory. But somebody that's never committed a crime before, planning to or just snapping could really do some damage with some bigger things, right now the largest killing spree by one person has only killed like 50 people, and that's with an assault rifle and grenades.



			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> However, if someone wanted to collect and *safely* enjoy, say, one of those .50 BMG monsters, then let them do so.


A .50 BMG weapon such as the m107 is stricktly anti-material, even in military. It's against the Geneva convention to turn and operate this rifle on human targets. But, the military still does this.

This rifle has the power to take out entire rows of people, even through walls and right through a car's engine, unlike the 7.62x54mmR which only stops an engine by damaging the headers or cylinders pressure, this thing will punch through it all the way and depending on if it's AP or API through the rest of the car too.

A 7.62x54mmr or 7.62x39mm can cut through a firewall usually with no issues, or cut into a engine block stopping a car. Which is a big issue when somebody with one of these can stop people from fleeing. Now I think this round should be legal, if you have the license for rifles. I don't see an issue really because somebody can get their hands on these quite easily.

But, a .50 BMG can take down entire rows of people from 2 miles away, no shots heard, stopping cards, destroying property even (not as bad). Maybe they should at least need a extremely hard to get license, much harder than anything else, or military license to own a operational version.



			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> If they wish to collect cannons and Gattlings and Thompsons... or whatever... again, let them.


Well a cannon isn't going to wreck as much damage, takes a long time to reload, range isn't that high, etc. Gatling...well, depends if you mean old civil war style, CIWS, or GAU-8 style. And if you mean Minigun... well, no. But right now in the USA you can't own or operate one anyway, so that's not a large issue. But seriously, firing 2000-20000 rounds per minute, somebody could easily have this in a vehicle or hidden away somehow in a crowded area, open up, and kill hundreds  of people in mere seconds. But again, it's controlled.

A old civil war Gatling isn't dangerous at all really, but something like the m134 is just...too much, and the cost for it, and ammo is insane anyway.



			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> Me?  Personally, I'm looking to collect .32ACP and .380ACP pocket pistols, with perhaps a few choice .25ACPs thrown it for good measure.  But I just happen to like the small-bore stuff.  And the old stuff.


Nothing wrong with any of those.



			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> I agree, Newf... the .50 AE is a bit much, but I will not begrudge anyone who likes it or wants a gun in that caliber.  And, like you said, anything above that is hard to get... and expensive.


Yeah, well the S&W .500's round is an ass, but it's not much more powerful than a .50AE realistically.



			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> However, I question the capabilities of the 7.62x54mmR, as you have stated them.
> 
> I tried to find more specific info towards your claims, but couldn't.  What I did find showed that the 7.62x54mmR is equivalent to the 30-06 in power... so, no, I wouldn't restrict anything above that.  Not when cartridges like this have been used safely (and legally) for ages.



Well, it's not just the round, but the rifle too. I'm talking Dragonov mostly, it might be the same round but muzzle velocity plays a part too, but that round (7.62x54mmR) can easily stop a truck or cars engine with one or a few well placed shots, even in the M9130. The 7.62x39mm (AK47) round has been documented to shoot through a cars firewall and even stop the engine's compression, thus stopping the car. 7.62x51mm also can do this, though the only site I can find that supports it I wouldn't even trust myself, here. 

But when I was trained how to field strip a AK47 (though honestly I've never fired one with real rounds, only a few blanks) they told us the power of the round, and told us it could do this. I only searched Google for "7.62 round stopping power" and got that as one of the first links. If you don't believe me, I can look further into it for you no problem.

As for the .700 Nitro, well honestly I'd like to see somebody aim that or the .566 at people and get more than one or two. Unlike most .50 BMG rifles it's got a damn ton of kick, and most rifles only carry one round. When you think M107, somebody can place 10 rounds in 10 seconds or less at a human sized target from a mile away, no problem.

Though right now they're hard enough to get, and damn expensive as well. most people that have them don't go bat-shit insane anyway, usually those people only have lesser arms.

The 6.8 is a good round too, I guess you're right, we shouldn't limit caliber but perhaps certain weapons at least. Such as a semi-automatic high-caliber (M82/M107/AS50) and definitely AP and API rounds, there's no need for armor piercing, or armor piercing incendiary.

What do you think about that? I don't see an issue with owning say a Arctic Warfare .50BMG, but unless you're in the army, or well trained/licensed you really have no need for a semi-automatic .50BMG that functions, at least off-range.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 23, 2009)

Newf, it's getting late for me, so, for now, I'll leave you with this info, and get back to you on your other comments soon as I can, tomorrow.  Thanks...

http://www.barrettrifles.com/DiscussionForum_YAF/default.aspx?g=posts&t=437

http://www.fcsa.org/wwwroot/

Oh, and thanks for the link... I'll be reading that later, as well.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 23, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> Newf, it's getting late for me, so, for now, I'll leave you with this info, and get back to you on your other comments soon as I can, tomorrow.  Thanks...


OK.



			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> http://www.barrettrifles.com/DiscussionForum_YAF/default.aspx?g=posts&t=437


I don't understand, is this for the entire forum or just this topic? This topic you linked me is only 3 responses long and the OP is just talking about going to a competition and he can't wait to shoot his rifle past 500 yards.



			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> http://www.fcsa.org/wwwroot/


Hmm, well other than the shoddy site, it seems to simply be about the sport of shooting these things at a range, not really about owning them or having the ammo at home. Just at the range, which is fine. In fact I've always wanted to shoot a .50BMG at a range myself, and have only touched one once when we briefly went over it way-back-when.




			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> Oh, and thanks for the link... I'll be reading that later, as well.


The link is quite garbage, actually. It's not worth reading, but just do a CTRL+F for engine. It only mentioned it once, and honestly I should find a better link to a better site with more information.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 23, 2009)

> No it doesn't, it's safer, but not a safety. You can't turn it off.



lol, there really isnt a omni definition of safety.... hrmm... i'll go look it up in one of my manuals at work today, could settle it with that .



> Clearly it wasn't me, so why you're telling me this and not the other guy is beyond me, as well I've never heard of a fuse on a round so I have no idea how hitting it will magically crate one, never seen a hangfire on a handgun or rifle round nor heard of one. Like I said it went off the second he snapped the slide forward.



a hangfire occurs in the primer(or fuse, sorry was readin up on older firearms a lot recently so my words got jumbled a lil). see, the primer is made out of fulminate trapped between two thin metal sheets, its actually the only way to make the explosive safe enough to carry round. fulminate is actually SO unstable that it can set itself off by grains of itself shifting in a jar. 

the issue is that SOMETIMES(pretty rare actualy) when the primer is struck there is a belated reaction in the fulminate that in itself could be for various reasons. in reality it can take as much as 30 seconds for the fulminate to finally agitate itself into a full blown reaction, burn off and ignite the powder in the cartridge with its flames. so a hang fire is when the fireing pin strikes the primer but the primer fails to immediately ignite. 

FURTHER, keep in mind that it is fulminate in that primer so even the slightest bending of that metal can actually cause the cartridge to go off. which is why for example i am paranoid with revolvers and similar hammer arms and will not tolerate a round just sitting under the hammer unless i am about to shoot it off. 

FINALLY: listening to you further elaborate on the story it could have been a hang fire(the guy pulled the trigger, the round didnt go off he opened the weapon and then at that point the round went off) or it could be a poorly manufactured round where the primer is sticking out beyond the rear of the cartridge, when the slide flew forward the slide itself struck the primer and caused it to go off. the same dangerous thing can happen in all arms and as such you should be paying attention for defects such as that when you load up.



> Easier to track firearms, make sure people aren't getting an armys amount, illegal ones, etc, also it will make solving firearm related crimes MUCH easier. I'd say in a modern 1st world society, any of those far exceeds the extra few minuets to register your weapons. Most Americans, and yes I'm damn serious, can't wait a few days for a background check on a firearm because they want it now. Impatience runs ramped, it wouldn't take as much effort you're saying it would.



what does it matter that bill up the street has 45 rifles? hell i knew a guy who had 200 firearms. but yknow the trick of that, he only has two hands..... it really doesnt matter that he has a lot, and operations where someone is giving away great deal of firearms for criminal use is so fucking high profile that the atf gets their ass all the time....

also how in the hell will it help solve firearm related crimes if the government knows all the serial numbers? take the case of the highway snipers. HOW IN THE WORLD would the government knowing all the damn serial numbers of the legally traded firearms in the country help them track down that shooter. there could be hundreds if not thousands of m16 series rifles in the area and there is no promise that the people are even that local. hell even beyond that there is no test that they could do that would state conclusively what model of firearm the killer used. it can tell caliber but thats it. so the cops wouldnt have even known to look for a m16, they would just have been looking for ANY .223 caliber firearm which is a complete fools errrand with how many of those there are out there. so basically, i call bullshit on the idea that the government can solve crime better by simply having a database of serial numbers(which is what firearm registration really is). doesnt do ANYONE any good unless there is an eventual intention to ban certain if not all firearms. americans dont want to go down that road so we dont have registration. it sounds funny but at least some of us dont like to throw money away.

also, the 5 day waiting period was so that the gun store could get your records from the government. now they got a computer system so they can look up if there are any legal conditions that would prevent you from owning one instantly. dont need to wait, no reason to wait. its just wasting time and money. 



> Also, the SSA was the best handgun at the time, and even today is one of the best of all time; somebody does hold 18 world records for shooting firearms, and he got them all with a SSA.



ssa? great? piece of crap more like it.... if we were stuck to old country revolvers i'll take my schofield any day. a fucking single action army is 'trap door loader", drop a shot out, slide in a new one. its rifleing is not any better then its competitors and hell, the smith and wesson model 3 clones and line were DOUBLE ACTION. colt was just a fucking fantastic salesman and the fact that he did develop some of the earliest revolvers, including rifles.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 23, 2009)

Well, explain why the world record holder chooses this particular revolver?
If you're talking in a "war time" or "combat" scenario against a person, I personally wouldn't choose a revolver anyway for personal reasons, but at a shooting range none of that matters. Nor does the ability to reload faster.
That still doesn't make the handgun any worse, I love the weapon myself it's beautiful looking and feels great to hold, I'd love to own one.

Basically it's like somebody (and I've seen people) saying that Ferrari or BMW is crap, it's a matter of opinion and people are brand-lovers/haters. Some people will hate a certain company, even without good reason, just because other people they know do. If you've ever fired a SSA, it's really smooth and I actually like that reload style myself.

Also, I could wait 5 days no problem without having it waste money and time wouldn't bother me, why does waiting 5 days bother people? I've heard people go bat-shit insane having to wait, probably because joey down the road made fun of him and he wanted to get a weapon that day for non-related reasons.
If you knew it was going to take time, you'd make time to get it. But I see now that they've removed that there's no need to care, or talk about anymore.



			
				ceacar99 said:
			
		

> HOW IN THE WORLD would the government knowing all the damn serial numbers of the legally traded firearms in the country help them track down that shooter



Every bullet fired from any weapon with rifling will have striations on it. Every single rifle has a different pattern for different ammo. If they can link it to a registered weapon, then they have a suspect. You can tell what type of rifle, as your example an M16, fired a 5.56 or .223 round, the striations will give it away, now this isn't true for every round and somebody that modifies the barrel, but it's better than nothing at all.

Though honestly, if people like you (all) really are so worried over the government taking your weapons because they now know you own them, don't get them registered when they expect people to do so anyway. Honestly, if they wanted to take your weapons (like I've said) they will, and if you don't have them registered and they don't take them, if they see you using them or somebody else does, they will take them and give you jail time. You don't win if they're registered or not, because you'll lose them either way if you use them.

Now I know this doesn't count for people that take them up into the back woods somewhere without prying eyes, or people that don't use them, or people with their own range indoors. I also don't think a government should take the firearms without proper reason (you killed somebody, duh). 



			
				ceacar99 said:
			
		

> the issue is that SOMETIMES(pretty rare actualy) when the primer is struck there is a belated reaction in the fulminate that in itself could be for various reasons. in reality it can take as much as 30 seconds for the fulminate to finally agitate itself into a full blown reaction, burn off and ignite the powder in the cartridge with its flames. so a hang fire is when the fireing pin strikes the primer but the primer fails to immediately ignite.



I knew what a round was made of, how it was made, but I didn't know that stuff could do that (the hangtime). I've always loaded up myself without issue, but I do make sure the rounds are new, clean, and not damaged or anything.


----------



## Azure (Jan 23, 2009)

Ignoring the mostly immature(one sided in this) text war above, I'll simply say this.  The Second Amendment is pretty clear about what it means.  The Supreme Court reaffirmed the obvious about it very recently, and with such precedent, I don't expect that to change any time soon.  That isn't to say that I don't favor loose regulations. I don't need a fully automatic 50 caliber bazooka machine guns to protect myself in my home, or on the street.  I'd also like to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and non citizens, even if that means they resort to the Black Market to purchase such.  Firearm Laws have never ever had an impact upon illegal weapons markets, and probably never will, but it makes no sense to deny a law abiding citizen who has done all his homework his basic Constitutional Rights.

Fun Fact- There are countries that outright ban firearms that enjoy higher crime rates per capita than the United States.


----------



## Irreverent (Jan 23, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Ok, what happens then if they catch you with you unregistered weapons, the ones they want to take away?



If you get caught with unregistered firearms, its likely that they will be confiscated and your license suspended or revoked.  There will be a trial, possibly jail time, fines and a lifetime firearms ban.

But I think you missed the point.  That wasn't what happened in 93-96.  They came for our legally registered firearms.  We were in full compliance with the law and the Liberals took our registered firearms anyway.  
They didn't even let me hand over the receiver (the only part considered a firearm in Canada) and then sell the parts on ebay (which you could do back then, before ebay went Liberal). 

Registration is for confiscation, period.  The CSSA used the freedom of information act to supenoa the records of the CFC.  The government accidentally sent us the 1991/92 copy of "Gun Digest" that was used to determin which guns would be non-restricted, restricted, prohibited and deemed to be banned in Canada......complete with black marker circles and hand written notes in the margins.  We suspect that's one of the reasons why the AR15 is restricted and the Sig 550, Robarms 96 aren't....they weren't in the book back then.



NewfDraggie said:


> I can also see the issue with setting up a new section of government to track all these registered firearms, but it wouldn't be that large of a deal to do so.



Based on the Canadian experience, they spent $2-6Billion CDN to register 2 million owners with 7 million guns.  Extrapolate that to the US, and its probably close to $100 Trillion.   At least it would provide work for all of the unemployed auto-sector workers.  Just like the CFC provided work for the Miramichi when they closed CFB Chatham.


----------



## Slade (Jan 23, 2009)

Several professionally-conducted studies indicate both sides of the claims; gun control "reduces" violence, and gun control helps prevent crime. Still, look at Washington D.C. Gun control is in effect, but the city has one of the highest murder rates in the country.

Oh, and a little passage from the book of Darwin awards that I had to bring up:


> A man tried to commit a robbery in Renton, Washington. It was probably his first attempt at armed robbery, as suggested by the fact he has no previous record of violent crime, and by his terminally stupid choices:
> 1. The target was H & J Leather and Firearms. A gun shop.
> 2. The shop was full of customers--firearms customers-- in a state licensed to carry concealed handguns in public places.
> 3. To enter the shop, he had to step around a marked police car parked at the front door.
> ...


God, I love the Darwin Awards. XD


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 23, 2009)

Irreverent said:
			
		

> Based on the Canadian experience, they spent $2-6Billion CDN to register 2 million owners with 7 million guns.  Extrapolate that to the US, and its probably close to $100 Trillion.   At least it would provide work for all of the unemployed auto-sector workers.  Just like the CFC provided work for the Miramichi when they closed CFB Chatham.



What? No. Where you getting these figures from? Once the system was set up, why would it of coasted more per register, if anything it'll cost about the same and the US puts like 20 times that into its military every year.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 23, 2009)

> No it doesn't, it's safer, but not a safety. You can't turn it off.



cant turn off a grip safety either.... buuuuuuuut i think i win this argument without that point..... 

http://img340.imageshack.us/my.php?image=iwinhp8.jpg
lol i didnt even have to open the big manual to win....



