These guns keep our children safe

[Geezah]

In a prior column I described the absurdity of the U.N.'s Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), a treaty that will very likely get ratified because Nancy Pelosi says so. After all, we can't have dim parents having the final say in their children's upbringing. It takes a village and all that.

And now we learn one more aspect of this charming treaty: guns.

Yes, guns. To put it bluntly, if you live in a community with children – and who doesn't? – you shouldn't have guns.

Allegedly the CRC's justification is to keep kids from becoming child soldiers in third-world countries. No argument from me. Afghanistan could use some lessons in raising kids.

But if the U.S. ratifies the CRC, then we must accept the UN's position to "believe, teach and promote the idea that all private gun ownership is dangerous for children, and children have the right to grow up in a community that is free from all guns" (emphasis added).

Excuse me? All guns? Private ownership? So kids shouldn't play cops-and-robbers? They should be taught never to defend themselves? They should never want to become soldiers or warriors? Yes indeedy, I can just see it now. We'll become a country of wimps. Or slaves.

In a UNICEF brochure entitled "No Guns Please, We Are Children," we learn:

"Small arms and light weapons kill and disable more children and adults than any other instrument of violence in conflict and post-conflict situations and on the streets of cities worldwide. Every year, deaths linked to small arms and light weapons run into the hundreds of thousands, with those injured exceeding 1 million."

No effort to distinguish how many of these victims are kids. No effort to distinguish between the streets of Kabul and the streets of Coeur d'Alene. No effort to explain that evil people are using those guns, not peaceable citizens – because the citizens have been forcibly deprived of their guns by the evil people.

"Small arms and light weapons cause profound physical and emotional damage," states the brochure, "particularly to children, and affect their welfare."

No, they don't. Evil people do these things.

"In societies destabilized by the use of small arms and light weapons," the brochure continues, "children are denied many of their human rights."

Wrong again. Guns do not "destabilize" societies. Evil people do that, especially dictators exploiting vulnerable and disarmed citizens.

"In communities enjoying relative peace," the brochure further asserts, "children witness and are traumatized by the use of small arms and light weapons in domestic violence and in disputes. Children also become accidental victims because adults fail to keep the weapons out of their reach."

On the contrary, kids would be more traumatized if an adult didn't have a gun to take out the jerk who's doing the shooting. And true child gun-accident victims are statistically insignificant. Most "accident victims" are gang-related shootings involving minors.

This is classic liberal-think: guns are evil. People are good and pure. Therefore, if guns were banned, goodness and purity would abound and we'd have world peace and cosmic harmony and mystic crystal revelations. The Middle East would establish permanent tranquility. Criminals would become law-abiding citizens. Gangs would disappear. Pigs would fly.

The U.N. apparently cannot distinguish between the war-torn streets of Tehran and a country lane with a dad going pheasant shooting with his son. Nancy Pelosi cannot distinguish between the ethics of violent urban gang activity and a woman shooting a home intruder. Liberals cannot grasp that in otherwise civilized countries like England and Australia, where guns for all intents and purposes have been banned, the crime rate has skyrocketed because – all together now – only criminals have guns.

American children need a society with guns. The vast majority of gun-owners are responsible citizens who know guns are tools, not only to protect against a robber or to procure food, but also to keep our cancerous government in check. I have no doubts the reason Pelosi is pushing so hard to pass the CRC is because it's a backdoor way to further emasculate us.

Before liberals start sputtering statistics about toddlers shooting themselves, please go back and re-read the word responsible. Responsible people don't hand a toddler a loaded gun and tell him to have fun. Responsible parents teach their children the safe handling of firearms, and only by owning firearms will the bad guys stay away. And remember, there are just as many bad guys in the halls of Congress as there are on the gang-riddled streets of Chicago.

Nancy Pelosi and her ilk would prefer to have us be helpless citizen-slaves whose hands are almost literally tied behind our backs. She would have us become a country that cannot defend itself because its children were too "delicate" to be exposed to the only bleepin' thing keeping our government from taking over.

The bleeding hearts tell us that "regulations are needed to ensure that [guns] are not easy to acquire and are never accessible to children." They tell us that "governments must support communities in eliminating the insecurity, fear and instability that often lead people to acquire and keep guns." They tell us that "efforts must be ongoing to overcome the destructive messages that small arms and light weapons are essential instruments for survival and protection in daily life." They tell us that if guns are gone we'll live in world peace and cosmic harmony and mystic crystal revelations.

This is why our current administration is so hot on ratifying the CRC. In addition to limiting the rights of parents, it's a simple way to train children to think guns are evil. Such children never grow up to become soldiers and warriors – or worse, an armed citizenry. The government likes a passive population who is unable or unwilling to resist it. They prefer us to be dependent on them for our protection. What a tidy solution all wrapped up in one neat package!

To my way of thinking, it's criminal NOT to teach our children the proper place of guns in our society. And in our hands.



Link (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99564)

............................

[LRPV]

I think the US is safe. How many unregistered firearms in private hands? Any attempt to remove them from society would be futile. Lucky bastards...p-)

[Geezah]

I think the US is safe. How many unregistered firearms in private hands? Any attempt to remove them from society would be futile. Lucky bastards...p-)

There is no Federal requirement to register firearms in the US.

[Weasel]

To my way of thinking, it's criminal NOT to teach our children the proper place of guns in our society. And in our hands. I´m glad to live in a criminal society and country. :)

[Kit]

I´m glad to live in a criminal society and country. :)

You're from Austria?

[Walter Sobchak]

You're from Austria?

They found the hard way in 1938, but apparently, THAT can't happen again... can it?

As a great man once said, "Trust but verify!"

[MaverickCowboy]

There is no Federal requirement to register firearms in the US.

Hope to never either

[deagle]

its not the gun that kills ppl, but ppl.



cops and robbers use guns...the difference is the training and certification REQUIRED to put them in the properly trained ppl.

[MaverickCowboy]

its not the gun that kills ppl, but ppl.



cops and robbers use guns...the difference is the training and certification REQUIRED to put them in the properly trained ppl.

its a right. not a privilege remember.

[Eye]

its a right. not a privilege remember.
Unfortunately it's still privilege in many places.

[Lau]

They found the hard way in 1938, but apparently, THAT can't happen again... can it?

As a great man once said, "Trust but verify!"

Somalia is flooded with weapons, and let me tell you something, it ain't saving them from ANYTHING!

The lala land where the right to bare arms prevent evil things to be done to you and your family, is not real! It's merely propaganda, and you fell for it.

[Walter Sobchak]

Somalia is flooded with weapons, and let me tell you something, it ain't saving them from ANYTHING!

The lala land where the right to bare arms prevent evil things to be done to you and your family, is not real! It's merely propaganda, and you fell for it.


Using Somalia as an example of a failure of the right to bear arms is ludicrous; if anything, the opposite is true. There exists in Somalia no government, order or anything else, as the lawless armed have destroyed it. The majority of the defenseless people in Somalia, who are robbed, enslaved and terrorized by the well-armed minority, are the perfect example of a defenseless, unarmed mob of human cattle, ripe for exploitation.

Given a few changes in government or economic circumstances, the vast body of you unarmed Europeans, trusting blindly in the inherent goodness of your governments and your neighbors, may be just the next bunch of Somalis. Don't say it cannot happen, because history proves you wrong.

As to your original point, as written, I also believe in my right to bare arms... no one will force me to wear long sleeves against my will! Never.

As for it being "propaganda", there's a difference between hearing something and living it. It's the difference between being free and allowing being lead like a dumb animal.

[Laworkerbee]

The lala land where the right to bare arms prevent evil things to be done to you and your family, is not real! It's merely propaganda, and you fell for it.

Americans were granted the right to bear arms so we as citizens could resist government tyranny.

All the other reasons don't count.