> Every bullet fired from any weapon with rifling will have striations on it. Every single rifle has a different pattern for different ammo. If they can link it to a registered weapon, then they have a suspect. You can tell what type of rifle, as your example an M16, fired a 5.56 or .223 round, the striations will give it away, now this isn't true for every round and somebody that modifies the barrel, but it's better than nothing at all.



unless you are proposing the government actually record rifleing marks on various bullets striking various surfaces with every gun in the us you really cant help much by studying the bullet(other then the balistics of how it flew) without the actual "smoking gun" in hand. its simply an illusion that gun registration will mean that if a crime is commited with a firearm you will automatically know who's gun it was just because you had records of all the guns in the country.

as i said, for the cost it really does nothing except soothe your fears that i am assembling arms for a small army to suceed from the united states.....



> Upon seeing the officer, the would-be robber announced a holdup and fired a few wild shots. The officer and clerk promptly returned fire, covered by several customers who also drew their guns, thereby removing the confused criminal from the gene pool. No one else was hurt.



which is why in my gun shop(before my company grows and grows ) i will always have a security pistol on my belt, sorta continuing the tradition of physical security that i do every day at my current job.


----------



## Thatch (Jan 23, 2009)

Slade said:


> Still, look at Washington D.C. Gun control is in effect, but the city has one of the highest murder rates in the country.



It needs to grow roots to get effect. If people are used to having guns, and the whole 'system' depended on having guns, there will be a deal of chaos while you take those guns away.

The same probably goes the other way round. If people suddenly got guns here, the crime rate would skyrocket.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 23, 2009)

szopaw said:


> It needs to grow roots to get effect. If people are used to having guns, and the whole 'system' depended on having guns, there will be a deal of chaos while you take those guns away.
> 
> The same probably goes the other way round. If people suddenly got guns here, the crime rate would skyrocket.



That's very correct, very very correct indeed. Like look at it right now, somebody earlier on posted about the crime rate rising in the UK, now it's already lowering as another link posted here has showed. Though crime will always be a constant (I hope this isn't true) and the more people in a area, the higher the crime.


Also, about 70% of murders in the USA are committed with firearms, where only 30% in Canada are committed with firearms. I use Canada and the USA because we share a border, have roughly the same people and attitudes about a lot of things, and one has strict gun control, the other has very little.

Source.


----------



## Bambi (Jan 23, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Your -entire- argument is that you think people should be allowed to carry arms that aren't properly recorded, and regulated, and these people should be able to walk around with them, with pure experience as their training.
> 
> If the government wants to take away every weapon you own, they can, they should, and they will. If they have good reason, ie. people like yourself, they should have your weapons registered, and if they feel they need to take them away, they have good reason, they won't do it for no reason at all.
> 
> If you think a government should fear its citizens, you're wrong. They don't because no matter how many unregistered weapons you own, they have more and more powerful, and better trained soldiers to boot. You attempting to take arms against them will have you branded as a traitor and executed anyway. Even with a small army, you'll need a damn large, intelligent, well trained one. Not going to happen, ever. Stop thinking revolutionary, think modern. *Paranoid*.


 
Quoted For Emphasis.

I also found it odd that Roose helped to contrast his supporting argument for keeping guns unregistered with his additional intolerance of homosexuality. I'm not quite sure what meant in this contrast, but I didn't particularly think it was a reasonable point to be making.

On the other hand, I' am for weapons being legally registered as I don't have a particular hard-on for a machine device that can spit .50 Calibre rounds or has a cyclic rate of 1,200 rounds per minute. However, I do believe that if the state wants to allow people these weapons, then it must do so with caution; and if people want these weapons without the states approval, than they do so at their own peril.


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Jan 23, 2009)

> how long will it take the cops to arrive at your house?



Ten mins max. Not that anyone will even attempt breaking in, since the alarm system is a pretty strong deterrent. We've made sure it can't be disabled either - any tampering will result in half the neighbourhood knowing a burglary's in progress. 

Plus, there's always someone inside, and we have a very irregular daily schedule. Hardly a good target. 



> your workplace?



I work in insurance, we have proper insurance and an alarm system. Not to mention backups, so if anything gets stolen, we get our cash back quite fast.

It's kind of a stupid question anyways, since any self-respecting criminal would enter the property _at night_, when no one's inside. 

You seem to have some really retarded criminals over there, breaking in broad daylight.



> the parking lot in front of the local store?



See above. Practically no one breaks into cars in broad daylight, since ur criminals aren't retarded. And to stop one the nearest heavy object/retractable baton is enough.

I don't need a slug thrower to break someone's face with a heavy object.



> how able are you to actually dial 911(or whatever you have to dial) while being attacked or mugged?



I've been assaulted by hoodlums _once_ and I saved my teeth with my wits rather than primitive force. 

That was five years ago. Haven't been assaulted ever since. Maybe it's because I know how to act, having been taught by a streetwise friend. I don't appear to be a potential victim, I'm not paranoidal, I'm safe.



> chances are you will be attacked, robbed and quite possibly raped before the cops arrive and the criminal STILL will have time to escape cleanly. a perfect example of this is the famous bank robbers in la that covered themselves in body armor and robbed the bank with ak47's fed by drum magazines.



Before being shot. Only reasons the police didn't take them down sooner was because Californian cops didn't have weapons with proper penetrative power. 



> the shootout they got involved in over that bank robbery was just a simple lucky thing for the cops(despite the casualties). they actually had robbed a few other banks successfully before. simple fact is, no matter how good the cops are they wont be there to save your ass in time normally....



Maybe over there. Here, I trust my police force, and they haven't failed me since. 

Now, for a real example, our Seat Ibiza was stolen at night. Us having guns wouldn't change a thing, because it was stolen silently. Our dog woke us up, we called the police, they were on location in five minutes, found our car in the next five. 

Pray tell, why should we get guns if it was our _dog_ that saved our car? 



> not saying carry a pistol with you everywhere, just pointing out that the fact is that the cops RARELY save anyone while the crime is progress but rather hunt down the criminal and prevent further crimes.



See, here's the core difference between us. I'm a mentally fit young man who doesn't suffer from a severe case of paranoia, making him desire a penile etension, err, a handgun. 

I.

Don't.

Need.

It.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 23, 2009)

ceacar99 said:
			
		

> cant turn off a grip safety either.... buuuuuuuut i think i win this argument without that point.....
> 
> http://img340.imageshack.us/my.php?image=iwinhp8.jpg
> lol i didnt even have to open the big manual to win....


Touche. You win, this time. >:3
But seriously, thanks for the information I honestly was just guessing that it wasn't a safety because like a hand grip it has to be pushed in by the operator, and a switch again has to be used by the operator; firing pins simply drop or get blocked all the time without the operators guidance. But seing as your booklet says so, I'll not use this information elsewhere. :3



			
				ceacar99 said:
			
		

> unless you are proposing the government actually record rifleing marks on various bullets striking various surfaces with every gun in the us you really cant help much by studying the bullet(other then the balistics of how it flew) without the actual "smoking gun" in hand. its simply an illusion that gun registration will mean that if a crime is commited with a firearm you will automatically know who's gun it was just because you had records of all the guns in the country.


Well, seeing as I've said registration of all firearms should be done, and this is only a proposal, I also say place a law that makes the government unable to take them away, and every rifle is fired and the striations recorded and linked to that rifles serial number, and then owner. How about those apples?


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 23, 2009)

> Well, seeing as I've said registration of all firearms should be done, and this is only a proposal, I also say place a law that makes the government unable to take them away, and every rifle is fired and the striations recorded and linked to that rifles serial number, and then owner. How about those apples?



i'm not one of the paranoia cases that thinks that the government will take away my arms. i know that such cases have hit again and again but the thing is that only exceptionally liberal areas of the nation have begun to really tighten the noose around arms and such cases have been such astounding failures that there is a recoil against it, though one of the cases is fucking dumn ass california. one of the few bright ideas they had however was to start really loitering body armor, which was MUCH more effective in overpowering the police then automatic weapons.

the problem with the ballistic testing is that its just such a gross over regulation and just a gigantic black hole of oversight that the bleeding of money just wouldnt end. you couldnt make such a system work, politically or in practice. it would cost too much time, too many resources and would just crumble in on itself. all in the hope of better tracking firearms related crimes, which while admirable is still rather fruitless goal. especially when smart criminals start using rounds that defy identification. such as using very low grain rounds with unjacketed lead tips, or adjusting the rifling on a .223 rifle to be a 14'-16' turn so the bullet is highly unstable(and incidentally EXPLOSIVELY lethal) and likely to be so disfigured on impact that the rifle cannot be identified. while the cops would know its a short range .223 weapon with a 14' turn it would again be impossible to track WHICH .223 rifle with a 14' twist in the barrel. in reality there is a whole world of fun things that criminals with brains could do to confuse the shit out of the registration bullcrap, on top of the fact that MANY of the arms that start harassing people on the streets are smuggled in from somewhere else(and thus wont be registered anyway).

i just question the effectiveness of the whole scheme.....

further, your evil little plan falls apart with shotguns. good luck with that one.

i know your standpoint. "guns make murder easy, thats why murder happens" where i dont believe that. i call bullshit on that opinion. sure the columbine kids used guns but i also showed you a man who used fire and a fucking knife. simply i dont believe guns cause the violence but other factors cause the violence and the violence uses the most conveniant tool, which is guns. even if we remove that it'l be the next best thing, and the orginized criminal orginizations will still have guns anyway(trust me on that).

another issue is that its a cultural thing. america is a country "founded on arms". washington had his portrait taken with one, lincoln shot at a "range" on the whitehouse lawn(there is an interesting story about that where a cop rushes to see who is shooting because discharge of firearms is illegal in the capital). some of our greatest developments were because of the gun and our fascination developed a cult of accuracy that lives to this day(such as adjusting the m16 which was quite literally designed to be explosively lethal at less then 150 yards to be incredibly accurate and less lethal) and dominated our view of uniqueness in the world.

gun control may work for germany and france, it may work for spain and china but it wont work in the us. firearms are ingrained in our culture(even if there are a lot of us who have never actually shot one). there were points in american history where the nra(an organization that developed out of german-american shooting clubs) was considered one of the most patriotic organizations around and brought us national esteem and honor with its shooting competitions at creedmore and defined our army in a world that honestly for the most part neglected practice with the rifle and didnt care about accuracy. hell the nra as in a civilian organization has the distinct honor of training nearly 2 million servicemen in the art of the rifle before they went to war.

we fight so hard against the issue because we love firearms, especially the rifle. the truth is that at least here, in the land of the free it wont go away. even in this day in age where few of us haunt the backwoods as a nation we look back fondly, and few politicians have the balls to stand up and try to kill that love. admitted a few have succeeded in "progressive" movements, but as a whole they know its political suicide.

i know there are quite a few on these forums who will stand up and say "im an american and i want the guns gone" but truth is that your number are not the booming voice of the whole, otherwise it would have been done now.



> A .50 BMG weapon such as the m107 is stricktly anti-material, even in military. It's against the Geneva convention to turn and operate this rifle on human targets. But, the military still does this.



lol a .50 bmg doesnt even have to hit someone to break bones and potentially kill. near misses are potentially lethal with that cartridge.... sometimes people dont actually realize how big the fuckin shit is. though i console myself knowing that 1: the average boob is NOT going to be able to set up a browning m2 .50 cal machinegun properly and thus not blow himself up. 2: while the m107 actually has so little recoil that if you manage to aim in un supported with it you can shoot(i've seen some arnold men shoulder fire that bitch.... crazy....) its price and unavailability keeps it out of crazy psyco hands. 3: no bright criminal would want one anyway, too big, too messy and will actually wind up in his capture....



> A 7.62x54mmr or 7.62x39mm can cut through a firewall usually with no issues, or cut into a engine block stopping a car. Which is a big issue when somebody with one of these can stop people from fleeing. Now I think this round should be legal, if you have the license for rifles. I don't see an issue really because somebody can get their hands on these quite easily.



note: a 7.62 nato standard or russian WILL punch through car doors, soft armor, CINDER BLOCKS, BRICK WALLS, and a whole array of shit. again the famed la shootout demonstrated this all to the open public, however a 5.56(an EXTREMELY high velocity round) can do a great deal of that too. high powered rifles can be a problem, bonnie and clide's victories were largely because they had stolen browning automatic rifles that essentially shot through the police cars. against such a weapon a car door is going to defend you about as well as tin foil....


----------



## Mayfurr (Jan 23, 2009)

mrchris said:


> On top of that, how would the UK defend themselves against a large army such as Russia or China?



With nukes


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 24, 2009)

ceacar99 said:
			
		

> especially when smart criminals start using rounds that defy identification. such as using very low grain rounds with unjacketed lead tips, or adjusting the rifling on a .223 rifle to be a 14'-16' turn so the bullet is highly unstable(and incidentally EXPLOSIVELY lethal) and likely to be so disfigured on impact that the rifle cannot be identified.


What? No, where did you hear that too? That isn't true, even in the slightest.

I also said it wouldn't work on tracking if they modified it.



			
				ceacar99 said:
			
		

> further, your evil little plan falls apart with shotguns. good luck with that one.


Whooptydoo, also it's not evil at all.



			
				ceacar99 said:
			
		

> i know your standpoint. "guns make murder easy, thats why murder happens" where i dont believe that. i call bullshit on that opinion. sure the columbine kids used guns but i also showed you a man who used fire and a fucking knife. simply i dont believe guns cause the violence but other factors cause the violence and the violence uses the most conveniant tool, which is guns. even if we remove that it'l be the next best thing, and the orginized criminal orginizations will still have guns anyway(trust me on that).


70% of murders committed in the USA are with firearms, 30% in Canada. Also, Canada has a -lot- less murders in general. Explain this?



			
				ceacar99 said:
			
		

> another issue is that its a cultural thing. america is a country "founded on arms". washington had his portrait taken with one, lincoln shot at a "range" on the whitehouse lawn(there is an interesting story about that where a cop rushes to see who is shooting because discharge of firearms is illegal in the capital). some of our greatest developments were because of the gun and our fascination developed a cult of accuracy that lives to this day(such as adjusting the m16 which was quite literally designed to be explosively lethal at less then 150 yards to be incredibly accurate and less lethal) and dominated our view of uniqueness in the world.


Just like it was founded to have religion and state separate, and not to have a central bank; that worked well.



			
				ceacar99 said:
			
		

> lol a .50 bmg doesnt even have to hit someone to break bones and potentially kill. near misses are potentially lethal with that cartridge.... sometimes people dont actually realize how big the fuckin shit is.


What? No. The .50 BMG isn't that large or that powerful, a damn 180 tank round buzzing by you won't do anything lethal, it might scare the shit out of you, but it won't even knock you down or harm you in the slightest. I don't think you've seen these rounds in person, or if oyu have, you don't really understand ballistics well. No offense, it's just a .50 BMG not hitting you will do nothing, at all. And it hitting you, well that's another story. It's a larger round, yes, but look at the actual projectile and not the brass.

Even a API tracer round whizzing by you won't do -anything- different.


----------



## Kesslan (Jan 24, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> What? No. Where you getting these figures from? Once the system was set up, why would it of coasted more per register, if anything it'll cost about the same and the US puts like 20 times that into its military every year.


 
Funny..

The gun registry hardly cost anything for Canada to intially setup so to speak. And now, years later after it having been in operation. It's now several billion dollars over budget.



> Taken from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_gun_registry
> 
> 
> The registry again became a political issue in the early 2000s when massive cost overruns were reported. The project which was meant to cost approximately $119 million ended up costing over 3 billion dollars to implement. Documents obtained by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation now estimate the program cost at $2 billion.
> In December 2002, the Auditor-General of Canada, Sheila Fraser, reported that the project was running vastly above initial cost estimates. The report shows that the implementation of the firearms registry program by the Department of Justice has had significant strategic and management problems throughout. Taxpayers were originally expected to pay only $2 million of the budget while registration fees would cover the rest. In 1995, the Department of Justice reported to Parliament that the system would cost $119 million to implement, and that the income generated from licensing fees would be $117 million. This gives a net cost of $2 million. At the time of the 2002 audit, the revised estimates from the Department of Justice were that the cost of the program would be more than $1 billion by 2004/05 and that the income from licence fees in the same period would be $140 million.


 

For those wondering the 2-6 billion dollar figgure comes from setup, operation and a TON of excess spending that still has not been properly accounted for.

So where he's getting his figgures from Newf, is mathematical extrapolation based uppon the Canadian firearms registry.  I mean how the hell does something go so over budget that 119 million turns into 3 billion in the first place? Thats about 25x the projected cost for the registry.


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Jan 24, 2009)

It's called "fraud". Nothing to do with actual costs of operation.


----------



## krado (Jan 24, 2009)

Kesslan said:


> So I'm not quite sure how accurate that is. And by the statistics, it looks like I'd be far safer in other parts of the world such as Singapore, New Zealand, or Poland. Though I'm not certain what their gun laws are.[/FONT][/COLOR]



Well guns and all other forms of explosive devices are banned outright in Singapore. Some dude got creamed by the police cause he held a toy gun and pointed at a cop. Yup, its that weirdly serious here...


----------



## Thatch (Jan 24, 2009)

krado said:


> Well guns and all other forms of explosive devices are banned outright in Singapore. Some dude got creamed by the police cause he held a toy gun and pointed at a cop. Yup, its that weirdly serious here...



You would get at least your ass handed to you for such a stunt here too. 
And if you call a cop busting someone after someone just pointed a gun at him 'weirdly serious', I wouldn't want to live anywhere near you 0.o


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 24, 2009)

> What? No, where did you hear that too? That isn't true, even in the slightest.



a softer bullet doesnt keep its form as well during impact. even if it just hits bone its a good chance that you couldnt get a good "fingerprint" of the rifling from it. things like that are even worse with a high power cartridge with an unjacketed round. extremely short range weapon but the fact that the rifling would quite literally shred the bullet to bits would mean that there is again no way to get that rifleprint. really just plain unjacketed rounds are a trouble for that whole system. also weapons whom have barrels specifically engineered to have unstable rounds are another major problem.

but ya i didnt notice your statement that if they were modified it would be a problem. but yknow that brings me to another major issue with the efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed system. BY LAW a weapon is defined as the actual lower receiver(the reciever that houses the trigger mechanism) and it has to be stamped with a serial number if the owner intends to transfer ownership. that law allows people to adjust their weapon as they please, to change the barrel as they please. if you put your system in place you have a bureaucracy that will be struggleing under a load of work. the load of just purchasing arms and testing them will be almost too much, then you add on the load of new arms that need testing AGAIN because the barrel was changed? its just plain all too much for a simple moronic government to take on.



> Whooptydoo, also it's not evil at all.



its also next to handguns a favorite type of weapon amongst criminals. its simple, it hurts overall pretty effective at the ranges they expect to have to shoot someone at. 



> What? No. The .50 BMG isn't that large or that powerful, a damn 180 tank round buzzing by you won't do anything lethal, it might scare the shit out of you, but it won't even knock you down or harm you in the slightest. I don't think you've seen these rounds in person, or if oyu have, you don't really understand ballistics well. No offense, it's just a .50 BMG not hitting you will do nothing, at all. And it hitting you, well that's another story. It's a larger round, yes, but look at the actual projectile and not the brass.



lol. I FIX .50 CALS FOR A LIVING. no i'm not of the job class to fix m107(sniper rifles are next stage up), but i fix everything else. i'm authorized and trained to fix anything from 9mms to m240 machine guns, to mortar's and the mk19 40mm grenade machine gun. so ya, um telling me i havent seen these rounds in person is pretty downright stupid...

http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=47076&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20

the energy around a .50 round is so substantial that it simply does not need to hit you to cause damage. the air displaced by the finger sized massive projectile rushes at enough speed that it can crush bone and cut skin. its because this weapon is so flipping powerful that we have kept it in our service so long, despite the fact that its rather dated barrel change system makes it a mad man's game if its done in combat, not to mention that the barrels themselves weigh 20 pounds. its a wonderful weapon, if its set up right it operates beautifully and has few if any issues. the massive amounts of metal in it just makes it god damn durable. though one of the chief problems was that the receiver is riveted together, so every time the weapon is inspected before firing(even now) the rivets had to be inspected to see if they move. it used to be that one moving rivet meant the reciever itself was bad and the gun had to be sent to specialists for repair, then it went to like 3 rivets, now its been decided that if the rivets move its ok so long as the plates that make up the receiver dont. lol the rivets are also the problem with the m240 machinegun which cant have ANY move.



> 70% of murders committed in the USA are with firearms, 30% in Canada. Also, Canada has a -lot- less murders in general. Explain this?



um, that canada doesnt have many cities PACKED with street gangs? like 5 points colorado, washington, los angeles, new york, chicago.... new orleons.....

and those street gangs didnt even start out using guns as a primary weapon. not too long ago guns weren't the norm in gang violence. it just sorta escalated to that. now the smuggle in illegal arms by the truckload. the streets are flooded with cheep tech 9s, ak47 and various pistols in some areas. your whole gun registration thing isnt gonna stop that problem....


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Jan 24, 2009)

krado said:


> Well guns and all other forms of explosive devices are banned outright in Singapore. Some dude got creamed by the police cause he held a toy gun and pointed at a cop. Yup, its that weirdly serious here...



It's better to smash one face too much and be wrong, than let one go and get shot.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 24, 2009)

ceacar99 said:
			
		

> a softer bullet doesnt keep its form as well during impact. even if it just hits bone its a good chance that you couldnt get a good "fingerprint" of the rifling from it. things like that are even worse with a high power cartridge with an unjacketed round. extremely short range weapon but the fact that the rifling would quite literally shred the bullet to bits would mean that there is again no way to get that rifleprint. really just plain unjacketed rounds are a trouble for that whole system. also weapons whom have barrels specifically engineered to have unstable rounds are another major problem.


Wait, so just because it will be less than all, we shouldn't do it? What kind of logic is this? Seatbelts sometimes kill people due to strangulation. Remove them all?




			
				ceacar99 said:
			
		

> its also next to handguns a favorite type of weapon amongst criminals. its simple, it hurts overall pretty effective at the ranges they expect to have to shoot someone at.


Yeah, and the basic of kevlar stops any shotgun no problem. Some handguns, no. But that's a different topic all together.




			
				ceacar99 said:
			
		

> lol. I FIX .50 CALS FOR A LIVING.


Oh god....



			
				ceacar99 said:
			
		

> no i'm not of the job class to fix m107(sniper rifles are next stage up), but i fix everything else.


So you only fix the machineguns that are 0.50 Caliber? Or the hanguns that are too? If you fix some rifles, then it's strange that you wouldn't be assisting in barrettes (the most popular 0.50 caliber sniper weapon systems  in the world).



			
				ceacar99 said:
			
		

> i'm authorized and trained to fix anything from 9mms to m240 machine guns, to mortar's and the mk19 40mm grenade machine gun. so ya, um telling me i havent seen these rounds in person is pretty downright stupid...


Seeing the round, and seeing the round passing objects, testing it, shooting them at different targets, placing pig (yes pigs) next to the targets to test effects, etc. Are different things, technically I can fix -any- weapon system in the world, I can field strip almost all of them without even making a mistake. Means  nothing, I can use google or receive a few days worth of training.



			
				ceacar99 said:
			
		

> http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=47076&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20


This link shows, proves, and says nothing. It's a forum post about a browning machine gun, and images. O..o



			
				ceacar99 said:
			
		

> the energy around a .50 round is so substantial that it simply does not need to hit you to cause damage. the air displaced by the finger sized massive projectile rushes at enough speed that it can crush bone and cut skin. its because this weapon is so flipping powerful that we have kept it in our service so long, despite the fact that its rather dated barrel change system makes it a mad man's game if its done in combat, not to mention that the barrels themselves weigh 20 pounds. its a wonderful weapon, if its set up right it operates beautifully and has few if any issues. the massive amounts of metal in it just makes it god damn durable. though one of the chief problems was that the receiver is riveted together, so every time the weapon is inspected before firing(even now) the rivets had to be inspected to see if they move. it used to be that one moving rivet meant the reciever itself was bad and the gun had to be sent to specialists for repair, then it went to like 3 rivets, now its been decided that if the rivets move its ok so long as the plates that make up the receiver dont. lol the rivets are also the problem with the m240 machine gun which cant have ANY move.


Links and pics, please. This is something I've got to see, in fact I might submit this to mythbusters for the hell of it, get them to find out what it takes for an object to pass another (human or stone) to damage it merely by the "force" of the round pushing through the air.

Completely impossible with even artillery and tank rounds. You could damage hearing with the sound, it would be felt and scare the shit out of you. It won't harm you at all.



			
				ceacar99 said:
			
		

> um, that canada doesnt have many cities PACKED with street gangs? like 5 points colorado, washington, los angeles, new york, chicago.... new orleons.....


What? We have swarms like in Halifax, we have Toronto and Ottawa. 70% of murder are committed with firearms in the USA, 30% in Canada, regardless of Gangs, it's still the same sort of people with different laws, clearly with different figures.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 24, 2009)

> in fact I might submit this to mythbusters for the hell of it



would be a nice mythbusters episode. never actually seen a near miss rip myself. so far just shot the gun at range, though actually watching others while being the "duty armorer" is what i normally do on mg shoots. basically sit there enjoying the noise being there just in case a gun breaks, which it shouldnt because i damn well inspect the thing before it goes out on the range to shoot in the first place. anyway, from what ive seen of the weapon's power so far and from the mouths of all those who've used it in iraq and abroad. 



> So you only fix the machineguns that are 0.50 Caliber? Or the hanguns that are too? If you fix some rifles, then it's strange that you wouldn't be assisting in barrettes (the most popular 0.50 caliber sniper weapon systems in the world).



as i said, the m107 and the m40 sniper rifles are out of my mos range. i'm usmc 2111, i have to be 2112 to maintain that equipment. cant even apply for the school to become 2112 yet, gotta be an nco with a shit hot record, not an nco so that i cant do. besides i'm not of mind to re-enlist to go through all of that. 

look, that picture of the manual of the m9 i showed ya, thats the little manual that we issue with the weapon. the large manual in the background reading direct and intermediate maintenance is the large military manual on the m9 and its repair, contains parts lists a trouble shooting section and of course dis assembly down to the last pin.

as i said, its my job to ensure weapons ranging from the m9 9mm to the mk19 40mm grenade machinegun is in working order as well as accounted for. i even have training to maintain weapons such as the smaw but i dont have any in my armory. now, m16 series rifles and 9mm's are VERY easy to repair and maintain. every armorer worth is salt knows that the men are made in ensuring the mg's are up to snuff. couple doesen rifles going to range? takes me like 20 minutes to ensure all are safe to operate. takes me at least 15 minutes if not more to ensure ANY machinegun is safe.

and the link was to show some of the guns that i work with on a daily basis. 

added: looked up online didnt find anything supporting that .50 cal statement. ya win there due to lack of evidence on my side. 



> 70% of murder are committed with firearms in the USA, 30% in Canada,



i was argueing against your lower murder rate. the 70% and 30% doesnt matter worth jack shit. its like saying "70 out of these 100 murders were caused by guns buuuut 30 out of these 100 murders are caused by guns. we can see in group two that there are more nice deaths".

70% and 30% doesnt change that it happens. and no, despite a few hoodlums up there you dont have nearly the gang problem we do caused by a dramatic income disparity. the argument isnt about if we can turn bad gun murders into good poisen and knife murders, its about if removing guns will even stop the murder and violent crime. 



> Wait, so just because it will be less than all, we shouldn't do it? What kind of logic is this? Seatbelts sometimes kill people due to strangulation. Remove them all?



nope just a small piece of a larger argument that its a rather pointless thing unless you actually want to use it as a weapon against the people. its a wasteful paranoid system that will do us little good, especially considering our social problems.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jan 24, 2009)

ceacar99 said:
			
		

> despite a few hoodlums up there you dont have nearly the gang problem we do caused by a dramatic income disparity.



Sorry, what was that about socialist hellhole? yeah. shut up.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 25, 2009)

ceacar99 said:
			
		

> would be a nice mythbusters episode.


I know, I'm doing it. :3



			
				ceacar99 said:
			
		

> never actually seen a near miss rip myself.


Most military won't because it's against the Geneva convention to shoot a human with the .50 cal.



			
				ceacar99 said:
			
		

> added: looked up online didnt find anything supporting that .50 cal statement. ya win there due to lack of evidence on my side.


I'm sure this would be quite easy to find, in movies, books, stories, etc....



			
				ceacar99 said:
			
		

> i was argueing against your lower murder rate. the 70% and 30% doesnt matter worth jack shit. its like saying "70 out of these 100 murders were caused by guns buuuut 30 out of these 100 murders are caused by guns. we can see in group two that there are more nice deaths".



No, it's like saying 700 out of these 1000 are done with firearms, and 3 out of these 10 are with guns. Because in general Canada have less deaths, seeing as firearms are 70% of Americas we can say if you had the same gun laws a significant number of murders would drop in total and the percent of continuing murders that are firearms would be less.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jan 25, 2009)

We want our dollar and/or our taco

and don't send no nigger over here neither!


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 25, 2009)

First off, I found this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jdJT1IfBxE




NewfDraggie said:


> Still stuck in the *30's and 40's*, eh Roose?



No, still stuck in the 1880's, actually...




NewfDraggie said:


> *I've already said that registration has only that one negative -possibility-, confiscation.* And honestly, if you get caught with these firearms when they take in the ones registered then you will go to jail to boot. That's so much better...somehow, you know going behind the governments back and breaking law. If they want the firearms taken away, they can do it without registering them, it will just be harder, but they will be able to jail you then.



No, it has way more, and you're the one who insisted that registration WOULDN'T lead to confiscation.  Oh, and they can't jail me, if I jail them first...




NewfDraggie said:


> They have several benefits I've already mentioned, and still only one negative remains. Modern, not 30's and 40's. Modern society, you register you car too.



No, they have no benefits, really.  None.  Nada.  Zip...

Oh, and just because it's 2009 doesn't mean the Constitution of the United States of America is now invalid.  Nor does it change the fact crime still exists, and people still need to defend themselves against it... the Freedom to Keep and Drive Cars is not in the Constitution.  Is not enumerated within Constitutional Law...




NewfDraggie said:


> And yes, not average person, but average idiot. How's that biased? At all?There's also cases of firearms just going off, like you said *laying them down on a table with no human interaction* and boom. Granted these are older weapons with lower up-keep. I'm jsut saying it's not totally impossible, just highly unlikely.



I also said such weapons, in order to do so, had to be messed with by human hands.  No properly manufactured, unmodified firearm is just going to go off by itself, without some human idiot having messed with it...

And if I'm reading you right, are you saying older weapons are the ones that go BOOM?  Because my Savage 1907 (made in 1909) and my S&W Highway Patrolman (made in 1954) would like to disagree...




NewfDraggie said:


> Moving around with it in your pocket, even with nothing in there with it, can lead to it going off. *-Can-, not if -will-*, but a holster will protect the trigger further, so if they bump into something or what ever. Also not having a round in the chamber is a good idea. But like I said, the average moron doesn't know this. We're not talking about people that know what they're doing, whether that's majority or not.



No, it can't, unless you've seriously messed with its insides.  I can whack both the above guns I've mentioned with a hammer, and neither of them will go off.  The only purpose of a pocket holster for a pocket gun is to keep the gun oriented correctly in the pocket (so it can be accessed quickly), prevent it from printing (so you don't scare the liberals), and to guard its finish (so your nice gun doesn't get dinged)...




NewfDraggie said:


> And please, don't focus on educating me about things I mostly already know, and things from that far in the past, a different time, a different lifestyle and way of life completely. Though I agree they do hold some weight, it's not near as much you're giving it credit.