[Lau]

Using Somalia as an example of a failure of the right to bear arms is ludicrous; if anything, the opposite is true. There exists in Somalia no government, order or anything else, as the lawless armed have destroyed it. The majority of the defenseless people in Somalia, who are robbed, enslaved and terrorized by the well-armed minority, are the perfect example of a defenseless, unarmed mob of human cattle, ripe for exploitation.

Not any more a failure than using Austrian in 1938 as an example.




Given a few changes in government or economic circumstances, the vast body of you unarmed Europeans, trusting blindly in the inherent goodness of your governments and your neighbors, may be just the next bunch of Somalis. Don't say it cannot happen, because history proves you wrong.

No need to trust it blindly, the best weapon against any government, is education. A well educated population will not be easily fooled. A well armed one will.




As to your original point, as written, I also believe in my right to bare arms... no one will force me to wear long sleeves against my will! Never.


That's almost funny... almost..



As for it being "propaganda", there's a difference between hearing something and living it. It's the difference between being free and allowing being lead like a dumb animal.

Feeling free is not fearing your government! you have a fear that your government one day will become so corrupt, or so oppressive that you have to fight against it with weapons. I have no such fear.

A sheep will always fear the sheepherder. Sheep's are very dumb animals.

[Laworkerbee]

No need to trust it blindly, the best weapon against any government, is education. A well educated population will not be easily fooled. A well armed one will.

Why not have a well educated and an armed citizenry? Are you going to tell me that only ignorant people consider firearms important?

[NoRestForTheWeary]

Didn't Denmark surrender to Germany in like 2 hours?



That's almost funny... almost..

[Cstafford]

Why did you do that....

[Geezah]

Somalia is flooded with weapons, and let me tell you something, it ain't saving them from ANYTHING!

Somalia is not America!




The lala land where the right to bare arms prevent evil things to be done to you and your family, is not real! It's merely propaganda, and you fell for it.


Men far superior in intelligence than you or I understood the nature of man, and the fact that things may evolve, but our wants and needs do not!
I would say that you sir, are in lala land!



To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

[Walter Sobchak]

Not any more a failure than using Austrian in 1938 as an example.

Why not? The Austrians who were the enemies of the Nazis awoke one morning to find that they were well and truly out of options. They were lead away to the camps without recourse. Not enough survived to document whether they wish they'd been armed or not.


No need to trust it blindly, the best weapon against any government, is education. A well educated population will not be easily fooled. A well armed one will.

To some extent that's true, but I have two words for you: Pol Pot. You can be a Nobel Prize winner, and the conscript with a gun trumps all your intellect. Many educated persons have been lead away to be killed. As for being too educated to allow a tyrant to take over, history is full of those who felt that way. Imagine people in Yugoslavia of the middle-1980s ever imagining their awful future.

And what about where the government controls the education? No defense there, is it?


That's almost funny... almost..

Bare versus bear? Your words...


Feeling free is not fearing your government! you have a fear that your government one day will become so corrupt, or so oppressive that you have to fight against it with weapons. I have no such fear.

I don't fear my government, because I have the means to defend myself against that government and its policies. It's truly liberating... I have more than hope and faith to protect me and my family.

That you can look at the track record of civilizations over the last 100 years and feel no fear of government institutions speaks volumes of your faith in fallible institutions or of blissful ignorance or both.


A sheep will always fear the sheepherder. Sheep's are very dumb animals.

Even a sheep is smart enough to sense danger. But like sheep, sheeple are not willing to defend themselves, relying instead on some amorphous hope that all will be peachy.

If you're happy with that, so am I.

[MaverickCowboy]

Somalia is flooded with weapons, and let me tell you something, it ain't saving them from ANYTHING!

The lala land where the right to bare arms prevent evil things to be done to you and your family, is not real! It's merely propaganda, and you fell for it.

LOL.


you win the internets.

[Latre]

Why not? The Austrians who were the enemies of the Nazis awoke one morning to find that they were well and truly out of options. They were lead away to the camps without recourse. Not enough survived to document whether they wish they'd been armed or not.

Majority of Austrians didn't consider Nazis as enemies nor the annexation as bad. Only the minorities were send to camps and even if they had had weapons it wouldn't have changed anything.


To some extent that's true, but I have two words for you: Pol Pot. You can be a Nobel Prize winner, and the conscript with a gun trumps all your intellect. Many educated persons have been lead away to be killed. As for being too educated to allow a tyrant to take over, history is full of those who felt that way. Imagine people in Yugoslavia of the middle-1980s ever imagining their awful future.

And what about where the government controls the education? No defense there, is it?

Pol Pot didn't kill all those people by himself. He had an army of uneducated henchmen to do it.


I don't fear my government, because I have the means to defend myself against that government and its policies. It's truly liberating... I have more than hope and faith to protect me and my family.

That you can look at the track record of civilizations over the last 100 years and feel no fear of government institutions speaks volumes of your faith in fallible institutions or of blissful ignorance or both.

In the age of tanks, jets, laserguided bombs and all the other sorts of hi-tech ways to kill you're confident that you can protect yourself against the government with an assault rifle? Good luck with that.

[PeterRJG]

In the age of tanks, jets, laserguided bombs and all the other sorts of hi-tech ways to kill you're confident that you can protect yourself against the government with an assault rifle? Good luck with that.

Considering most of the US is urban and the traditional difficulties faced by militaries in urban situations, I'd say they'd have considerable "luck" defending themselves against their gubmint.

[Othree52]

Considering most of the US is urban

HUH?? You could say that most of New England or East Coast is urban, but to say that MOST of the US is urban is comical. Take a trip to the South, Midwest, states in the Mountain time zone and deserts, you will see that the United States is quite the opposite of being mostly urban.

[Zarak]

No need to trust it blindly, the best weapon against any government, is education. A well educated population will not be easily fooled. A well armed one will.

Germany was one of the most educated nations in the world when its people were 'fooled' by National Socialism. In the uneducated nations which have fallen to tyranny, it was the educated themselves which became the tyrants.

Perhaps instead of 'educated' you mean 'indoctrinated'? You certainly are the latter, it would seem.

[PeterRJG]

HUH?? You could say that most of New England or East Coast is urban, but to say that MOST of the US is urban is comical. Take a trip to the South, Midwest, states in the Mountain time zone and deserts, you will see that the United States is quite the opposite of being mostly urban.

75% of the US is urbanised. Any further questions?

[Lau]

These guns discussions are absolutely hilarious. I cant believe how worked up some of you get whenever i question the right to bear arms.. and have bare arms. ;)

If I offended any of you by saying 'guns are bad mmkay', I'm truly sorry. I should have kept my mouth shut, since this will obviously lead nowhere.

cheer up people, and have a nice day.

[Sayeret]

In the age of tanks, jets, laserguided bombs and all the other sorts of hi-tech ways to kill you're confident that you can protect yourself against the government with an assault rifle? Good luck with that.

I'm surprised you could hold that belief with all the conflicts involving guerilla warfare going on. IEDs and heavier weapons aren't legal obviously but it's not a far stretch of the imagination to believe that such weapons could be made or smuggled into conflict zone.

[Holycrusader]

75% of the US is urbanised. Any further questions?

Wow, according to you US territory is one big city with some parks...

[PeterRJG]

Wow, according to you US territory is one big city with some parks...

According to me? Where did I say that? I said 75% of the US is urbanised. What part of that did you not ****ing understand? The part that started with 75, right?

Dumbass. "Opening my mouth and inserting my foot." - yep, you got that bit right about yourself.

[Breakfast in Vegas]

According to me? Where did I say that? I said 75% of the US is urbanised. What part of that did you not ****ing understand? The part that started with 75, right?

Dumbass. "Opening my mouth and inserting my foot." - yep, you got that bit right about yourself.According to US census bureau statistics about 81% of the US population lives in either urban areas or urban clusters, so 81% is considered urbanised. That doesn't however mean that 81% of US territory is urban.

Around 2% of US territory is urban, adding urban clusters (essentially suburban sprawl) still leaves less than 5% of US territory under pavement.

So 81% of the population lives in 5% of the area.