The world hasn't changed as much as you think, Newf.  As I said, old as it is, the US Constitution is still in full effect, and violent crime is still with us all...




NewfDraggie said:


> Irreverent gave a better example of here in Canada *having our registered firearms confiscated* and the weapons that "look" scary taken away, too. And I can see you massive fear of losing your precious weapons, oh yes, they're the only thing that gives you solitude and safety, so I can understand focusing a portion of your life around them. But still, if the government wish to take them away, even unregistered, they catch you firing them or using them at a range, people rat you out, etc; you're going to thrown in jail and/or slapped with a fine. You lose no matter what, basically. You might be able to keep them quiet but you won't be able to use them much, if at all.



Legally registered firearms?  If someone tries to take my property away from me, I call that THEFT.  I don't care who they are...




NewfDraggie said:


> I can also see the issue with setting up a new section of government to track all these registered firearms, *but it wouldn't be that large of a deal to do so*.



Are you absolutely, positively sure...?




NewfDraggie said:


> Either way, to own a handgun you should at least need a special license that should be hard to get, easy to lose, and needing to be renewed regularly.



No... however, if I use that gun in the commission of a crime, I should suffer mandatory execution...




NewfDraggie said:


> That's all fine in theory. But somebody that's never committed a crime before, *planning to or just snapping* could really do some damage with some bigger things, right now the largest killing spree by one person has only killed like 50 people, and that's with an assault rifle and grenades.



Actually, it's worked quite well in reality...

Ummm... Newf, I did tell you "Innocent Until Proven Guilty", remember?  You cannot punish an innocent person for a crime they haven't committed... or for a crime they MAY commit.  You can only give justice AFTER the offense has been made.  That would be like giving a driver a speeding ticket, just because they HAVE THE ABILITY to drive faster than the posted limit.  It also indicates mistrust...

As for the killer you mentioned... is he still alive?  If so, is he still free to kill again?




NewfDraggie said:


> A .50 BMG weapon such as the m107 is stricktly anti-material, even in military. It's against the Geneva convention to turn and operate this rifle on human targets. But, the military still does this.
> 
> This rifle has the power to take out entire rows of people, even through walls and right through a car's engine, unlike the 7.62x54mmR which only stops an engine by damaging the headers or cylinders pressure, this thing will punch through it all the way and depending on if it's AP or API through the rest of the car too.
> 
> ...



No, I see no need for any special restrictions.  Again, if you abuse such a weapon, you should face execution.  Simple as that...




NewfDraggie said:


> Well a cannon isn't going to wreck as much damage, takes a long time to reload, range isn't that high, etc. Gatling...well, depends if you mean old civil war style, CIWS, or GAU-8 style. And if you mean Minigun... well, no. But right now in the USA you can't own or operate one anyway, so that's not a large issue. But seriously, firing 2000-20000 rounds per minute, somebody could easily have this in a vehicle or hidden away somehow in a crowded area, open up, and kill hundreds  of people in mere seconds. But again, it's controlled.
> 
> *A old civil war Gatling isn't dangerous at all really*, but something like the m134 is just...too much, and the cost for it, and ammo is insane anyway.



Oh, really?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1CmTNoHt4c&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oq0fbj_UVJo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AElib2BPf-g&feature=related... this one's fun to watch, though it isn't Civil War era.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Oc-xbpy-OI&feature=related... and this is the modern version.




NewfDraggie said:


> Nothing wrong with any of those.



Now, all I need it the money for that Mauser 1934 J&G has on the shelf... and for the FN 1900 they've had sitting there for somewhere over two years.  Not to mention the Webley's just staring at me, as well (last time I was there, they'd just gotten hold of an *uncut* Mark VI)...




NewfDraggie said:


> Yeah, well the S&W .500's round is an ass, but it's not much more powerful than a .50AE realistically.



Actually, it is more powerful, by a good margin:

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=977932

And this poor guy is having a hard time staying on his feet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L68UnivJIds




NewfDraggie said:


> Well, it's not just the round, but the rifle too. I'm talking Dragonov mostly, it might be the same round but muzzle velocity plays a part too, but that round (7.62x54mmR) can easily stop a truck or cars engine with one or a few well placed shots, even in the M9130. The 7.62x39mm (AK47) round has been documented to shoot through a cars firewall and even stop the engine's compression, thus stopping the car. 7.62x51mm also can do this, though the only site I can find that supports it I wouldn't even trust myself, here.
> 
> But when I was trained how to field strip a AK47 (though honestly I've never fired one with real rounds, only a few blanks) they told us the power of the round, and told us it could do this. I only searched Google for "7.62 round stopping power" and got that as one of the first links. If you don't believe me, I can look further into it for you no problem.
> 
> ...



Yep, it's amazing what you can do with a rifle... even a pistol, for that matter.  However, a weapon's damage potential doesn't matter, when it come to a free citizen's Rights.  As for the 7.62x39...?  If I remember rightly, it's considered in the same power class as the 30-30, which is a 150 yards max cartridge for deer-sized game.

Oh, and the Martini-Henry, a single-shot military rifle/carbine, fired a .577-450 cartridge:

http://gunsandammomag.com/cs/Satellite/IMO_GA/Guide_C/Martini-Henry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.577/450_Martini-Henry

http://www.martinihenry.com/

Yes, I like the 6.8, though I've never used it... I like the concept...

What do I think about that?  Well, as I said, anyone who can afford it should be able to have it, if they want, but, if they abuse it, they should be held criminally accountable for their actions, and executed as soon as possible.  This would discourage casual intrest, without limiting Personal Freedoms and Civil Rights... without punishing the innocent.  Though, personally speaking, even if I had the money to afford a .50 BMG, I wouldn't choose to own one.  Not my style...




NewfDraggie said:


> OK.



Done.  Sorry for the wait...




NewfDraggie said:


> I don't understand, is this for the entire forum or just this topic? This topic you linked me is only 3 responses long and the OP is just talking about going to a competition and he can't wait to shoot his rifle past 500 yards.



Well, it does show that such rifles are used for non-military purposes, and... if I'm remembering right... you asserted such rifles had no non-military purpose.  However, that link showed someone using a .50 BMG for long range target competition.  Which is what they are used for, in civilian hands...




NewfDraggie said:


> Hmm, well other than the shoddy site, it seems to simply be about the sport of shooting these things at a range, not really about owning them or having the ammo at home. Just at the range, which is fine. In fact I've always wanted to shoot a .50BMG at a range myself, and have only touched one once when we briefly went over it way-back-when.



Yes... again, showing that there is an actual organization of target shooters who use these rifles you said had no non-military use.  And, for your information, just because these rifles are fired at ranges doesn't mean their owners don't keep rifle and ammo at home...

Oh, and your mention of touching one once... last time I was at the range, I was offered a shot by an owner... buuut I have boney shoulders, and I didn't want to... ahem!... bruise my clavicle.




NewfDraggie said:


> The link is quite garbage, actually. It's not worth reading, but just do a CTRL+F for engine. It only mentioned it once, and honestly I should find a better link to a better site with more information.



Well, garbage or not, it could be informative, or provide material for further exploration.  I'll still look into reading it, when I have the time... thanks.  However, if you can find a better link, don't let me stop you...




ceacar99 said:


> *ssa? great?* piece of crap more like it.... if we were stuck to old country revolvers i'll take my schofield any day. a fucking single action army is 'trap door loader", drop a shot out, slide in a new one. its rifleing is not any better then its competitors and hell, the smith and wesson model 3 clones and line were DOUBLE ACTION. colt was just a fucking fantastic salesman and the fact that he did develop some of the earliest revolvers, including rifles.



You bet!  Read:

http://www.armchairgunshow.com/SAA-info.html

http://www.gunblast.com/Colt_SAA.htm

http://www.guncollectorsclub.com/peacemaker.htm

http://davelanara.homestead.com/

http://www.squidoo.com/colt45




Bambi said:


> Quoted For Emphasis.
> 
> *I also found it odd that Roose helped to contrast his supporting argument for keeping guns unregistered with his additional intolerance of homosexuality.* I'm not quite sure what meant in this contrast, but I didn't particularly think it was a reasonable point to be making.
> 
> On the other hand, I' am for weapons being legally registered as I don't have a particular hard-on for a machine device that can spit .50 Calibre rounds or has a cyclic rate of 1,200 rounds per minute. However, I do believe that if the state wants to allow people these weapons, then it must do so with caution; and if people want these weapons without the states approval, than they do so at their own peril.



You might have found it odd, but "Gun" Rights and "Gay" Rights are both "Civil" Rights issues... though perhaps not the best comparison.  Me?  I'd rather register criminals than guns.  And if someone is going to insist that homosexuals should be free to do their thing without prejudice legal and/or social, then I am going to insist that I should be free to do my thing (without prejudice legal and/or social)... hey, so long as no one is harmed, people should be free to make their own decisions.  And live their own lives...

I am for the Government minding its own business, and the law taking care of ACTUAL criminals, rather than harassing law-abiding citizens.  REGISTER CRIMINALS, NOT GUNS!  After all, we register sex offenders, do we not?  Why don't we also register gun-crime offenders?  Why not ALL VIOLENT CRIMINALS?  Bambi, as I have stated and proven, REGISTRATION LEADS TO CONFISCATION... it has no other purpose.  And, no, I don't have a hard-on for any weapon, they are just tools I choose to keep and use and enjoy.

Oh, and by the way, Bambi... I am not a subject of the state, I am a free citizen, and as such, those who serve the Government serve ME.  Not the other way around... they threaten my rights at *their own* peril...

... after all, I VOTE!


----------



## Irreverent (Jan 25, 2009)

Mikael Grizzly said:


> It's called "fraud". Nothing to do with actual costs of operation.



Pretty much.  The Liberals were slush-funding and rerouting the money to Liberal friendly firms that then donated it back to the Liberal Party.  When the scam was exposed (Adscam - about a big as the US Watergate or Iran/ContraGate scandals) the government fell.

Dozens of high up Liberal supporters were tried, some jailed, some died of natural causes before prosecution, some killed themselves. And we've had a Conservative government since 2006.

But its not just fraud, very large, complex systems tend to take on a life of their own after implementation.  For what they spent on gun registration, we could have had 400+ new MRI machines for our hospitals.



Kesslan said:


> Funny..
> So where he's getting his figgures from Newf, is mathematical extrapolation based uppon the Canadian firearms registry.  I mean how the hell does something go so over budget that 119 million turns into 3 billion in the first place? Thats about 25x the projected cost for the registry.



Yeah, it was simple extrapolation, with a satirical jab that gun control is a make work program.  When a local region lost their only source of revenue (the closing of CFB Chatham), the CDN government gave them the CDN gun registry to run.  Even at $6B dollars, it was cheeper than having the entire populaton of Miramachi on welfare.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 25, 2009)

> Sorry, what was that about socialist hellhole? yeah. shut up



if it wasnt you wouldnt have been bitching insistently about your job position and living conditions in the thread that drove you to hate me so long ago. "oh noes, im poor the government has to help me!" your a bitter moron these days and i havent seen you add much of anything intelligent to discussions other then taking jabs at me. why dont ya come back either a: when you actually want to argue again(and i fucking love to argue) or b: just want to get some thoughts out. if its just gonna be this childish bullshit of throwing your own feces at me because you have some retarded grudge over(essentially one) argument then you can go do something else and keep the feces to yourself. 



> Most military won't because it's against the Geneva convention to shoot a human with the .50 cal.



1: well i dont know a SINGLE marine that will hesitate for a moment to shoot enemy personel if he is behind a .50 cal. he'll fill them with holes just like he'll destroy their vehicles and send bullets flying through their buildings. 2: its a WIDE myth that .50 ammunition is automatically against the geneva convention. so far i havent seen anything to support that myth. the ONLy logic i've seen to banning the munition was that if someone gets hit by it and survives for a while its often pretty damn difficult to stabilize his condition.



> I'm sure this would be quite easy to find, in movies, books, stories, etc....



lol all i got to support my statement right now is that either a: the marines around me have been indoctrined to believe such a thing or b: the marines have actually seen it happen and everything they told me is true. either way its word of mouth, not good enough...



> No, it's like saying 700 out of these 1000 are done with firearms, and 3 out of these 10 are with guns. Because in general Canada have less deaths, seeing as firearms are 70% of Americas we can say if you had the same gun laws a significant number of murders would drop in total and the percent of continuing murders that are firearms would be less.



yup, was saying that the higher murder rate can be accounted for by the LARGER amount of organized and gang crime in the us and the difference in the way the murders was done really just supports my position that people will murder each other however they can if they are so inclined.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jan 25, 2009)

ITT Roose Hurro uses boxwang hoping to baffle people with bullshit in lieu of actually being right.

ITT Ceasar Salad, in true American fashion, knows nothing about Canada, but doesn't let that get in the way of telling a Canadian what's wrong with his country.


----------



## Bambi (Jan 25, 2009)

> And if someone is going to insist that homosexuals should be free to do their thing without prejudice legal and/or social, then I am going to insist that I should be free to do my thing (without prejudice legal and/or social)... hey, so long as no one is harmed, people should be free to make their own decisions. And live their own lives...


 
I agree with your concepts, however I don't have a problem with guns being registered,_ as of yet._

_I'll watch this debate to see what comes of it._


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 25, 2009)

Wolf-Bone said:


> ITT Roose Hurro uses boxwang hoping to baffle people with bullshit in lieu of actually being right.
> 
> ITT Ceasar Salad, in true American fashion, knows nothing about Canada, but doesn't let that get in the way of telling a Canadian what's wrong with his country.



I shat bricks.


On topic..more-so...

You're trying to convince me, or everybody that a country doesn't need to track its firearms? I mean, they track everything from gas to produce, why not this?

You say there's more than one negative side effect, besides the government being able to take them away and knowing what firearms you have, for them to take away. What are these other negatives? And why do my positives become invalid and "nill, zip, nada" just because -you- say so?

Also you're comparing rights for people to rights for objects. Completely different, you should use another object such as paintball or something.


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Jan 25, 2009)

Irreverent said:


> Pretty much.  The Liberals were slush-funding and rerouting the money to Liberal friendly firms that then donated it back to the Liberal Party.  When the scam was exposed (Adscam - about a big as the US Watergate or Iran/ContraGate scandals) the government fell.
> 
> Dozens of high up Liberal supporters were tried, some jailed, some died of natural causes before prosecution, some killed themselves. And we've had a Conservative government since 2006.



I'm getting tired of the conservative/liberal division. Especially when someone tries to draw a link between a political ideology and retards doing something for their own gain. 

Ten bucks the current canadian government also has a lot of shady deals, but learned how to keep them under wraps after the scandals.

And don't use -Gate as a suffix to denote scandals. Just, don't. 



> But its not just fraud, very large, complex systems tend to take on a life of their own after implementation.  For what they spent on gun registration, we could have had 400+ new MRI machines for our hospitals.



Gross oversimplification that falsifies reality. If the system wasn't implemented, the money would be allocated to several different projects.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 25, 2009)

Wolf-Bone said:


> ITT Roose Hurro uses boxwang hoping to baffle people with bullshit in lieu of actually being right.



If you're baffled, that's your problem, isn't it?  And bullshit is always a matter of opinion...




Bambi said:


> I agree with your concepts, however I don't have a problem with guns being registered,_ as of yet._
> 
> _I'll watch this debate to see what comes of it._



You don't have a problem with guns being registered, even though history shows that REGISTRATION LEADS TO CONFISCATION?




NewfDraggie said:


> *You're trying to convince me, or everybody that a country doesn't need to track its firearms?* I mean, they track everything from gas to produce, why not this?



Why not this?  Have you been "listening"...?  REGISTRATION LEADS TO CONFISCATION.  Registration does nothing to end or even reduce crime, gun or otherwise, since criminals don't register their weapons.  However, as I have already stated, REGISTER VIOLENT CRIMINALS, NOT GUNS.  This way, you don't tread on the Rights and Privacy of law-abiding citizens expressing their RIGHT to Keep and Bear Arms.  And, as I have also said before, IF WE REGISTER SEX OFFENDERS, WHY NOT GUN OFFENDERS?  _That_ would serve a purpose to society, without any law-abiding citizen being marked a criminal, and being forced to give up their Rights and Privacy.  It would also avoid the issue of CONFISCATION.  Track violent criminals, not guns...




NewfDraggie said:


> You say there's more than one negative side effect, besides the government being able to take them away and knowing what firearms you have, for them to take away. What are these other negatives? And why do my positives become invalid and "nill, zip, nada" just because -you- say so?



You obviously haven't been paying attention to the COST of registration... both in money and in breach of privacy.  Besides which, that one negative is MASSIVE in its implications.  Reason enough to make gun registration illegal...




NewfDraggie said:


> Also you're comparing rights for people to rights for objects. Completely different, you should use another object such as paintball or something.



Ummm... excuse me, Newf, but *gun owners* ARE people, aren't they?


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 25, 2009)

> ITT Ceasar Salad, in true American fashion, knows nothing about Canada, but doesn't let that get in the way of telling a Canadian what's wrong with his country.



pfft, i know you got a few hot spots up there, but ya the MAJORITY of canada doesnt compete with places like new orleons, not by a long shot. buuuut, you do have some of those hot spots that are every bit as bad as anywhere in the us....



			
				http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0013220 said:
			
		

> Canadians, though, can't be smug. We fare no better than the U.S. in other areas. The break and enter rates in Chilliwack, B.C., Victoria and Regina, for instance, rank within the top 10 per cent of all American cities. The per capita robbery rates in Saskatoon, Winnipeg and Regina would put them among the top 10 robbery-plagued metropolitan areas of the U.S. And you are far more likely to have your automobile stolen in Winnipeg or Joliette, Que., than anywhere in the U.S., including metropolitan Detroit and Las Vegas, the auto theft capitals of America. Even at that, a crime analysis this January by the Vancouver Board of Trade concludes official rates are misleadingly low: "only about one-third of actual crimes in Canada are reported to police." The board helped pressure Statistics Canada to consider an annual crime victimization survey. The last such measure estimated in 2004 there were more than eight million criminal offences - 2.7 million of them violent - three times the number reported to police.
> 
> The top 10 high-crime cities in the Maclean's list are led by Regina, Saskatoon and Winnipeg in a near tie at between 146.3 and 144.6 per cent above the national average. Those are followed by Prince George, Edmonton, New Westminster, Chilliwack, Victoria, Vancouver and Halifax. The reasons a city makes the top 10 list vary. Winnipeg leads in auto theft at more than 334 per cent above the national average. Robberies plagued Saskatoon, Winnipeg and Regina, all at more than 200 per cent above average. Residents of Chilliwack, Victoria and Regina endured break-ins at rates more than 100 per cent above average. Regina and Saskatoon led in aggravated assault; Saskatoon in sexual assault. (Arthabaska, Que., which sits halfway between Montreal and Quebec City, was Canada's murder city, 2006, but ranked 21st in the overall rankings.)





> You're trying to convince me, or everybody that a country doesn't need to track its firearms? I mean, they track everything from gas to produce, why not this?
> 
> You say there's more than one negative side effect, besides the government being able to take them away and knowing what firearms you have, for them to take away. What are these other negatives? And why do my positives become invalid and "nill, zip, nada" just because -you- say so?
> 
> Also you're comparing rights for people to rights for objects. Completely different, you should use another object such as paintball or something.



well at least I am arguing that the system just doesnt do us much good unless you actually want to use it to strip arms from the people. i think of it as a big honkin waste of money, ESPECIALLY if you want to collect enough information as we've discussed on the firearm that is registered to be able to instantly link it to a crime via fingerprint. but if its just registration and ever increasing oversight it just doesnt do any real good except for putting us further in debt and bogging down the ENTIRE system in terms of civilian arms. right now the system can check your background in a few moments. with registration and licensing and all that bullcrap everyone is buried under paper for no damn reason. 

here's a link with a good arguement....



			
				http://www.panda.com/canadaguns/#intended said:
			
		

> Positive impacts from the Firearms Act have proven elusive. In 2003 (the most recent year for which I have figures), Canada's reported violent crime rate was a whopping 963 per 100,000, a rate of about twice the US rate (475 per 100,000).
> 
> Here are the Canadian government's own statistics about the firearms licensing and registration program as of March 2007. They show that many Canadian gun owners still have not obtained licenses and/or have not registered their firearms.
> 
> ...


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jan 25, 2009)

no one likes you. you should retreat to your tinfoil lined hut out in the woods.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 25, 2009)

Wolf-Bone said:


> no one likes you. you should retreat to your tinfoil lined hut out in the woods.



Who, me?  If so, I don't even have any tinfoil in the house... don't use it, don't need it.  If you're talking to "Ceasar Salad", his words aren't tinfoil in nature, so your comment makes no sense.  It also wouldn't make sense even if applied to Newf...


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jan 25, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> Who, me?  If so, I don't even have any tinfoil in the house... don't use it, don't need it.  If you're talking to "Ceasar Salad", his words aren't tinfoil in nature, so your comment makes no sense.  It also wouldn't make sense even if applied to Newf...



Ceasar is a gun nut and is only a stones throw from that neck of the woods.

Newf is a newf and so finds much better uses for tin-foil - like making improvised weed smoking devices.


----------



## Giorgio Gabriel (Jan 25, 2009)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Newf is a newf and so finds much better uses for tin-foil - like making improvised weed smoking devices.



And suddenly everything about Newf is explained.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 25, 2009)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Ceasar is a gun nut and is only a stones throw from that neck of the woods.
> 
> Newf is a newf and so finds much better uses for tin-foil - like making improvised weed smoking devices.



Ceasar isn't a nut, he's a realist...




Giorgio Gabriel said:


> And suddenly everything about Newf is explained.



I think Newf is more than meets the eye... but then again, I've never seen him, so I could be wrong.

---------

And now that that's done, let's get back on topic, shall we...?


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jan 25, 2009)

He's a realist the same way I'm a Jew.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 26, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> If you're baffled, that's your problem, isn't it?  And bullshit is always a matter of opinion...


Arrogant, no?



			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> You don't have a problem with guns being registered, even though history shows that REGISTRATION LEADS TO CONFISCATION?


Quit living in the past marge, you're living in the past.



			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> Why not this?  Have you been "listening"...?  REGISTRATION LEADS TO CONFISCATION.  Registration does nothing to end or even reduce crime, gun or otherwise, since criminals don't register their weapons.  However, as I have already stated, REGISTER VIOLENT CRIMINALS, NOT GUNS.  This way, you don't tread on the Rights and Privacy of law-abiding citizens expressing their RIGHT to Keep and Bear Arms.  And, as I have also said before, IF WE REGISTER SEX OFFENDERS, WHY NOT GUN OFFENDERS?  _That_ would serve a purpose to society, without any law-abiding citizen being marked a criminal, and being forced to give up their Rights and Privacy.  It would also avoid the issue of CONFISCATION.  Track violent criminals, not guns...


See above. Also, if you don't have them registered and they take the firearms away, you getting caught gets you in jail. I also said, for my scenario (because the registration doesn't exist) many times, there's no way they could take them away. But you choose to ignore a scenario that *I CREATED.* 




			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> You obviously haven't been paying attention to the COST of registration... both in money and in breach of privacy.  Besides which, that one negative is MASSIVE in its implications.  Reason enough to make gun registration illegal...


You obviously haven't been paying attention, if they don't spend the money there it gets wasted elsewhere, like it matters. Also they spend 700 billion per year for war funds, and also it's only a few billion. The USA seems to haven o issue fabricating money, why not this small sum.



			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> Ummm... excuse me, Newf, but *gun owners* ARE people, aren't they?


Gay rights does not equal the right to own a firearm. Firearms are objects, rights for sexuality is people.

Like I've said earlier, in my corrected statement: In my scenario, they can't take them away. Then what?
Because you've shown me evidence and you and a few others argue to the death about confiscation, without reassurance that they can't take them away I can' understand not wanting it. I can not, however, understand not needing a license to own/operate certain weapons, and owning a more advanced one for more advanced weapons. There's no need to let just anybody purchase these, and in Canada a 12 year old can pass the basic rifles test, why not adults? Clearly the system we have in place works, and it's exactly what I'm routing for the rest of the world.




			
				Wolf-Bone said:
			
		

> Newf is a newf and so finds much better uses for tin-foil - like making improvised weed smoking devices.


Well, I'm a Canadian; over half the population of Canada has done weed/cannabis. But about 50 million Americans have done it too.

Honestly more people smoke it I've found in the mainland, and especially BC compared to Newfoundland. :3



Wolf-Bone said:


> He's a realist the same way I'm a Jew.


Oh you Jew, you.



			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> I think Newf is more than meets the eye... but then again, I've never seen him, so I could be wrong.


I'm pink?


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jan 26, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:
			
		

> Oh you Jew, you.



By that I mean my beliefs are PARTIALLY derived from Judaism, and I have to acknowledge that were it not for Judaism, my faith would not exist, but aside from that, I'm about as Jewish as a roasted ham under a Christmas tree. I'm also blonde, uncircumcised and believe Jesus was (at least one incarnation of) God.

In other words, Caecar is an IDEOLOGUE. Derived from reality but bearing little resemblance to it


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 26, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Arrogant, no?



No... bullshit is a matter of opinion, and someone who is easily confused... isn't my fault.




NewfDraggie said:


> Quit living in the past marge, you're living in the past.



No, I'm living in the real world, not in some imagined fantasy-land where "modern" means crime doesn't exist.  REGISTER CRIMINALS, NOT GUNS.




NewfDraggie said:


> See above. Also, if you don't have them registered and they take the firearms away, you getting caught gets you in jail. I also said, for my scenario (because the registration doesn't exist) many times, there's no way they could take them away. But you choose to ignore a scenario that *I CREATED.*



So, you don't want to answer my question?  IF WE REGISTER SEX OFFENDERS, WHY NOT GUN OFFENDERS?

Please, answer the question...

As for your own scenario?  Registered or not, if the Government tries to take away my Rights by force, then I will need my guns to defend myself, irreguardless of the eventual outcome.  However... without registration, the Government won't know who to arrest.  And, well, it would be stupid to try and arrest someone you know is armed, especially when your act of confiscation is in violation of Constitutional Law.  And is a violation of my Civil Rights.  Meaning anyone who came to take away my guns would be a criminal force, and would be treated accordingly...




NewfDraggie said:


> You obviously haven't been paying attention, if they don't spend the money there it gets wasted elsewhere, like it matters. Also they spend 700 billion per year for war funds, and also it's only a few billion. The USA seems to haven o issue fabricating money, why not this small sum.



No, I've been paying quite a bit of attention.  Just because they would use/waste it elsewhere DOES NOT justify registration... especially since registration is an open fraud.  Oh, and the money spend on Defense is irrelevant...




NewfDraggie said:


> Gay rights does not equal the right to own a firearm. *Firearms are objects, rights for sexuality is people.*
> 
> Like I've said earlier, in my corrected statement: In my scenario, they can't take them away. Then what?
> Because you've shown me evidence and you and a few others argue to the death about confiscation, without reassurance that they can't take them away I can' understand not wanting it. I can not, however, understand not needing a license to own/operate certain weapons, and owning a more advanced one for more advanced weapons. There's no need to let just anybody purchase these, and in Canada a 12 year old can pass the basic rifles test, why not adults? Clearly the system we have in place works, and it's exactly what I'm routing for the rest of the world.



Newf, pay attention:  FIREARMS OWNERS ARE PEOPLE, TOO!  People who have the same Civil Rights as any other person...

So, answer the question:  ARE GUN OWNERS PEOPLE OR OBJECTS?




NewfDraggie said:


> I'm pink?



But are you the right shade of pink...?


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 26, 2009)

Place a gay man and a gun owner in a locked room.

The gay man is still gay, and deserves his right to be so. The gun owner no longer has his guns, and thus isn't a gun owner. It's not part of his genetic code.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 26, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Place a gay man and a gun owner in a locked room.
> 
> The gay man is still gay, and deserves his right to be so. The gun owner no longer has his guns, and thus isn't a gun owner. It's not part of his genetic code.



The gun owner is still a gun owner, Newf, just like a gay man is still a gay man.  The gun owner doesn't need to have guns present in order to be a gun owner, any more than a gay man needs to be screwing ass in order to be gay.

And, Newf... ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!

*IF WE REGISTER SEX OFFENDERS, WHY NOT GUN OFFENDERS?

ARE GUN OWNERS PEOPLE OR OBJECTS?*


----------



## virus (Jan 26, 2009)

I don't understand the whole protect yourself from nature argument. When its not attacking us its "the beauty of nature." Yet on the other hand if it attacks or kills a human its "natures fury." That bear, or puma, or wolf or whatever other predator just realized we our defenseless pussy animals. Shit its just trying to control the population as nature intended.  Every time someone gets killed by an animal I'm like "fuck yeah serves them right." Too bad for them, for us, we are not at the top of the chain. We just think we our because of guns.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 26, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:


> The gun owner is still a gun owner, Newf, just like a gay man is still a gay man.  The gun owner doesn't need to have guns present in order to be a gun owner, any more than a gay man needs to be screwing ass in order to be gay.
> 
> And, Newf... ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!
> 
> ...



No, a gay man is still gay if he doesn't have sex at all.

A gun owner isn't a gun owner unless he owns a gun.


We do register gun offenders, what planet are you on?


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 26, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> No, a gay man is still gay if he doesn't have sex at all.
> 
> *A gun owner isn't a gun owner unless he owns a gun.*



Duh... which means the whole point of registration for a NON-GUN OWNER is moot.  Your point... isn't a point.  I'm simply using the comparison of gun owners Rights to gay Rights, because they are both Civil Rights issues.  If the gun owner isn't a gun owner, then they aren't included.  Makes sense, don't it?  Poor though the comparison may be between the two Rights issues, my point is made (_if_ I think of a better one, I'll let you know)...




NewfDraggie said:


> We do register gun offenders, what planet are you on?



Proof, Newf (I'm only aware of the sex offender registry)...   http://www.nsopw.gov/Core/Conditions.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

And if so, why have gun registration, then?  So long as the violent criminals are registered, that's all that's needed.  Oh, next to mandatory execution for use of a gun in the commission of a crime...

... but then, that would eliminate the need for a violent criminal registry, wouldn't it?

Oh, wait... I found Baltimore, Maryland has a Gun Offender Registry.  And it's working!  Imagine that:  http://www.wbaltv.com/news/17372818/detail.html... http://www.examiner.com/a-1328843~Gun_offender_registry_yields_first_criminal_charge.html

Not quite in the form I would want (with mandatory execution for repeat violaters), but it's a start.

Which puts us back to square one:  GUN REGISTRATION LEADS TO CONFISCATION.  There is no other reason to register the guns of LAW-ABIDING citizens.  REGISTER GUN OFFENDERS, INSTEAD.  And no, you don't need both...

Oh, and you still didn't directly answer the question:  *ARE GUN OWNERS PEOPLE OR OBJECTS?*  Shame I could only find a Gun Offender Registry listed for the city of Baltimore, Maryland (though, in my brief search, I found out NYC is considering it).  Every city needs something like this...


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 26, 2009)

Mandatory execution for using a firearm in a crime? What are you insane? No seriously, Capital punishment is never the answer, ever. Letting them rot in a cell is a far worse punishment anyway; Eye for an eye everybody goes blind.

And the places that still continue capital punishment only enforce it under certain MURDERS, not just crimes you twit.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 26, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Mandatory execution for using a firearm in a crime? What are you insane? No seriously, Capital punishment is never the answer, ever. Letting them rot in a cell is a far worse punishment anyway; Eye for an eye everybody goes blind.
> 
> And the places that still continue capital punishment only enforce it under certain MURDERS, not just crimes you twit.



on a note of capital punishment..... the thing to realise is that the most strict societies tend to have the least crime. people'l risk it here because the stakes are low, but in places where they make sure your ass wont see the light of day again? well, not so much...

though honestly, i'll live in my higher crime rate as payment to enjoy liberty. everything has a price and so does a free society. you cant have perfect public order, and an almost completely free society at the same time.