[PeterRJG]

According to US census bureau statistics about 81% of the US population lives in either urban areas or urban clusters, so 81% is considered urbanised. That doesn't however mean that 81% of US territory is urban.

Around 2% of US territory is urban, adding urban clusters (essentially suburban sprawl) still leaves less than 5% of US territory under pavement.

So 81% of the population lives in 5% of the area.

Same with my country. About 95% of Australia is urbanised (amongst the highest in the world). That 95% occupies likes 3-4% the land.

Any enemy wanting to conquer the US or Australia needs to deal with that urbanised population, doesn't it? They're free to conquer the Simpson Desert here or the Mojave Desert in the US if they want to.

Again, any prospective enemy has to deal with a population that lives mainly in cities. Urban warfare, once again.

[Fargin]

It's irresponsible call a firearm anything but a weapon.

Considering a weapon an inanimate objects, a mer tool, without evil intentions, leads to negligence and dead toddlers. Your not doing responsible gunowners any favours, by trying to re-classify guns as kitchen utilities.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Using Somalia as an example of a failure of the right to bear arms is ludicrous; if anything, the opposite is true. There exists in Somalia no government, order or anything else, as the lawless armed have destroyed it. The majority of the defenseless people in Somalia, who are robbed, enslaved and terrorized by the well-armed minority, are the perfect example of a defenseless, unarmed mob of human cattle, ripe for exploitation.

Given a few changes in government or economic circumstances, the vast body of you unarmed Europeans, trusting blindly in the inherent goodness of your governments and your neighbors, may be just the next bunch of Somalis. Don't say it cannot happen, because history proves you wrong.

As to your original point, as written, I also believe in my right to bare arms... no one will force me to wear long sleeves against my will! Never.

As for it being "propaganda", there's a difference between hearing something and living it. It's the difference between being free and allowing being lead like a dumb animal.

Saddam's Iraq had a gun culture that made the US look like kids stuff. It didn't stop them being oppressed by their own government or being invaded by foreign powers.

[Breakfast in Vegas]

Again, any prospective enemy has to deal with a population that lives mainly in cities. Urban warfare, once again.They'll never take Wyoming... :)

[Holycrusader]

According to me? Where did I say that? I said 75% of the US is urbanised. What part of that did you not ****ing understand? The part that started with 75, right?

Dumbass. "Opening my mouth and inserting my foot." - yep, you got that bit right about yourself.

urbanize or -ise
Verb
[-izing, -ized] or -ising, -ised to make a rural area more industrialized and urban
urbanization
-isation n
Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006

As we see here that term do not talk only about population but about area too.
Saying that 75% of the US is urbanised is false, because by US you mean its territory too.
If you say that "75% of the US population is urbanised" you could be right...

[PeterRJG]

urbanize or -ise
Verb
[-izing, -ized] or -ising, -ised to make a rural area more industrialized and urban
urbanization
-isation n
Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006

As we see here that term do not talk only about population but about area too.
Saying that 75% of the US is urbanised is false, because by US you mean its territory too.
If you say that "75% of the US population is urbanised" you could be right...

Terminology. Maybe so, but I didn't say it was one big city with a few parks, did I? You lost it right there...

[Zeev]

Somalia is flooded with weapons, and let me tell you something, it ain't saving them from ANYTHING!.

What an exemple, an anarchic third world country without even the smallest roots of any viable civil society.

Clever comparaison, the US and Somalia surely share a lot in common.

[Geezah]

It's irresponsible call a firearm anything but a weapon.

Considering a weapon an inanimate objects, a mer tool, without evil intentions, leads to negligence and dead toddlers. Your not doing responsible gunowners any favours, by trying to re-classify guns as kitchen utilities.

Dead toddlers, where the hell did this come from?

[Dan2004]

In the age of tanks, jets, laserguided bombs and all the other sorts of hi-tech ways to kill you're confident that you can protect yourself against the government with an assault rifle? Good luck with that.


The problem would be getting those tanks to roll out, those jets to fly, those LGBs to drop, and all those other whizbang tactical killin things to do their stuff.

I don't know about anybody else, but I'm not gonna murder my fellow citizens. :-(

[Laworkerbee]

Saddam's Iraq had a gun culture that made the US look like kids stuff. It didn't stop them being oppressed by their own government or being invaded by foreign powers.

While this is true Iraqi society was pitted against each other quite effectively by Saddam.

Then again, that didn't stop armed Iraqi's from trying to assassinate Uday Hussien p-)

[Laworkerbee]

In the age of tanks, jets, laserguided bombs and all the other sorts of hi-tech ways to kill you're confident that you can protect yourself against the government with an assault rifle? Good luck with that.

Really?

This is a very lame argument.

[Zeev]

I hate the anti gun people, most of the time, their ideas are much more a threat to society than gun owners..

[deagle]

guns by themselves don't keep children safe.... responsible users do. to that end, if ownership entails a required gun safety class for certification, all the better. we do it for driver's licenses.

look at the many articles of kids getting killed by self-inflicted shots, due to horseplay and not keeping the gun properly safely stored.

[Laworkerbee]

guns by themselves don't keep children safe.... responsible users do. to that end, if ownership entails a required gun safety class for certification, all the better. we do it for driver's licenses.

What part of driving is a privilege and not a right do you not understand? Yet you persist in this angle in almost every post.

[Fargin]

Dead toddlers, where the hell did this come from?
From the stupid article that says: "Responsible citizens who know guns are tools" and continues: "toddlers shooting themselves, please go back and re-read the word responsible."


What part of driving is a privilege and not a right do you not understand? Yet you persist in this angle in almost every post.
Rights are interpreted by different administrations.

[Geezah]

From the stupid article that says: "Responsible citizens who know guns are tools" and continues: "toddlers shooting themselves, please go back and re-read the word responsible."

Nothing about dead toddlers, and it was in reference to the crap the libs spout.


Before liberals start sputtering statistics about toddlers shooting themselves, please go back and re-read the word responsible. Responsible people don't hand a toddler a loaded gun and tell him to have fun.

And firearms are tools, I don't leave my handtools out for my kids to get to.

[Laworkerbee]

Rights are interpreted by different administrations.

An administration can interpret until they are blue in the face, they have no say in the matter.

[Geezah]

What part of driving is a privilege and not a right do you not understand? Yet you persist in this angle in almost every post.

I know, he keeps on with the same old tired sh1t.


guns by themselves don't keep children safe.... responsible users do. to that end, if ownership entails a required gun safety class for certification, all the better. we do it for driver's licenses.

look at the many articles of kids getting killed by self-inflicted shots, due to horseplay and not keeping the gun properly safely stored.


Driving and firearm ownership are not the same thing, no where in the Bill of Rights does it mention that you have a right to drive a car!

[Mackie]

They found the hard way in 1938, but apparently, THAT can't happen again... can it?

As a great man once said, "Trust but verify!"

Which idiot in the NRA invented the "guns prevent dictatorship" theory?
"Give them an enemy and they will follow" said an bastard years before.

Try to read something about the austrian role in WWII

[Fargin]

And firearms are tools, I don't leave my handtools out for my kids to get to.
If they are merely tools, what do you need the Second Amendment for?


An administration can interpret until they are blue in the face, they have no say in the matter.
Last and current certainly disagree on both the 2nd and 8th.

[PeterRJG]

I know, he keeps on with the same old tired sh1t.


No offence Geez, but if that applied to anyone on mp.net, it'd be you mate. You really can be a crack in the record...but don't let me stop you. :)

[Geezah]

No offence Geez, but if that applied to anyone on mp.net, it'd be you mate. You really can be a crack in the record...but don't let me stop you. :)

No offense taken, I merely tow the line when the 2nd Am is involved. I just need to get on board and tow the line of the 2.1 Am. The one where the people have the right to drive cars!!!!

[Geezah]

If they are merely tools, what do you need the Second Amendment for?


Tools that serve a purpose.................