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Jan 26, 2009)

Oh yeah, Victorian England had really low, non-existent crime rates.

Yeah, you're totally right. 

Nevermind it's been conclusively proven that harsh penalties don't have a as much of an effect on crime rates as their detectabilty has.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jan 26, 2009)

ceacar99 said:
			
		

> ON NNOE i am da tax man whot comes 2 ur house to colleckt ur taxes but oh no i cannot get 2 ur door cos there is a chocolate man in da way



HALLO i am da chocklin man and i appear 2 be in ur way


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 26, 2009)

Uhm...no part of Canada has a death penalty, several places in the US do. Again, the US has more crime, even in these places. :\


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jan 26, 2009)

Honestly, have you heard a lot of pro death penalty Americans express their rationalizations for why it's a good thing? They should wrap about six or seven towels around their fucking heads and fuck a camel.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 26, 2009)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Honestly, have you heard a lot of pro death penalty Americans express their rationalizations for why it's a good thing? They should wrap about six or seven towels around their fucking heads and fuck a camel.



xD Bone, you're awesome.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 26, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Uhm...no part of Canada has a death penalty, several places in the US do. Again, the US has more crime, even in these places. :\



wasn't really defending the death penalty in particular, but rather pointing out that many societies have gained low crime rates in key areas or overall with both heightened penalties and the willingness to persue the law with vigor. 

singapore is a great example. its one of the most peaceful(and productive) places in all of asia, yet world renowned for taking you in for a beating for seemingly simple "crimes", such as spitting on the street. 

china was the ONLY nation in the world to practically destroy drug addiction and abuse within its borders doing so by attacking it with extreme zeal and force.

mayor juiliani did a great job reducing crime in new york city by bringing a policy into being that brought about the zealous enforcement of minor crimes such as j-walking and in so doing actually REDUCED the crime rate of the city.

im sorry, history is on my side. the societies that are the most strict and also tend to have the higher punishments are also the most peaceful. well, this is true in a society that is not rampant in corruption and paranoia in the government. the western world may argue that actually killing someone for a crime shouldnt be done anymore and thats ok, but its not like they let them back on the streets. essentially the same thing, remove them from society.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jan 26, 2009)

ceacar99 said:


> proto-Arabic gibberish



Translation: Basically what he's trying to say is there is no other way to effectively govern and reform society than to rule by fear.

Edit: also copious use of the term "particular individual"


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 26, 2009)

xD I find it funny he says all this without actual sources for information.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jan 26, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> xD I find it funny he says all this without actual sources for information.



You have to live under a rock to not at least have a vague understanding of what the mainstream western media thinks of China and Singapore in terms of quality of life/human rights issues. But still, you have to be going way out in left field if you can find _any_ sources that would suggest there's something about those places we should want to emulate.

As for New York, y'know, there's reasons Al Qaeda picked that city as a target besides the WTC being iconic to Americans, which they've attested to: (paraphrasing their own rationale) OMG SODOM AND GHAMMORA MUCH?!


----------



## Tycho (Jan 26, 2009)

Gomorrah

Though I'm guessing you already knew that.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jan 26, 2009)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> Gomorrah
> 
> Though I'm guessing you already knew that.



My spell-check thingy knew enough to highlight the misspelled word but not enough to give up the correct spelling so I said fuck it.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 26, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> xD I find it funny he says all this without actual sources for information.



welp, if you want to argue against it look the fucking shit up. so far you've got me on one point in this entire discussion(one issue that i thought it might be wise to heed the word of veterans). what? i have to fucking post a book, a schollarly discussion from somewhere else or something of that matter for every single last point? 

and ya, read my post. i said i prefer my liberty rather then living in such places. however facts are facts. my liberty comes with crime.


----------



## Tycho (Jan 26, 2009)

LOL

When all else fails, call the other guy a fucking pussy hippie.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 26, 2009)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> LOL
> 
> When all else fails, call the other guy a fucking pussy hippie.



*shrug* the guy despises me because im a ultra evil "republican" monster. he's a hippie pussy. its the way things work i guess. i just find it funny that he has to pick at me in particular so much(honestly havent seen him post about much of ANYTHING cept stabbing at me since i came back to the forums)


----------



## Tycho (Jan 26, 2009)

I dunno about ultra evil republican monster, but you do seem to be a Grade AA Jumbo Farm Fresh jerk, so far.  Seriously, name-calling?

ROFL at you editing your post like that to omit the insult.  Oh you!


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 26, 2009)

he started it! *cries and runs off*


.... lol. but ya, notice that i had that "hippie" comment up for all but five seconds before my better judgement decided to remove it. heh, but ya you did see it anyway right?

on a side note, other then the angry urge to call him a hppie for basically snapping at me in every thread ive been in(ranging from saying he doesnt actually read my posts anymore because of their content to filling quotes with gibberish and putting my name on them) how have i really been such a jerk this time around? been opinionated, aggressive a few time but a jerk?


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jan 26, 2009)

I have long hair, I smoke ganja, and I think ideologues who talk about "freedom" are the antithesis of freedom, so of course, I _must be_ a hippy.

Actually, no, because unlike a hippy, at this point I would've already beat the fuck out of you.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 26, 2009)

This thread is gone downhill. CLEAR!

But yeah, if you post saying xx back up what you're saying, at least source it to prove that xx did/is happening. This isn't homework , if you make a statement back it up, especially if somebody asks you to. It falls upon the person presenting the argument, to back up the argument.




			
				Wolf-Bone said:
			
		

> Actually, no, because unlike a hippy, at this point I would've already beat the fuck out of you.


Though you know this isn't true, I know how you feel. Also, weed is awesome; less harmful than caffeine with better effects! :3


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jan 26, 2009)

No, I'm pretty sure given the opportunity, I would pound the piss out of ceacar, but that's true of a lot of people here.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 27, 2009)

ceacar99 said:


> wasn't really defending the death penalty in particular, but rather pointing out that many societies have gained low crime rates in key areas or overall with both heightened penalties and the willingness to persue the law with vigor.
> 
> singapore is a great example. its one of the most peaceful(and productive) places in all of asia, yet world renowned for taking you in for a beating for seemingly simple "crimes", such as spitting on the street.
> 
> ...



Good way to put it, ceacar...

For those of you who don't like execution, then life without parole.




Wolf-Bone said:


> Translation: Basically what he's trying to say is there is no other way to effectively govern and reform society than to rule by fear.
> 
> Edit: also copious use of the term "particular individual"



What's wrong with making *criminals* fearful...?

---------

Oh, and Newf, you still haven't answered the question:  *ARE GUN OWNERS PEOPLE OR OBJECTS?*


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 27, 2009)

The right to bear arms isn't the same as the right for a human being to live equally.

Get it right, please.

Clearly your...ideas for law aren't straight, at all. To even think that just because somebody uses a firearm for a crime means death or locked away for ever is moronic, if you think this about guns because they're so precious to you, why not swords? They were around much longer, have more people that hold them on a high pedestal, and can cause a lot of damage as well, so if we include guns in this law, swords must be as well. If swords are in it, so must knives and then sticks, etc. So anybody that commits any crime at all with any weapon, even fists, must be put to death or put into a hole for the rest of their life.

Good thinking.


Also, a proper society shouldn't have anybody obeying laws strictly on fear, again your conception of right and wrong are that of a 3rd world country, not a modern-day 21st century 1st world.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 27, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> *The right to bear arms isn't the same as the right for a human being to live equally.*
> 
> Get it right, please.
> 
> ...



Rights are Rights, and all Rights are *equal*.  Answer the question, Newf...!

Oh, so you think crime is okay, and that violent criminals shouldn't have to fear for their lives for what they've done?  You see, a law-abiding citizen would have nothing to fear.  Only those who commit violent acts would need to fear.  So, your whole house of cards just blows away.  And tell me, Newf... when you exceed the speed limit, don't you fear being pulled over?  *Shouldn't* you fear being pulled over?  You know, speeding tickets aren't cheap.  Oh... and don't you also fear getting in a car wreck, because it could kill you?  Not to mention wreck your car, and cost you lots of money.  And, well, it's my understanding that "safety" is the excuse for people buying all these SUVs...

Or do you drive like a reckless idiot, not caring about your own life or the lives of others...?

---------

Oh, by the way, I found this:




> *A STUNNING SENIOR MOMENT*
> 
> 
> Apparently, a 'self-important' college freshman attending a recent football game took it upon himself to explain to a "senior citizen" sitting next to him why it was impossible for the older generation to understand his generation.
> ...


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 27, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> Rights are Rights, and all Rights are *equal*.  Answer the question, Newf...!


They're -not- the same, as I said one doesn't have a choice in the matter, and the other doesn't affect his fucking life permanently, he can throw them away, he doesn't -need- them and he can chose.

Get. Your. Head. Out. Of. Your. Ass.

You're asking me if they're people, are you a fucking moron? Of course they're people, that doesn't make what you say correct, you're asking me if black is black, it holds absolutely no weight to your argument that gay rights and firearm rights are equal. The rights aren't the same. It's like saying rights are rights so pedos are allowed to look at CP, it's a right and it's just porn, they can't help themselves they have to look at it or else they won't be equal. /sarcasm.



			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> Oh, so you think crime is okay, and that violent criminals shouldn't have to fear for their lives for what they've done?  You see, a law-abiding citizen would have nothing to fear.  Only those who commit violent acts would need to fear.  So, your whole house of cards just blows away.  And tell me, Newf... when you exceed the speed limit, don't you fear being pulled over?  *Shouldn't* you fear being pulled over?  You know, speeding tickets aren't cheap.  Oh... and don't you also fear getting in a car wreck, because it could kill you?  Not to mention wreck your car, and cost you lots of money.  And, well, it's my understanding that "safety" is the excuse for people buying all these SUVs...
> 
> Or do you drive like a reckless idiot, not caring about your own life or the lives of others...?



I don't drive, but I'll answer it as if I did.

No, I wouldn't fear being pulled over, I obey the law simply because it's right, if I didn't feel it was right I wouldn't follow it, I don't give a shit honestly. Smoking cannabis is illegal here, I do it. Fuck those morons, it's illegal for no reason at all.

Though on the highway when I do drive (very rarely do I want to even drive anymore) I go 120 km/h, as opposed to the 100 km/h set. Because I use to be a professional driver, I think I can handle 120 when I'm use to handling 300 and winning. Granted that's with Snowmobiles, it's not that large of a difference besides it being a hell of a lot slower, but being a lot heavier and can cause more damage; I can control it, and I am a better driver than most people (not bragging, it's just most people never drove anything professionally)

People shouldn't obey law just because they will get punished, because they live in fear; people should obey the law because it's common sense and decency. You don't speed because it's proven that most people that do will end up in a wreck. You don't murder because it's fucking wrong. You don't steal because it's not yours to take.

In all countries people will break the rules, no matter what the consequences. If the government doesn't stack these statistics for the world to see, it'll look like they're doing their job better (somehow) and their country is better. Do you think these countries, like China, are actually having less crime? Honestly? It just doesn't get published, they said at the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 there was zero deaths.

Har har har. You'll believe anything that supports your side of the discussion. You know what that's called? Confirmation Biased.


Your quote means nothing because that old man didn't do fuck all, unless he was one of the people actually working on these new technologies he did nothing to contribute, and therefore didn't actually grow up with this mind-set of modernized culture. He's an old coot, and the younger generation (Generation Y) is correct, the older (Generation X) do have a completely different mindset, one that is outdated and unneeded anymore.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 27, 2009)

> Also, a proper society shouldn't have anybody obeying laws strictly on fear, again your conception of right and wrong are that of a 3rd world country, not a modern-day 21st century 1st world.



hrm... just to clear something up. i didnt necessarily say fear tactics were what was effective. i said STRICT SOCIETIES. nations that rely on fear tactics actually usually either have a highly paranoid leader, or an unstable government that often lacks legitimacy or the most common a government that has both. 

the question of the severity of law in criminal offenses involving firearms really is a matter of how much of a problem you consider it. if you want to try to halt problems severity of law can effect the number of crimes going on. however, as i said such situations aren't necessarily just about severity of law. its really about curbing violent behavior in general. its an old psychological trick, your environment reflects on you. homeless sleeping on public transportation and pissing in public, tagging, littering, DEALING in the open, and all that drastically effect how bad the "serious crime rate" is. it reflects back on people and it leads to greater things, the areas that have less of this simply have less of the worse. 

also i gotta go back to work so i didnt have time to fully proof read it but its about that statement above that enforcing the little prevents the major. 

http://www.americanexperiment.org/news/op-eds/2001-02-28.php


> Why focus police resources on misdemeanor crimes? In recent years, criminologists have learned that one of the best ways to prevent major crimes is to stop minor ones. Thugs who pull knives on unwary citizens in dark alleys are hard to catch -- they don't walk around with signs on their foreheads. Generally, however, they have as little regard for laws against small crimes as they do for laws against big ones.
> 
> The New York City Transit Police discovered this in 1991, while trying to staunch a wave of violent crime. By targeting fare-evaders and other petty offenders, the police quickly reduced felony crime by more than 30 percent. One in six fare-beaters, it turned out, was carrying a weapon or had an outstanding warrant. In like vein, Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, was caught because an officer stopped him for having no license plate on his pickup truck.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jan 27, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> What's wrong with making criminals fearful...?



Because to effectively do that you pretty much have to become one yourself.


----------



## Bambi (Jan 27, 2009)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Because to effectively do that you pretty much have to become one yourself.


 
"Criminals succeed when they turn good men into monsters." - Bambi

Making criminals afraid ... they should be afraid; but fear shouldn't be apart of us, but justice and the system.


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Jan 27, 2009)

The primary aspect of fright isn't the penalty, but it's _inevitability_. Many people do not understand this simple concept. 

A criminal is not turned off by the harsh penalty, but rather the fact that (as insignificant as it may be) it will be inevitably applied and he will lose everything he gained from the crime and more.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 27, 2009)

What? Do you have any idea the amount of crimes that go on, and aren't caught?


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Jan 27, 2009)

Mikael Grizzly said:


> Many people do not understand this simple concept.



No, we understand it all too well, as do we understand the simplicity of the kind of mind necessary to both come up with such a concept and continue to have faith in it once one outgrows superhero comics and Power Rangers. Reality is a hell of a lot more complicated, and for the ideal to remain must come the rationalizing (usually after the fact) to justify criminalizing non-harmful activities and people and brewing a culture of fear among people who mostly wouldn't engage in practices harmful to others in the first place.


----------



## ceacar99 (Jan 27, 2009)

Mikael Grizzly said:


> The primary aspect of fright isn't the penalty, but it's _inevitability_. Many people do not understand this simple concept.
> 
> A criminal is not turned off by the harsh penalty, but rather the fact that (as insignificant as it may be) it will be inevitably applied and he will lose everything he gained from the crime and more.



unfortunately it isnt necessarily inevitable. you actually have more chance of going to jail as the governor of illinois then you do if you murder someone...


----------



## Roose Hurro (Jan 27, 2009)

Wolf-Bone said:


> Because to effectively do that you pretty much have to become one yourself.



One what...?




NewfDraggie said:


> What? Do you have any idea the amount of crimes that go on, and aren't caught?



Irrelevant...




Wolf-Bone said:


> No, we understand it all too well, as do we understand the simplicity of the kind of mind necessary to both come up with such a concept and continue to have faith in it once one outgrows superhero comics and Power Rangers. Reality is a hell of a lot more complicated, and *for the ideal to remain must come the rationalizing (usually after the fact) to justify criminalizing non-harmful activities* and people and brewing a culture of fear among people who mostly wouldn't engage in practices harmful to others in the first place.



If I'm understanding you right, WolfBone... that's the whole point.  Why should anyone who hasn't... and "wouldn't engange in practices harmful to others..." why should they be made to fear?  Why should their "practices" be rendered illegal, when they cause no harm to the innocent (barring criminal negligence and abuse, which changes the whole scenario, anyway)?  REGISTER CRIMINALS, NOT GUNS.  No laws made against the INANIMATE tools of crime have ever stopped crime... or ever even reduced it.  Punishing the criminal is the only way to deal with crime.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 28, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> Irrelevant...