[Geezah]

Which idiot in the NRA invented the "guns prevent dictatorship" theory?
"Give them an enemy and they will follow" said an bastard years before.




Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

.......................

[Hot Lips]

Nothing about dead toddlers, and it was in reference to the crap the libs spout.

And firearms are tools, I don't leave my handtools out for my kids to get to.

It doesn't have to be in the article you quoted to be true. It's rather disingenuous to pretend these things don't happen by responding with "where the hell did this come from" when you are the one that titled the thread "guns keep our children safe".

We all know accidents happen when people are irresponsible with their weapons. He merely said when you stop treating a gun as a weapon and instead act as if it's just another tool you deminish respect for the harm it can do. I think most people would agree that a healthy respect for the dangers guns present by their very design as a weapon built to kill foes and food, is not a bad thing to make children aware of.

Tragic shooting death of a Bakersfield toddler 05/28 (http://www.kget.com/news/local/story/Update-Tragic-shooting-death-of-a-Bakersfield/NY4TGuWP0U-ukV6agfBsaw.cspx) (three year old girl shoots and kills her 2 year old brother)

[Geezah]

It doesn't have to be in the article you quoted to be true. It's rather disingenuous to pretend these things don't happen by responding with "where the hell did this come from" when you are the one that titled the thread "guns keep our children safe".

The article said nothing about dead toddlers!


Before liberals start sputtering statistics about toddlers shooting themselves, please go back and re-read the word responsible. Responsible people don't hand a toddler a loaded gun and tell him to have fun.



We all know accidents happen when people are irresponsible with their weapons. He merely said when you stop treating a gun as a weapon and instead act as if it's just another tool you deminish respect for the harm it can do.

BS, I have chisels that could do as much damage as a firearm, the same with my Stanley Knife even my hammers. These are tools, I don't leave them lying around, I keep them out of harms way. The same way I keep the pool chemicals out of the way of my 4yr old.



I think most people would agree that a healthy respect for the dangers guns present by their very design as a weapon to use against foes and food, is not a bad thing to make children aware of.

Tragic shooting death of a Bakersfield toddler 05/28 (http://www.kget.com/news/local/story/Update-Tragic-shooting-death-of-a-Bakersfield/NY4TGuWP0U-ukV6agfBsaw.cspx) (three year old girl shoots and kills her 2 year old brother)

The same healthy repsect if not more should also be applied to swimming pools then, as these kill more kids a year than firearms!

Maybe that's why my chemicals are locked up and there is a padlock on the gate that leads up to the deck for the pool.

[Hot Lips]

What part of driving is a privilege and not a right do you not understand? Yet you persist in this angle in almost every post.

Obviously there is a difference and yet both if operated improperly can cause harm to others as well as the owner. Therefore, the idea of requiring safety classes or tests has appeal in theory. Then again, for the number of times I'd love to be able to hand out traffic violation tickets on the way to and from work to others on the road, not sure what good that does either. Still making people go through the classes and tests helps over all, despite the asshats on the road.

If you couldn't flat out require it, perhaps if there were an incentive, such as if you take the class and pass the test you can own sooner or acquire a CCW sooner.

[Hot Lips]

The article said nothing about dead toddlers!

It didn't have to be. The subject is how guns keep children safe. Toddlers are children. It was a relevant observation.


BS, I have chisels that could do as much damage as a firearm....

And yet you don't walk around with your chisel "from the moment I wake up till the time I go to bed". I think we all know why - because there is a profound difference between them.

You really do your cause and credibility a disservice by feigning ignorance of the dangers a gun presents.

And I agree about swimming pools. They are dangerous when readily accessible to children, especially unmonitored access.

[Hot Lips]

Geezah exciting "the base" gets you nowhere, but where you already are. Winning over moderates is how ground is gained. When you deny simple truths, blame everything on "the libs", and talk about conspiracy theories regarding the government conspiring to take your guns it really only pushes people in the other direction.

I have friends and family who are gun owners. I lived with a gun owner. I consider owning a gun if I can justify the expense sometime. But I also support gun control for the purposes of maintaining order, keeping crime down, etc.

I do not believe that a world where most people are roaming the streets with a gun under their jacket and where people want to "help" law enforcement, or protect their lawn or their neighbors property by force is the right direction to go in.

[Geezah]

And yet you don't walk around with your chisel "from the moment I wake up till the time I go to bed". I think we all know why - because there is a profound difference between them.

They are all tools that serve a purpose, while I understand you don't like a firearm being labeled as a tool, it is.
They all require a certain amount of responsibility to use them correctly and keep them safe.



You really do your cause and credibility disservice by feigning the dangers a gun presents.

Because firearms have a habit of jumping up and attacking people?

Please, like I wrote before, more kids are killed each year by swimming pools and ponds but there are no laws restricting the ownership of pools or ponds.

All this is on your part and a few others is nothing more than demonizing something you do not feel comfortable with.



And I agree about swimming pools. They are dangerous when readily accessbile to children, especially unmonitored access.


No different to plastic bags and the dangers they pose to babies.

We take precautions with all items in the household to help keep our children safe, firearms included.

[Hot Lips]

Because firearms have a habit of jumping up and attacking people?

I'm certain the fact that we're discussing owners maintaining a healthy respect for the dangers of firearms hasn't eluded you. Yet you maintain that firearms are just like chisel and hammers. Actions speak louder than words, you don't choose to protect yourself with a chisel.

[Hot Lips]

Please, like I wrote before, more kids are killed each year by swimming pools and ponds but there are no laws restricting the ownership of pools or ponds.

Actually there are laws related to swimming pools and making them safer for the sake of children. But swimming pools weren't designed with the intent of killing food or foes.

[Geezah]

Geezah exciting "the base" gets you nowhere, but where you already are. Winning over moderates is how ground is gained.

I would say Obama has done a grand job on that front, firearm sales are skyrocketing along with ammo. All due in part to those that believe that Obama and his ilk are pushing towards enacting more laws and bans towards firearms and those that have a healthy respect for the 2nd.



When you deny simple truths, blame everything on "the libs", and talk about conspiracy theories regarding the government conspiring to take your guns it really only pushes people in the other direction.

The libs records speak for themselves, there is no conspiracy theory involved. Anyone that would walk in the other direction would already do so.



I have friends and family who are gun owners.

And...........I know people that own firearms, both Military, Vets, LE and law abiding civilians and we all think the same way.



I lived with a gun owner.

So does that mean my Wife doesn't own any then?



I consider owning a gun if I can justify the expense sometime.

Don't bother, I believe it would be like handing a toddler a firearm because you would not give it the time it would need to become profient with it.
If you cannot justify the expense, then how can you justify buying one?




But I also support gun control for the purposes of maintaining order, keeping crime down, etc.

Again, this is another reason why it would be better you do not pursue firearm ownership, as I'm sure you would take to a life of crime.

Best form of firearm control, just don't purchase one.



I do not believe that a world where most people are roaming the streets with a gun under their jacket and where people want to "help" law enforcement, or protect their lawn or their neighbors property by force is the right direction to go in.

And there are those that do, oh well, my home is my castle........

[Geezah]

I'm certain the fact that we're discussing owners maintaining a healthy respect for the dangers of firearms hasn't eluded you. Yet you maintain that firearms are just like chisel and hammers. Actions speak louder than words, you don't choose to protect yourself with a chisel.

Firearms are tools, plain and simple, they serve a purpose.

[Laworkerbee]

Will you two just get a room already......

p-)

[Geezah]

Actually there are laws related to swimming pools and making them safer for the sake of children. But swimming pools weren't designed with the intent of killing food or foes.

So it is the design that irks you more than anything else, after all, more kids are killed each year due to swimming pools over firearms.

[Hot Lips]

Geezah, I'm trying to meet you half there and remind you that I'm not anti-gun, which seems to be your primary concern in most of these threads, and yet you're still being combative. Do you even see that?

There really isn't anything wrong with the notion of having a healthy respect for the dangers a firearm presents. That's all that was said. And yet you are arguing against it. That a responsible owner would argue otherwise is amazing.