What? No.

Also, I guess you haven't had the time yet, or simply can't reply to what I said, oh well....


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Jan 28, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> What? Do you have any idea the amount of crimes that go on, and aren't caught?



Here in Poland? Not that high. For the amount (or rather, lack thereof) of funds, equipment and manpower our police is highly dedicated and effective. 



Wolf-Bone said:


> No, we understand it all too well, as do we understand the simplicity of the kind of mind necessary to both come up with such a concept and continue to have faith in it once one outgrows superhero comics and Power Rangers. Reality is a hell of a lot more complicated, and for the ideal to remain must come the rationalizing (usually after the fact) to justify criminalizing non-harmful activities and people and brewing a culture of fear among people who mostly wouldn't engage in practices harmful to others in the first place.



It wasn't aimed at you, but rather at Rosso and others, that somehow seem convinced that extreme penalties are a major turn off for criminals. They're not. 

If I recall correctly, it was Beccaria who recounted an interesting anecdote - whenever someone was being executed in a town, especially thieves, it was prime time for other thieves, as the town's populace gathered to watch the execution, not bothering with their stuff. 

I kind of wonder, why do you assume I support the "culture of fear" notion. I don't. I support effective police, operating within the boundaries of existing law (or going beyond from time to time, long as no real harm comes from that) and adressing the social issues that lead to crime. 

Treat the cause, not the effect.



> If I'm understanding you right, WolfBone... that's the whole point. Why should anyone who hasn't... and "wouldn't engange in practices harmful to others..." why should they be made to fear? Why should their "practices" be rendered illegal, when they cause no harm to the innocent (barring criminal negligence and abuse, which changes the whole scenario, anyway)? REGISTER CRIMINALS, NOT GUNS. No laws made against the INANIMATE tools of crime have ever stopped crime... or ever even reduced it. Punishing the criminal is the only way to deal with crime.



Heh, I think you failed to do research. Laws against "inanimate tools of crime" work and reduce crime, gun-related crime to be exact. 

I've seen a lot of strawmen, but you're definitely going for the Championship, my friend.


----------



## lilEmber (Jan 28, 2009)

^ I agree with this post, nice one.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Feb 2, 2009)

Handy reference:

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

Sorry, Newf... RL and other things have most of my time now, so I'll have to give you a raincheck...


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 2, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> Handy reference:
> 
> http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html



Leave the work of the police force to the, well police force. Vigilantism is illegal, no matter how big a weapon you have.

Also, most gun owners are simply pussies with guns in their hands, meaning if they didn't have them, they wouldn't do half the things they do, act like they do, or in the case of a  criminal, assault like they do.

This civilian got in trouble, and didn't really help at all.



			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> Sorry, Newf... RL and other things have most of my time now, so I'll have to give you a raincheck...


Kay....


----------



## Rakidex (Feb 2, 2009)

My country just let children use guns,probably training for the army from the age of 4,to be better,the shooting range is doing birthdays,it's crazy!


----------



## John Wolf (Feb 2, 2009)

The Country Like The United States Of America, should have guns rights, then that keeps, the left liberals from turning it into some sort of faggertised police state.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Feb 2, 2009)

I believe that Firearms are a right of all people...
Because the police arent going to be there instantly...
Making guns illegal means that criminals wont give a shit, and will be the only ones with weapons...
Doesn't sound fun...
In addition, I feel proud, since the State of Texas is trying to pass legislation that allows teachers to have their guns in classrooms, and allows people to openly carry firearms...
I love that whole constitution thing that so many americans have forgotten about...


----------



## Zeraio (Feb 3, 2009)

As a member of the NRA and proud gun owner of many kinds that are banned in the rest of the world... Also as an American who has the right to carry my guns on me wherever I go in my state... 

I say this: Read the 2nd amendment if you are in the USA, quite clear. We can own and have whatever we want. Thus we have never had tyranny in the USA unlike elsewhere in the world. If you do not like guns... DON'T BUY THEM!

Lastly: If you are not in the USA... Oh well. Your choice, do not shove your beliefs on Americans though the government might try it on you. Just leave us Americans alone. If you do not like the fact I can go buy as many AK-47's as I want... Tough. At least you are safe in my neighborhood unlike elsewhere in the USA where they banned them and have horrendous amounts of murder per hour and day. 

"An invasion of the USA would be absolute folly, there would be a gun behind every blade of grass." 
-General Yamamoto- When asked about the possibility of a ground invasion of the USA after pearl harbor. 

End.


----------



## Mayfurr (Feb 3, 2009)

Zeraio said:


> Lastly: If you are not in the USA... Oh well. Your choice, do not shove your beliefs on Americans though the government might try it on you. Just leave us Americans alone. If you do not like the fact I can go buy as many AK-47's as I want... Tough. At least you are safe in my neighborhood unlike elsewhere in the USA where they banned them and have horrendous amounts of murder per hour and day.



Actually, I consider myself quite safe in my country, where gun ownership IS controlled tighter than the USA. I don't even need bars on my windows.


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 3, 2009)

I don't even lock my doors, and my parents don't even take the keys out of their car.

I'm safe, and I'm not stuck at home guarding my belongings and my family with firearms, worried somebody might break in; carrying them around at all times just in case I miss the chance to shoot somebody.

But what ever, you people run off laws hundreds of years old and think in a modern culture they're good laws. Remember, they used to have all kinds of silly, fucked up laws; I guess owning guns because they turn a pussy into a tough guy, is different.


----------



## ceacar99 (Feb 3, 2009)

*cough* ahem....

http://www.quickrob.com/weblog/US_gunstatelaws.gif
here we see a index of the most controlling states in terms of firearms.

http://www.datadrivenmaps.com/myonlinemapscom/images/2007/08/12/us_violent_crime.png
here we see a map indicating violent crime in the states in a recent year

what do we see from this? first violent crime is a general thing in the united states. second, even the most restrictive states can have extremely high violent crime rates. virginia is an interesting state because it has high restriction, and low violent crime. but really its just an exeption. 

what do we see from all this? gun control seems to have little effect, at least in the us. freedom of arms doesnt seem to make violence sky rocket, nor does it seem to make it plummet. this is true of the data i presented earlier on gun control in the uk. it seemed to have a minimal effect at best. further that "minimal effect at best" described an INCREASE in violent crime, though minor rather then a decrease.

you have also got to understand something. guns are bred in the us. no it just isnt that we love guns. our economy was kick started by them. they tought henry ford how to do what he did and to this day small arms businesses churn out goods that are eargerly gobbled up. not just complete firearms(about 2 million a year), but A LOT of parts and modifacations. custom stock kits, advanced barrels and so on are extremely popular and are one of americas cornerstone businesses. hell the world record for the smallest shot group(.009 inches, five shots at 100 yards) was performed by a shooter who had spent a lifetime learning how to make great rifle barrels, not something made by big biz like remington, but a man who ran his own little shop and made some of the greatest rifles the world has ever seen.

we aren't talking about stripping something simple from the people here. 240 million arms to monitor, register, control and as many would want remove from the hands of the public. what the canadian gun laws attempted to accomplish are NOTHING compared to the undertaking of the same objectives in the us, especially considering the open hostility that would be seen. they cant fully control the shipping or immigration into this country, do you think they will be able to accurately control the movement of existing arms? especially when we have 240 MILLION arms.

and all that effort for what? dubious success? success that its advocates have yet to definitively prove?


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 3, 2009)

I've already proven that the more firearms in the US relates to more firearms used for murder.

Those two charts could be off for all I know, and if they aren't it's easy to determine why they're like that; there's more firearms and people grow up around them more, even in these states that have them controlled, I know that Cali for instance has strict gun laws, but they still have people with AR-15's in their home for...self defense? Har.

Murder is bred into certain countries, should we let them continue doing it?
Henry Ford? What are you talking about?
Sources for these claims, like the guy with the best grouping.

You're telling me that because they're already there, we shouldn't try to control it. In that case, why are they trying to control cannabis?


Maybe it's because most of the country is all about firearms, like you said they're your largest economic boost. Or maybe a lot more Americans are too crazy compared to other countries, I don't know.

You're still not right here, just because you say it's too late to change anything, doesn't make that way the right way.


Edit: Though, I do agree there would still be a high rate of crime and murder in the USA because you're mostly scared shitless from the media, I think stricter firearm laws would still lower it, at least 40%. Not right away, but things would get worse before they got better.


----------



## ceacar99 (Feb 3, 2009)

> I've already proven that the more firearms in the US relates to more firearms used for murder.



scuse me? you havent proven squat. you have laid down THREE statements that have ground. 1: canada has a lower violent crime rate. 2: canada has more strict gun control. 3: 70% of us violent crime is done with firearms where 30% of canadian ones are done with firearms, a "fact" that you failed to provide a supporting source, even though i have to provide one for EVERYTHING i say....

so far i have yet to see a defining statistic that relates the decrease in guns in ANY country and the decrease in violent crime, you havent shown me ANYTHING relating that in canada for example. IN FACT i showed you statistic of britian where violent crime even after the weapons bans was climbing at about 2-3% a year. shouldn't it be going down as more and more arms are taken out of the system or controlled? isn't that your theory? 

so far from all the evidence and statistics ive thrown on here it doesnt actually swing too far one way or another. strict states in the us are still violent, nations that suddenly strip arms from its citizens havent seen a sudden dramatic drop in violent crime and so on.... what have you shown me? that canada doenst have the crime rate that the us does and that they like to stab each other more then they like to shoot each other....



> Those two charts could be off for all I know, and if they aren't it's easy to determine why they're like that; there's more firearms and people grow up around them more, even in these states that have them controlled, I know that Cali for instance has strict gun laws, but they still have people with AR-15's in their home for...self defense? Har.



ever hear of the assault weapon's ban? MANY ar-15 variants were removed by that act alone. mostly because many could accept suppresors, or many had manufactured onto the barrel the classic bayonet lug. as such a great deal were instantly illegal.

also, in california you CANNOT have a magazine for ANY weapon that has more then 10 rounds. ar-15's may be in cali but they have to have "midget mags" in them if they are to be shot. even then full 30 round mags are often illegal elsewhere. that round limit is specifically aimed to take many weapons like the ar-15 off the market as well as pistols. it works exceptionally well for pistols really because many come with 15 round magazines standard, making the sale of such a package illegal in california. 

other arms related issues in cali include restrictions on who can buy body armor.



> Henry Ford? What are you talking about?



the arms industry in the us INVENTED the concept of assembly line and universal parts. leader's like mr hall and mr colt(hall worked for the us ordinance department and was the first person to make a rifle with FULLY universal parts. so two rifles of the same kind could be disassembled jumbled together and assembled again without any issues because all the parts were uniform) invented the processes that lead to people like say henry ford to have the technology they needed to make the assembly line even work. the arms revolution in the us was not only a revolution in the weapon itself, but how it was manufactured. engineers in the arms industry, particularly from the army began to spread this knowledge everywhere, and well, we wound up with the american industrial prowess.

the information is everywhere. however on the subject of how america is tied to the rifle i suggest you read the book american rifle by alexander rose. its an excellent read and it does cover quite a bit about how american industry was made by the arms industry. 



> Sources for these claims, like the guy with the best grouping.



mcmillian family rifles are known pretty much as the best rifles one can buy. 



			
				http://www.riflemagazine.com/magazine/PDF/HL%20239%20Partial%20(LO)2.pdf said:
			
		

> "In short, on September 23, 1973, at the
> Sportsmensâ€™s Rod and Gun Club north of
> Phoenix, Arizona, M.P. â€œMacâ€ McMillan
> fired five shots into .009 inch at 100
> ...





			
				http://nbrsa.org/rules.pdf said:
			
		

> Any range-measured target or aggregate that is measured
> smaller than or up to .009â€ larger than the existing World
> Record can be submitted to the Records Committee for
> measurement for a possible World Record with no monetary
> charge to that competitor.



sheesh, why do i have to cite EVERYTHING i say?


----------



## Uro (Feb 3, 2009)

This thread is getting way to E-serious for the furry fandom.


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 3, 2009)

I did cite my source, guess you haven't been reading. This explains a lot, actually.

Also Henry Ford basically invented simple assembly line work himself, he didn't get the idea from arms manufacturing.


----------



## Zeraio (Feb 3, 2009)

Ok I gotta put this up, BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco FIREARMS and Explosives) here in the USA who is THE federal group in charge of the above mentioned... Put out information on how crime is at a 30 year low in the USA due to LESS restrictions on guns. NRA compiled their info and the sources are at the end. America needs to have 100 guns per person and crime would be non-existant. Oh, I do not have bars on my windows, I have a gun so if someone DOES try I can shoot them down for it. They know it too. Enjoy!

http://www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=126

I gotta say this again: If you hate guns, DONT GET THEM! Do not go FORCING your beliefs on everyone else. That is why America is the GREATEST nation on the planet, we get to make INDIVIDUAL choices unlike the rest of the world. So dont like our rights? Dont move here or simply never buy a gun.

I think that sums up what anyone could say on the subject from a pro-gun standpoint... 

So I officially say: End (for the last time) Have a nice day! I will make sure to buy a box of ammo come Saturday for all you gun haters! Illegal kind in your country or state but not in mine!


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 3, 2009)

The bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms is a load of shit. I don't trust one single word they ever say about anything.

I also never said I hated guns at all you gun-nutjob.
I said people should need to get a license to own and operate firearms, higher level licensees for more advanced weapons and a special one to carry in public.

So you go have a nice day, I hope you have training, if not I laugh at you and anybody that lets you shoot a rifle.

I'll leave this right here. America isn't number one at -anything-.

This topic actually isn't about America, it's about the handgun ban in Britain, but I added my opinions about how every country should have gun control, actually the same control as Canada; you need a basic license for bolt action and pump action weapons, a more advanced one for semi-automatic weapons, and a every more advanced one that's hard to get for automatic weapons and the ability to carry in public. Though we limit/restrict certain firearms, I don't agree with the ones we restrict, but I do agree on restrictions on certain weapon systems.


----------



## Wreth (Feb 3, 2009)

Guns are bad


----------



## ceacar99 (Feb 3, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I did cite my source, guess you haven't been reading. This explains a lot, actually.
> 
> Also Henry Ford basically invented simple assembly line work himself, he didn't get the idea from arms manufacturing.



*shrug* was a while back. mustive forgotten the link. i remembered the fact that your presented because i set that as the important point in my mind. sorta the way i read arguments. i go through, flag the actual important points in my head and when argueing against i just focus on those foundation stones of your arguement. 

and nope, HENRY FORD DID NOT INVENT THE ASSEMBLY LINE. hell he was not even the first man to make an assembly line in the auto industry, he was just for a long time the best at what he did. 



			
				http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aacarsassemblya.htm said:
			
		

> . Olds invented the basic concept of the assembly line and started the Detroit area automobile industry.





			
				http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aacarsassemblya.htm said:
			
		

> . Henry Ford (1863-1947) invented an improved assembly line and installed the first conveyor belt-based assembly line in his car factory in Ford's Highland Park



however the "assembly line" wouldnt have even existed without john h hall's work....

http://www.nps.gov/hafe/historyculture/john-h-hall.htm

HALL INVENTED THE FOUNDATIONS FOR UNIVERSAL REPLACEABLE PARTS. in a way, hall's factory had the first actual assembly line. no single workman crafted the weapon from raw material anymore. each workman had a specialty and did only a few specific jobs. such as latheing barrels and so on. 

during hall's time firearms were quite simply some of the most advanced complicated machines in the world. its an incredible feat to produce them in such a manner that they are cheep and plentiful so that everyone could buy one. later other men such as samual colt would continue the tradition and invent yet more machines such as lathes and so on for the assembly line. many of those later leaders did not keep their businesses solely stuck in the arms industry either. colt, winchester, remington they all branched out.

you see, the arms industry taught first america and then the world about mass production. its simple history. its one of the legacies of the american arms industry, kick started by the first german immigrant gunsmiths that made rifles so popular in america when the rest of the western world considered even the idea of actually aiming as offensive.

further. your WHOLE arguement that guns cause violence falls apart at switzerland.



			
				http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/detail/Swiss_rapped_over_poor_data_on_gun_ownership.html?siteSect=105&sid=8148895&cKey=1188328994000&ty=st said:
			
		

> Switzerland ranks behind the United States, Yemen and Finland, but ahead of Iraq in the per capita count, and in position 22 overall.



yet according to

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

switzerland ranks 56 in murder per capita and ranks 19, just BARELY above canada in murders with firearms per capita. 

they have plenty of arms, why aren't they murdering each other all the damn time like us crazy americans?



> I'll leave this right here. America isn't number one at -anything-.



you posted again before i did, lol.

anyway, one wonders in that lil chart thingy what it means by "democracy". is it a represenative of how many people vote? that thing can be very misleading..... 

also i like the statement "one of my man boobs weighs more then you ever will, thus my country is superior". . too bad i personally am a clean cut toned individual.....


----------



## DJ-Fragon (Feb 3, 2009)

No video anymore. NRA filed copyright violation.


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 4, 2009)

ceacar99 said:
			
		

> *shrug* was a while back. mustive forgotten the link.


Understandable....



			
				ceacar99 said:
			
		

> they have plenty of arms, why aren't they murdering each other all the damn time like us crazy americans?


You answered your own question.


----------



## Mayfurr (Feb 4, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> I'll leave this right here. America isn't number one at -anything-.



I'm waiting for the inevitable "Oh, I bet it was compiled by a bunch of wussy Europeans - by OUR counts, WE come out on top of everything!" or even "So what if we're corrupt, unhealthy, short-lived, ignorant and not as free or democratic as we like to think? It doesn't matter 'cause we've got GUNS!!!!"

If it wasn't for the cold and the fact their banking system just nose-dived, Iceland's looking like a good all-round place to live


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 4, 2009)

France is apparently the best place to live, best health care in the world, lowest poverty rate, lowest criminal rate, and one of the highest happiness per capita, if not the highest.


----------



## ceacar99 (Feb 4, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> You answered your own question.



thats the point i was making. murder rate is more of a cultural issue, NOT because there are weapons laying about. 



> I'm waiting for the inevitable "Oh, I bet it was compiled by a bunch of wussy Europeans - by OUR counts, WE come out on top of everything!" or even "So what if we're corrupt, unhealthy, short-lived, ignorant and not as free or democratic as we like to think? It doesn't matter 'cause we've got GUNS!!!!"
> 
> If it wasn't for the cold and the fact their banking system just nose-dived, Iceland's looking like a good all-round place to live



if you want one of THOSE places.... move to luxembourg. 

but nope, not gonna deny those 'facts' in that lil chart. might point out some things that can be highly misleading but not gonna sit here and go "nuh-uh!!!". you gotta understand that one of the reasons why us scores so low on so much is because we are an incredibly dynamic place. while we have rich neighborhoods, there are plenty of poor too. especially after some recent mis-management. and well... our education problems are not the fault of the school system, the teachers or even the government(whom spends some of the most money per student in the entire world), it like our murder rate, our obessety "endemic" and countless other things is largely cultural. i learned myself, students dont flipping care most of the time. many have a hard time learning and decide not to give it an effort then *cough pot cough*. others have larger issues, and a few are just downright lazy like one of my brothers.


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 4, 2009)

ceacar99 said:
			
		

> thats the point i was making. murder rate is more of a cultural issue, NOT because there are weapons laying about.


Why, in general (because I know parents do in the USA), don't we let every kid operate firearms?




			
				ceacar99 said:
			
		

> you gotta understand that one of the reasons why us scores so low on so much is because we are an incredibly dynamic place. while we have rich neighborhoods, there are plenty of poor too. especially after some recent mis-management.


No, you're not dynamic. Because you have rich and poor doesn't make you dynamic at all, money doesn't make a country dynamic.



			
				ceacar99 said:
			
		

> and well... our education problems are not the fault of the school system, the teachers or even the government(whom spends some of the most money per student in the entire world)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Roose Hurro (Feb 4, 2009)

Zoopedia said:


> Guns are bad



No, people are bad... guns are tools.




NewfDraggie said:


> France is apparently the best place to live, best health care in the world, lowest poverty rate, lowest criminal rate, and one of the highest happiness per capita, if not the highest.



They also drink a lot of wine...


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 4, 2009)

Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> No, people are bad... guns are tools.


A nuke is a tool, too.



			
				Roose Hurro said:
			
		

> They also drink a lot of wine...


And that has to do with...what? Nice stereotype, I guess we can compare it to Americans and their guns, beer, morons, and religion. Oh wait, those aren't stereotypes.


----------



## ceacar99 (Feb 4, 2009)

> Why, in general (because I know parents do in the USA), don't we let every kid operate firearms?



actually MANY parents who like firearms buy .22 cal firearms and then take their child around 8-10 years old out shooting and teach them about firearms. it isnt in the hope that their child will become a master marksman or something, its so that their child in a house with firearms will know the safety rules of the weapon as well as learning how to properly clear a weapon.

many people, myself included support this activity because it helps promote responsible use of firearms. it also can be a great family building activity if some of the family members enjoy shooting. as i said, the rifle in particular is very much an american thing. not all americans go out shooting and that sort of thing, but its a tradition that has been part of our culture since the first families on the frontier in the thirteen bought their first rifles. 

men like the ww1 hero alvin york grew up with arms around them and learned to shoot well, and when occasion called for it they demonstrated incredible ability because of it. alvin york for example grew up in a culture where shooting contests were actually pretty common. in one popular style of competition even though the range was "easy"(less then 50 yards) the customary choice of a target certainly must have been hard(the head of a live turkey). 

so ya, i'm all for the instruction of firearms to the youth. it will teach them safety, it provides family growth and even community growth, and should there actually be call for it we have competent marksman whom will become champions for our people when the call comes. and hell as i said in another thread, the nra itself has trained nearly 2 million soldiers. 

one of my favorite lines on the subject of our ability to defend ourselves because of this tradition involves bunker hill. "the unfortunate habit of american aiming made bunker hill the hell for the british that it was". or something along those lines .



> No, you're not dynamic. Because you have rich and poor doesn't make you dynamic at all, money doesn't make a country dynamic.



scuse me? not dynamic? you HONESTLY think there is one solid culture from east coast to west, north to south? PLEASE. if i go to luisianna i'll certainly experience a whole new world of culture that i never knew in colorado, and the same goes for almost every state. each one has its own flavor, though the regional groups of states are very similar. you can see this by the sheer fact that each region and each state votes differently on political interests. the midwest for example is a traditional home of power for those who want to advance religious political agenda, that effect is strong enough that one hollywood movie even went to say "and to the midwest, sorry we said fuck so much". unfortunately the name of that movie is just beyond me.... i'll remember it later. 

while we all have a blanket of culture that we all sort of conform in, each area has its on tastes, styles and attitudes. everyone approaches things differently and its a fascinating subject in itself. but its also one of the reasons why the us has so much 'muscle", we think of ourselves as one unified nation(instead of individual states as we used to) but approach things countless differing ways competing and developing the best path. one of my biggest problems these days actually is that i think people put too much emphasis on thinking about federal politics and dont pay enough attention to what their own state or county is doing.



> Yes, it is. It's the system, not just the fault of the people.



the average american school is run very much like pretty much any other western school, save for maybe hours and days off. . ya the system is so jacked up because we crazy americans dont bother really trying to teach the students, we rather let them run wild, or just teach them useless things.

complete bullshit... i'm sorry you HAVE TO BLAME THE STUDENT at some point. no, i understand that you can have terrible teachers, i've had myne. large tracts of students wont even show up to school on a regular basis, not because school life is so terrible but because they'd rather do something else. 

even then the united states is trying a whole host of new school models and most of them aren't doing much better. my own high school was split into 5 smaller ones each one with its own unique set up and learning style. i went to one inspired by outward bound courses(in fact the first year of the high school us 50 softmores has to go river rafting for 7 days, the trip was set up so we had to learn to build community and work together to survive). the school generated HIGH retension of information, but it was too stressful for the staff to keep up. amongst the other systems there was a high school that focused on using computers to get things done, a classic style, learning through the arts, and i cant remember the rest...

the point is that the us is trying, and even then usually the systems fail. sometimes because the system itself is impractical, but most often because the students dont really give a shit. the whole point of that outward bound school i was originally in was to fix that problem, and it did but as i said it took too much work to operate.


----------



## Mayfurr (Feb 4, 2009)

ceacar99 said:


> one of my favorite lines on the subject of our ability to defend ourselves because of this tradition involves bunker hill. "the unfortunate habit of american aiming made bunker hill the hell for the british that it was".



As compared to modern times, where in Iraq and Afghanistan "the habit of unfortunate american aiming made Iraq and Afghanistan the hell that it was", and where British soldiers joked that they supported Americans pulling out of Iraq because then they'd only have to worry about being shot at by insurgents


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 4, 2009)

Rifles yes, air rifles. Not .22. Many Americans let them use .22's, as you said, and 9mm.

It can't be the students, because the students aren't the constant variable. It's different people, different students, the same educational system.


----------



## ceacar99 (Feb 4, 2009)

actually the situation is that there is legal age for ownership of firearms, but not one of actual use of one, at least to my knowledge. the issue is that the child in question has to be in the presence of his/her legal guardian. mostly your right they just shoot air rifles, .22 and maybe a 9mm(gotta search hard to find a 9mm that accepts single stack mags so it has a thin enough grip that they can actually get a real grip on it), however there isn't anything saying you cant teach them to shoot any rifle or pistol on a national level. its up to each individual state there, ANOTHER way we are pretty diverse....



> As compared to modern times, where in Iraq and Afghanistan "the habit of unfortunate american aiming made Iraq and Afghanistan the hell that it was", and where British soldiers joked that they supported Americans pulling out of Iraq because then they'd only have to worry about being shot at by insurgents



lol. "the only incoming fire more accurate then enemy fire is incoming friendly fire".



> It can't be the students, because the students aren't the constant variable. It's different people, different students, the same educational system.



look it up. different areas do better then others. simple fact. same fundamentals of education(though different method of management), different students and different school culture.


----------



## Kommodore (Feb 4, 2009)

> I've already proven that the more firearms in the US relates to more firearms used for murder.




I would just like to state that supplying a graph doesn't really show or prove anything in and of itself. You can put anything on a graph, find a correlation, and make a conclusion. 





From this graph we can conclude that global warming is responsible for the reduction in the number of pirates over the past two centuries. Or, we can say that the graphs show two variable that are not related, yet makes a comparison between them. America has a violent culture, and you will see that with or without guns, violence will be high. There is no good evidence linking restrictions on weapons to reduction in gun crimes, at least not in the US. Gun control might work in New Zealand, where you would have to boat all the guns in, but not here, where black market trade is rife and guns of any sort easily attainable.


----------



## John Wolf (Feb 4, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> The bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms is a load of shit. I don't trust one single word they ever say about anything.
> 
> I also never said I hated guns at all you gun-nutjob.
> I said people should need to get a license to own and operate firearms, higher level licensees for more advanced weapons and a special one to carry in public.
> ...


 
You can probably trust The ATF under The Republican Goverment, though never trust it within one metre while the democrats are in power.

Since I've just realised this thread is more in relation to English Gun laws, I can tell you they are some of the worst in the world in terms of freedom. Some members here seem to think you can have them for home defense, that is total rubbish, live handguns are practically illegal under labour and shotguns the normal side by side models, are only legal for farmers and private landowners and then only issued intended for protecting livestock.

I suggest we vote The Republic in, shut down the house of lords, and then set up copy of the U.S Constitution which protects complete free rights of Private Gun Ownership. Handguns are very cool and usefull for target practice.


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 5, 2009)

John Wolf said:
			
		

> You can probably trust The ATF under The Republican Goverment, though never trust it within one metre while the democrats are in power.


Even what they stand for is hilarious and ridiculous.



			
				John Wolf said:
			
		

> Handguns are very cool and usefull for target practice.


Hopefully they will make it more like Canada, so this isn't the only way people will be able to get them, because they think they're cool and want one.


----------



## John Wolf (Feb 6, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> Even what they stand for is hilarious and ridiculous.
> 
> 
> Hopefully they will make it more like Canada, so this isn't the only way people will be able to get them, because they think they're cool and want one.


 
Canada's rather repressive on Gun Rights, it's like the slightly less authoratarian version of the UK, and there are plenty of other reasons people should be allowed to have handguns/rifles. 

I say never trust the modern liberals, what they really intend is opression and control.


----------



## ceacar99 (Feb 6, 2009)

they dont nesisarily intend repression, but they intend to "fix society" through ever increasing control. they see something that bothers them in society and their first call is to run to the government to whine about it, rather then seeking genuine solution they much rather create an enlarging bureaucracy that is rather incapable in accomplishing the task.

btw, newfdraggie the laws in california for firearms are more rediculous then i thought.

the ar-15's that you talked about couldnt have a detachable magazine in the state of california. essentially if you had a regular ar-15 in california it not only had to have a 10 round magazine but the magazine had to be part of the lower reciever. this meant that all ar-15 rifles at the time under the law were largely useless in taking on the police for example, this is because the criminal would have to open up the weapon(push the rear takedown pin to the side and flip it up "shotgun style") and feed new rounds in the magazine, 10 round strippers on speed loaders was likely not an option because of the position of the upper receiver and possibly the lips of the magazine sitting in the weapon. 



			
				california law said:
			
		

> (1) a semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one o=f the following:
> 
> (a) pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.
> (b) thumbhole stock.
> ...



its actually because of that law that some crazy designs for ar15's have come out like this one...

http://www.californiarifles.com/

the crazy design allows a detatchable box magazine and everything in california because it technically doesnt have a thumb hole stock or a pistol grip. but you see how both ridiculous and strict california laws are now in that you cant even own a regular ar-15. it either has to have a locked magazine, or you have to remove the gas tube and fire it bolt action style.



			
				http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2.php said:
			
		

> The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.



lol they even have banned pistols like later model c96 broomhandles(early models had fixed magazines with box magazines, later ones often had detachable box magazines).

even with crazy strict laws, california is incredibly violent. obviously restriction, control and all that isnt working out so well for them....


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 6, 2009)

No, they need to have the mag non-button release, which means they need to take a pin and push in on the release, it's still there but they have to push it in with a pin, rather than a flick of the finger.

Unless you're shooting people, there's no need for you to have a fast way of reloading.

Cali also has a fucked up government and still falls under the USA, as well they're surrounded by states that have plenty of firearms, and have people like you and roose that will have their guns no matter what, even if it's illegal.


----------



## ceacar99 (Feb 6, 2009)

um, well what i intend to acomplish in the future means that i CANT risk something that stupid. like right now because of my living arrangement its illegal for me to store a firearm in my home, so i dont own one despite the fact that i have been wanting to purchase one, or make one from the ground up. 

maybe other people will have them anyway, but not me. if i intend to get my firearms and munitions company off the ground i simply cant do something that incredibly stupid....

and ya, PLENTY of people in california have weapons that break that ban(btw the thing states a detatchable box magazine, so that means that it has to be secured in the weapon with more then just a latch, a large pin still wouldnt qualify because it just acts as a crude latch and can even slide out if the weapon is just canted a little) but you have to realize, most of those people have those weapons for ciminal intentions. thousands of illegally imported kalsihkinovs wind up in california for example....


----------



## lilEmber (Feb 6, 2009)

I've read up on the gun laws, especially cali because I have lots of friends there, they all say you can have a mag (small one albeit) but it can't have a quick release, but instead you have to push a pin into the latch, the hole for the pin is located on the underside of the weapon, behind the mag and in front of the trigger usually.

Edit: It's not easy, in fact usually you'll have to lay the weapon down to do it right. The only advantage of this from opening the rifle and slotting rounds in one by one is that it allows you to just slap in a new mag and pull out the pin.


----------