[Geezah]

Geezah, I'm trying to meet you half there and remind you that I'm not anti-gun, which seems to be your primary concern in most of these threads, and yet you're still being combative. Do you even see that?

I think it's the difference between you and I. I have come from the other side, rabid anti-gunite when I moved here, then I saw the light and realised that firearms are not the issue, but those that use them to commit crime.



There really isn't anything wrong with the notion of having a healthy respect for the dangers a firearm presents. That's all that was said. And yet you are arguing against it. That a responsible owner would argue otherwise is amazing.

Hang on a moment, I never said anything of the kind.
I am pushing the point that common sense needs to be applied to a whole slew of different items.
I apply the necessary precautions to keep my tools, what ever they may be out of harms way.

[Hot Lips]

I think it's the difference between you and I. I have come from the other side, rabid anti-gunite when I moved here, then I saw the light and realised that firearms are not the issue, but those that use them to commit crime.

That is the difference in most of our conversations. I'm more middle of the road. Not one side or the other. For me the "light" is compromise between extremes.



Hang on a moment, I never said anything of the kind.
I am pushing the point that common sense needs to be applied to a whole slew of different items.
I apply the necessary precautions to keep my tools, what ever they may be out of harms way.

In a sense you are. You are arguing that a gun is the equivalent of a chisel or a hammer. That being the case why not wear a carpenter's belt around all day? The answer is obvious.

[shocker1]

T
In a sense you are. You are arguing that a gun is the equivalent of a chisel or a hammer. That being the case why not wear a carpenter's belt around all day? The answer is obvious.
A good tool belt has some sort of holster.

[Expert Marksman 126]

Geezah, I'm trying to meet you half there and remind you that I'm not anti-gun, which seems to be your primary concern in most of these threads, and yet you're still being combative. Do you even see that?

There really isn't anything wrong with the notion of having a healthy respect for the dangers a firearm presents. That's all that was said. And yet you are arguing against it. That a responsible owner would argue otherwise is amazing.

A firearm is not dangerous. A gun can not fire itself. If I were to take my shotgun, load it, and lay it on my table with the muzzle pointed at me I would be totally safe.

The only thing that makes a gun dangerous is the person behind the trigger.

[Hot Lips]

A firearm is not dangerous. A gun can not fire itself. If I were to take my shotgun, load it, and lay it on my table with the muzzle pointed at me I would be totally safe.

The only thing that makes a gun dangerous is the person behind the trigger.

Obviously. Which is why we are talking about the people that use and have access to them maintaining a healthy respect for what can happen when you pick one up.

I'm fairly certain the odds of that 3 year old killing her 2 year old brother were magnified with a loaded firearm in her hands than a chisel.

Maybe her parents figured it wasn't any more dangerous than a spatula or a cheese grater.

A firearm is not the equivalent of a chisel nor mere kitchen utensil (the offending statement). I think that notion is accurate. Why anyone would dispute it is beyond me. Those are the kinds of arguements that actually push voters away because they defy any sense of reason.

[Geezah]

In a sense you are. You are arguing that a gun is the equivalent of a chisel or a hammer. That being the case why not wear a carpenter's belt around all day? The answer is obvious.


No I am not, don't try and twist my words around!

This is what I wrote,


BS, I have chisels that could do as much damage as a firearm, the same with my Stanley Knife even my hammers. These are tools, I don't leave them lying around, I keep them out of harms way. The same way I keep the pool chemicals out of the way of my 4yr old.

As you want to focus on chisels, I had to write the following,



Hang on a moment, I never said anything of the kind.
I am pushing the point that common sense needs to be applied to a whole slew of different items.
I apply the necessary precautions to keep my tools, what ever they may be out of harms way.

Read my last quote again and understand I use common sense to apply the necessary precautions to keep them out of harms way.

I understand what you are doing here, you would prefer to isolate firearms and not refer to them as tools as it is easier on your part to then demonize them.

[Hot Lips]

I have chisels that could do as much damage as a firearm, the same with my Stanley Knife even my hammers.

I wonder which would cause reasonable people more anxiety, their children wandering into 1] a room with the hammer or 2] a room with the loaded firearm.

No. I still don't see them as the same. And as a juror I likely wouldn't see it the same way if a child were involved in an accident with a hammer versus an accident with a firearm.

Yes, parents need to be responsible with a great many things their children have access to. I think guns should hit the top of the list. I don't think we disagree on that. I'm simply amazed that you are equating a firearm to a handtool. I agree with the statement it's irresponsible to label it as anything less than a weapon.

If you want to teach kids that hammers are dangerous too. By all means. But more emphasis should be duely placed on firearms.

I'm not "demonizing" the firearm :roll:, merely acknowledging their ability to inflict harm more expeditiously as evidence by it being the weapon of choice of so many gun rights advocates. I doubt most would feel as if they could do as much with a hammer.

I don't think Students for Concealed Hammers will be gaining popularity anytime soon.

[Engine Mech]

Can i have a rant too. I work for an american owned company and they have removed all the Stanley Knives from our tool boards because they consider them to be dangerous. They have been replaced with special approved safety knives with auto retracting blades. What are you going to ban next to make the world a safer place? You can not make the world a safer place by banning every thing that might hurt you. Stop over reacting and start thinking for your selves.

[Eye]

Geezah is just defending his new achieved freedom like anybody who break loose from more socialistic country to less socialistic country.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Geezah is just defending his new achieved freedom like anybody who break loose from more socialistic country to less socialistic country.

LOL
The entire American economy has been a giant socialist welfare experiment subsidized by the rest of the world for years now roflroflroflrofl

[Geezah]

I wonder which would cause reasonable people more anxiety, their children wandering into 1] a room with the hammer or 2] a room with the loaded firearm.

No. I still don't see them as the same. And as a juror I likely wouldn't see it the same way if a child were involved in an accident with a hammer versus an accident with a firearm.

How about muriatic acid and a firearm? Or a Stanley knife and a chisel, they can all do an extreme amount of damage, even cause death, but your beef here is with the fact you do not like a firearm being refered to as a tool. You would prefer to isolate it as it is then easier to demonize it.
As I have said time and again tools serve a purpose!



Yes, parents need to be responsible with a great many things their children have access to. I think guns should hit the top of the list. I don't think we disagree on that. I'm simply amazed that you are equating a firearm to a handtool. I agree with the statement it's irresponsible to label it as anything less than a weapon.

A tool, plain and simple as all tools in my mind demand a certain amount of respect.



If you want to teach kids that hammers are dangerous too. By all means. But more emphasis should be duely placed on firearms.

That's why you apply the necessary precautions to each individual tool.



I'm not "demonizing" the firearm :roll:, merely acknowledging their ability to inflict harm more expeditiously as evidence by it being the weapon of choice of so many gun rights advocates. I doubt most would feel as if they could do as much with a hammer.


It's still a tool, no matter how you try and twist it around.


Firearms:tools of rural living

By Massad Ayoob

So, editor Dave Duffy and I got to talking about guns. We agreed that for some people they are sporting equipment like a Spaulding racquet or a Big Bertha golf club, and for others they are objets d’art like Patek-Phillipe wristwatches or Waterford crystal. For most of us, though, they are tools.

And, very definitely, power tools. Remote control drills, with the width and depth of the hole adjusted by the choice of bore size and ammunition. Tools of survival, in many ways.

Countless working ranchers have used guns to save their lives from stock animals gone rogue. The legendary Elmer Keith was an early 20th century cattleman when a bronc went wild, and Keith would have been dragged to death with his foot caught in the stirrup if he hadn’t been able to unholster the single action Colt revolver he carried and fire upward, killing the animal and saving his life. On another day, a fast draw with his ranch revolver saved him from being bitten by a rattlesnake.

More commonly, the “survival” element involves food. The high powered rifle in the pickup, the .22 or shotgun on the tractor, or that holstered handgun can turn a random sighting of a meat animal on the property into food on the table. It can also eradicate the fox that raids the henhouse, the coyote that has been stalking the family cats, or the wolf that is licking its chops for the newly-birthed lamb. Not to mention keeping the bounty of the produce garden for the family’s bellies instead of those of the varmints.

There is also the protection factor. An Alaskan backwoodsman, about to be mauled by a huge brown bear, kills it with his Ruger .357 Magnum revolver. Fishing in the same state, a sportsman and his partner are attacked by a great bruin. The shaken partner fumbles and drops his slug-loaded 12 gauge shotgun in the water, but the first man empties a 16 shot Taurus 9mm semiautomatic pistol into the huge ursine head, killing the beast and saving two human lives. In the lower 48, a game ranger’s Smith & Wesson .357 kills a mountain lion poised to spring on him, and a young boy’s .22 rifle stops a maddened dog from ripping his baby sister apart. Camping in the wilderness, a man is set upon by a gang of thugs who must have thought “Deliverance” was a training film. But, the camper has a Ruger Mini-14 .223 caliber semiautomatic rifle with him, and this leads to an acceptable outcome.

There are different tools for different jobs. Durability is an important factor in selection, of course, but so is power level. So is portability. And so is ease of use, in the hands of every dweller in that particular backwoods home who may need to use that particular tool.

Shotguns

The smoothbore musket was the weapon of the Pilgrims, and the “blunderbuss” remains an icon of Thanksgiving imagery as a result. Historians tell us that when the wagon trains bore the pioneers westward in the 19th Century, each Conestoga wagon was more likely to bear a “scattergun” than a rifle. The shotgun has the longest and richest history of any American firearm, and it remains a cornerstone of the backwoods home gun rack. In many farm households, the shotgun is the only firearm the family finds necessary.

Supremely versatile, the shotgun can fire birdshot to capture the fowl of the air and rabbits and squirrels, or single-projectile slug loads for the beasts of the field, accurate enough to slay the deer and powerful enough to kill the marauding bear. The 20-gauge is ample for most needs, but the more powerful 12-gauge is more versatile, and is by far the most popular choice among farmers and homesteaders. The shotgun is a useful tool in all its forms, but the two most commonly seen as heavy-duty working guns are the single-barrel and the slide-action.

The single-shot break open shotgun is cheap and easy to manufacture in a sturdy and functional form. The Harrington & Richardson seems to be the most popular brand, one rich in history as a workingman’s gun, but there are many others on the market, all very affordable. Very safe to handle in that it can be kept unloaded, then quickly “broken” open and a shell inserted into its barrel, the “single” demands careful one-shot, one-kill discipline since it will take so long to reload a follow-up round if the first shotgun blast does not accomplish the necessary task.

The slide-action repeater, with several shells in the tubular magazine beneath its barrel, is more forgiving of error in aim, and altogether more practical when there might be multiple targets or one determined creature which must be shot multiple times. The most affordable of the sophisticated shotguns, this “pump gun” is also the most rugged and the least demanding of maintenance, and hence particularly well suited to the rough working “life” of a tool on a farm or a ranch. Now that I’m finally living in the boonies instead of just working there, the gun I keep behind my front seat is a Remington Model 870 12-gauge pump, with short, handy 20-inch barrel and folding stock. This makes it extremely short overall, easy to discreetly cover with a jacket as it lies on the floor behind the driver’s seat, and therefore easy to grab and exit with from the driver’s door. It’s a moment’s work to flip the stock open, simultaneously pumping a shell into the chamber, and bring it to the shoulder to aim with Remington’s optional rifle type sights. Loaded with Federal full power one-ounce rifled slugs, it has crushing power at close range, and the accuracy of a Kalashnikov battle rifle out to 100 yards, a perfect range of versatility for my particular needs.

Rifles

I would venture to guess that the humble .22 is the most popular of backwoods home rifles. It’s the right size for the varmints who plague the vegetable garden, and the right size for stewpot rabbits and squirrels. When butchering livestock, it’s powerful enough to slaughter instantly and humanely with a brain shot placed with surgical precision at very close range. Trappers like .22s for humanely euthanizing captured animals, because they make only a tiny hole in the pelt. The ammunition is cheap, the sound of the shot is soft, and recoil is nonexistent, all of which encourage shooting practice, which is a helluva lot of fun and hugely practical when you live in the boondocks.

The typical .22 farm rifle may be an old Mossberg, a fine vintage Remington or Winchester, the ubiquitous Marlin, or the hugely popular modern Ruger 10/22, or any of several others. It may be bolt action or lever action, slide action or semiautomatic. It will, however, be too light in power to handle large creatures efficiently, particularly under the widely varying conditions of the real world, which can make accurate shot placement difficult.

In the larger caliber guns, the .30/30 is probably the most popular every-day “working rifle” of the hinterlands, and has been so since its introduction in the late 19th century. Flat in silhouette and usually weighing under seven pounds, your classic .30/30s, like the Winchester Model 94 and the Marlin Model 336, are easy to carry and easy to scabbard alongside your horse, your ATV, your tractor, or even your snowmobile. Millions of both have been produced. Their “cowboy style” lever action design allows efficiently fast shooting, and is evocative of a classic time in rural American history.

Often overlooked but uniquely suitable for use as a heavy-duty farm tool is the surplus military rifle, particularly the bolt action guns of WWII and even WWI vintage. Designed to work in the mud of the trenches and the sands of Pacific islands, and to function even when there is no time to clean or lubricate them, these guns were built to be dropped and kicked around and keep on working and shooting straight. The ugly full-length wooden stocks and upper wooden handguard of the typical military rifle was there to protect its barrel.

Among the best are the classic Springfield (‘03) and American Enfield (P-14 and P-17); among the best and most affordable are the Mauser and the British Short Magazine Lee Enfield (SMLE). The Springfield and the P-17 fire America’s most loved hunting rifle cartridge, the .30/06; the P-14 and the SMLEs are chambered for the .303 British round, still popular among Canadian hunters. The Mausers can be had in a variety of calibers, perhaps the most useful being the 7mm Mauser, aka 7X57. This load is great for deer, and with its long, narrow 175 grain soft nose hunting bullet offers enough penetration to be adequate for moose and black bear, yet its soft recoil reminds you more of a .30/30.

It used to be in vogue to “sporterize” these old guns with lighter, sleeker stocks, more modern sights, and so on. But that was in a time when a commercially made Winchester or Marlin .30/30 cost about $70, and a Winchester Model 70 maybe a C-note or a little more, but the surplus bolt guns went for $25 to $30 each in good condition. Today, you’re looking at about $250 for one of the more usefully sized surplus bolt actions, such as the Enfield Jungle Carbine or the short Spanish Mauser 7mm carbine, which is the same or a little more than a used .30/30 in the same condition. The economic advantage of the surplus rifle has been lost, though its rugged durability under the most extreme conditions remains.

In semiautomatics, the military style guns tend to be a bit too clumsy in the large caliber range, but that’s also true of the bolt actions. Also, any military-style semi-auto will tend to be expensive, and you have to remember that in most states, the game laws prohibit hunting with any semiautomatic rifle having a greater than five-cartridge magazine capacity. They’re also pretty expensive. For farm work as opposed to hunting, the most logical choice in terms of both economy and functionality is the SKS, in surplus or newly manufactured form. Still available for under $200 if you shop carefully, they fire the 7.62X39 mm military cartridge of the AK47. With soft nose hunting ammunition, this cartridge gives you practical ballistics that can best be described as “.30/30 Lite.”

Handguns

As with rifles, the .22 is particularly popular and particularly useful for rural home and farm handgun needs. Semiautomatic pistols like the Ruger or the old, classic, and aptly named Colt Woodsman, are popular choices. However, a revolver will give you more versatility. The auto will cycle only with conventional .22 Long Rifle ammunition. With the revolver you can use mild .22 Shorts or even lighter .22 BB and CB caps to shoot mice and pest birds in the barn without tearing up the walls and floors too badly; you can use .22 “ratshot” loads for close up, reactive shooting at snakes; and of course, you have the full range of .22 Long Rifle options. At my current backwoods digs, the handgun that gets the most use is a Smith & Wesson K-22 target revolver. On rainy days, I can sit under the porch roof and plink at a little steel Birchwood-Casey target set against the range backstop 50 yards away. The .22 will do nicely for that damn possum that tore up the neighbor’s cat, and similar chores. If you think you’re a good enough a marksman, the .22 handgun is an extremely sporting tool for hunting rabbits and squirrels.

The .22 is generally considered too light for defensive use against dangerous animals, whether they approach you on two legs or four. A .38 Special revolver or 9mm pistol is generally considered to be the minimum power floor for defensive handguns. Where is the handgun’s place on the working farm’s gun rack? The answer is, its place is not on the rack at all. It’s called a “sidearm” because its place is at your side. Lacking the range and easily delivered marksmanship of a shoulder gun, the handgun is “the emergency reaction tool that is always there.” My friend Clint Smith, Vietnam combat vet and ex-SWAT cop, founded the famous Thunder Ranch training school in Texas and the new School of Arms in Oregon. He’s famous for explaining, “The handgun is what you use to fight your way back to the shotgun or rifle you shouldn’t have left behind in the first place.” Words to live by, especially when you’re extremely remote from assistance from cops and game wardens.

Choice of handgun? In a semiautomatic, as with a rifle, it makes sense to pick a military design expressly created to endure the rigors of heavy duty with minimal maintenance. The Beretta 92 9mm, known as the M9/M10 in American military circles, is a good example. Much more popular, however, is the GI pistol the Beretta replaced, the 1911 .45, which is more powerful and therefore much more suitable for shooting larger creatures. The single action Frontier style revolver is the traditional weapon of the movie cowboy, and is in fact seen in abundance among today’s working cowboys, but I have to say that I’ve seen more carrying modern double action Magnum revolvers, and even more with .45 automatics in their pickup trucks or at their sides.

The Glock pistol should be strongly considered for this application. No semiautomatic is less demanding in terms of maintenance and lubrication. That is, they work well even if they’ve unavoidably become dirty. The Glock 21 .45 is big but light and very accurate; the Glock 30 .45 is much smaller, still very light and very accurate. For shooting large animals, though, the 10mm Glock’s greater penetration with full power ammo makes it a better choice. The big Glock 20 in this caliber was the backwoods choice of gun expert Chuck Karwan, who determined that with all 15 rounds in its pre-ban magazine and a 16th in its firing chamber, it carried more potential foot-pounds of energy on board when fully loaded than any Magnum revolver. Paco Kelly, an experienced street cop and highly accomplished handgun hunter, has had good luck in the latter pursuit with the compact, 11-shot Glock 29, which is to the larger 10mm as the Glock 30 is to the Glock 21 in .45s. If you want something a little smaller, Glock’s standard frame guns are made in compact and subcompact sizes in 9mm Luger, .40 S&W, or .357 SIG. A subcompact Glock 27 in .40 or Glock 33 in .357 will approximate the power level of a .357 Magnum revolver if you choose the right ammo, and will be the same size “package” to carry as a small frame Magnum, but with lighter weight and ten shot cartridge capacity instead of five or six. A friend of mine in the South had his Glock 27 on when an alligator approached his small rowboat; he put a .40 slug in the critter’s head, and it thrashed into a death roll and sank beneath the surface before it could reach the boat.

If wearing a gun visibly on the property is not in keeping with your family values, lifestyle, or local social conventions, you might want something smaller for all day wear with discreet concealment. A small .357 Magnum revolver is the ticket here. Rossi, Ruger, Smith & Wesson, and Taurus all produce short barrel, five shot .357s which are suitable for this application. My own choice in this category, hands down, would be the Ruger SP101 with two and a quarter inch barrel, loaded with 125 grain hollow point .357 Magnum ammo. The little Ruger snubby is as accurate at 25 yards as a much larger service revolver, and is by far the most rugged of the small frame .357s, as well as the most comfortable to shoot.

If concealment is not a factor, my choice for all day wear on the belt if a powerful handgun was needed would be a .44 Magnum. I’m partial to the Smith & Wesson Model 629 with four-inch barrel. We owe the concept of this particular S&W, and the .44 Mag cartridge itself, to the aforementioned Elmer Keith. The recoil is notoriously vicious, but if you’ve paid your dues in training and practice, there is no more practical high-powered handgun for all day carry, whether you’re talking dangerous game or large farm animals that turn ugly on you.

General advice

Backwoods life, whether on the farm or in the woods, can be hard. Hard on the people, hard on the clothing, and hard on the equipment. That’s why a true backwoodsman’s pants are more likely to wear the Carharrt label than Tommy Hilfiger or Gucci. It’s also why the backwoods firearm needs to be a rugged, heavy-duty design.

You don’t want a gun that requires constant maintenance. At the same time, you always want to take care of your tools. That goes double for tools whose mission can include emergency rescue, which is definitely the job description of backwoods household firearms. Wipe them down regularly, and lubricate your autoloading guns monthly, even if they haven’t been fired. A semiautomatic’s parts have long bearing surfaces, and won’t work well if not lubricated. Lubricant is generally liquid: it can evaporate or drain out of the gun, irrespective of whether it is actually fired.

Firearms are the ultimate durable consumer goods. Many people get pleasure from hunting and shooting with their parents’ or grandparents’ guns. Few of us use Dad’s old clothes washer or drive Grandpa’s old car. The maintenance you give your firearms will preserve them for generations to come, who will cherish these functional heirlooms.

Don’t neglect safe storage issues. The gun wants to be where you can reach it immediately, but unauthorized persons cannot reach it and activate it at all.

It ain’t easy. It’s about being responsible. But, hey, if you weren’t into that, you wouldn’t be into backwoods living.

Link (http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob91.html)

I'll trust Massad's opinion on this, as he is a much greater authority than you or I on the matter.

[California Joe]

I wear Carhartts and live in the woods. I know Durandal does. Hollis does.

The rest of you are just Woodsofters.

[Soldat_Américain]

I wear Carhartts and live in the woods. I know Durandal does. Hollis does.

The rest of you are just Woodsofters.
Didn't know Carhartt was up in your neck of the woods Joe...I still use Levis, they don't sell the pants in California...Jackets are nice though.

[Laworkerbee]

Didn't know Carhartt was up in your neck of the woods Joe...I still use Levis, they don't sell the pants in California...Jackets are nice though.

I don't wear those ChiCom made Levi's.

Lucky Brand jeans Ftw!

[Soldat_Américain]

I don't wear those ChiCom made Levi's.

Lucky Brand jeans Ftw!
girls wear lucky brand...and my Levi's were made in Cambodia.

[Laworkerbee]

girls wear lucky brand...and my Levi's were made in Cambodia.

When I open up my fly it states "Welcome" on the inside of the zipper.

Like I said....Ftw pal.

[Bro Jangles]

I wear Carhartts and live in the woods. I know Durandal does. Hollis does.

The rest of you are just Woodsofters.
woodsofter roflrofl

thats me, live in a "city". only go to the woods to shoot.

[Hot Lips]

Geezah, nice story, bro. ;) It's a well crafted article and I take no issue with it, but it actually supports that guns are weapons. When he cites saving a life, it's by using a gun to kill. When he cites procuring food, it's by using a gun to kill. When he cites protecting stuff, it's by using a gun to kill. And he reminds readers of taking safe storage precautions.

Why? Because guns are weapons designed for the purpose of killing. They are generally purchased for the purpose of injuring, killing, or simulating ones proficiency to kill in competition.

He uses tool in a general sense "a device that aids in accomplishing a task". The tasks cited being killing.

You, however, made a very different statement than anything he did.



BS, I have chisels that could do as much damage as a firearm, the same with my Stanley Knife even my hammers.

You equate the danger of a firearm to that of a chisel or a hammer.

Items designed to build things. Items generally purchased for the purpose of building things.

E.g., a gun is no more dangerous than a hammer, or a hammer is as equally dangerous as a gun.

This is notion was to refute the (proper) idea that a responsible gun owner shouldn't treat a gun as anything other than a weapon.

Massad isn't recommending chisels and hammers as equivalent tools for killing.

A handtool may be misused as a weapon, but even then I'm certain if faced with an opponent with a firearm and given the choice defend yourself with a firearm, a chisel, a knife, or a hammer that you would quickly concede that you generally could not do "as much" or "the same" damage as with a firearm... unless of course you start to add a lot of specific qualifiers to that statement.

This all supports the statement that a responsible gun owner shouldn't treat a gun as anything less than a weapon. Especially when it comes to the safety of children.

I'll end this part of the discussion here because until you put down your gun and start carrying chisels and hammers around, there really isn't anything you can say that will convince me you believe you can do as much or the same damage with them.

You trivialize every argument you make for gun ownership by insisting that guns are the equivalent of chisels and hammers and , IMO, diminishes the significance you place upon the 2nd amendment.

[Rynnäkkökivääri]

Why the hell is the UN worrying about guns in someone's closet when the NK has nukes? Seems like they should have other priorities.

[Geezah]

Geezah, nice story, bro. ;) It's a well crafted article and I take no issue with it, but it actually supports that guns are weapons. When he cites saving a life, it's by using a gun to kill. When he cites procuring food, it's by using a gun to kill. When he cites protecting stuff, it's by using a gun to kill. And he reminds readers of taking safe storage precautions.


So, editor Dave Duffy and I got to talking about guns. We agreed that for some people they are sporting equipment like a Spaulding racquet or a Big Bertha golf club, and for others they are objets d’art like Patek-Phillipe wristwatches or Waterford crystal. For most of us, though, they are tools.

And, very definitely, power tools. Remote control drills, with the width and depth of the hole adjusted by the choice of bore size and ammunition. Tools of survival, in many ways.

"For most of us, though, they are tools".

A quote from one of the Founding Fathers,


A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
--- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

Constant companion. I wonder if a firearm could be appreciated as much as a fine pipe, or a walking cane that also serve a purpose?

Firearms serve a purpose, what do you not understand about that?




Why? Because guns are weapons designed for the purpose of killing. They are generally purchased for the purpose of injuring, killing, or simulating ones proficiency to kill in competition.

SO they are a tool then, as their purpose is to kill or injure?




He uses tool in a general sense "a device that aids in accomplishing a task". The tasks cited being killing.

What other sense is there, after all a tool is not specific to one type of equipment?!



You, however, made a very different statement than anything he did.

It was in response to you comment,




We all know accidents happen when people are irresponsible with their weapons. He merely said when you stop treating a gun as a weapon and instead act as if it's just another tool you deminish respect for the harm it can do.

BS, I have chisels that could do as much damage as a firearm, the same with my Stanley Knife even my hammers.

I do not lose respect for any of the tools I have used in my previous life as a Carpenter, and I understand that there is a few of them that can do as much damage as a firearm.
Knowing this does not deminish the respect a firearm demands, so please unless you know what you are talking about just stop there.

I have used all manner of equipment from Hilti shotguns to nail guns, they all demand respect because as son as you drop your guard this is when accidents happen.




You equate the danger of a firearm to that of a chisel or a hammer.

To any tool that can damage or kill, how hard is that to understand?



Items designed to build things. Items generally purchased for the purpose of building things.

So YOU, would not be wary of items designed to build things as these in your mind do not pose any type of threat?




E.g., a gun is no more dangerous than a hammer, or a hammer is as equally dangerous as a gun.

Wow, I know you keep ignoring this but, they are all tools that serve a purpose!



This is notion was to refute the (proper) idea that a responsible gun owner shouldn't treat a gun as anything other than a weapon.

Not at all, please show me where I said that, because I remember saying that the necessary precautions should be applied.



Massad isn't recommending chisels and hammers as equivalent tools for killing.

No, but he refers to firearms as tools.



A handtool may be misused as a weapon, but even then I'm certain if faced with an opponent with a firearm and given the choice defend yourself with a firearm, a chisel, a knife, or a hammer that you would quickly concede that you generally could not do "as much" or "the same" damage as with a firearm... unless of course you start to add a lot of specific qualifiers to that statement.

I've never been shot(touch wood) but I have been stabbed, and I have had an electrician try and stick me with a screw driver, not an experience I want to relive.



This all supports the statement that a responsible gun owner shouldn't treat a gun as anything less than a weapon. Especially when it comes to the safety of children.

So you, would apply the necessary precautions to safeguard those tools?



I'll end this part of the discussion here because until you put down your gun and start carrying chisels and hammers around, there really isn't anything you can say that will convince me you believe you can do as much or the same damage with them.

Hey, in a galaxy far far away, I know someone that used to keep a rubber mallet under the seat of his car, keep a hammer by the side of the bed and carry a Stanley knife, even carry a short piece of rubber hosepipe.




You trivialize every argument you make for gun ownership by insisting that guns are the equivalent of chisels and hammers and , IMO, diminishes the significance you place upon the 2nd amendment.

Not at all, they are tools that should be respected and have the necessary precautions to safeguard these items applied and until you own a firearm, a chisel, hammer or Stanley knife, I would say I'm in a better position than you to comment on the subject.

[Walter Sobchak]

Which idiot in the NRA invented the "guns prevent dictatorship" theory?
"Give them an enemy and they will follow" said an bastard years before.

Try to read something about the Austrian role in WWII

Let's look at the facts. One of the FIRST - if not THE first - things any despot does when he takes over is... confiscate weapons. Unarmed people = slow-moving targets. Didn't Hitler promptly disarm the people (except his) when he took power?

Being from "old Europe", I can see why many of you think we're just a bunch of quaint, anachronistic fools, clinging to "our religion and guns", as Obama has claimed. You almost sound like you believe that truly "might makes right". Perhaps the pragmatic would say it does and resistance against the inevitable is futile, but sometimes the urge to be free of tyranny is greater than just succombing to pragmatism. You've got a thousand years on us, but we have something that is hard to explain unless you've experienced it. I don't know how else to put it.

As for your friends to the east, they were essentially delivered to Hitler by a coup the day before the Anschluss. The unarmed resistance was doomed from the start. However, since post-war the Allies couldn't find a single Nazi in Austria, maybe one could actually wonder whether a properly encouraged and armed resistance could have made problems for Hitler. :roll:

Is it just me, or do people in Europe spend an inordinate amount of time and energy worrying about the Second Amendment?

I think I'll go finish reloading some of my .45ACP, .308 and .223 brass from last Saturday.

[Durandal]

Why not? The Austrians who were the enemies of the Nazis awoke one morning to find that they were well and truly out of options. They were lead away to the camps without recourse. Not enough survived to document whether they wish they'd been armed or not.

Germany as a whole was more liberal in terms of gun control. Like it or not the Nazis overturned post World War I gun control laws meant to suppress socialists and Bolsheviks as Germany descended into depression.

Using Nazis as an example of gun control is always a horrible example of gun control arguments and do more harm than good.

Nor were "Austrians" led to camps. "Austria" was occupied and like all occupied land certain ethnic subgroups were purged and sent to camps. All of it quite tragic, but the whole of Austria was not rounded up...like most countries.

Even if these nations had wide ranging gown ownership (and most did...in terms of a nationalguard or militia and hunting weapons for certain) the will to resist did not come to AFTER occupation and even then on a limited scale.

I am a gun owner and have a gun range and shoot regularly and invite people to shoot on my property. There are LOTS of other more logical arguments FOR gun control.

[gustav]

Arguments pro gun:

1- Its still the Far West out there

2- Its fun to shoot at things

3- And if you still have a problem with that, come and get it :backhand:

Thread/

p-)

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Is it just me, or do people in Europe spend an inordinate amount of time and energy worrying about the Second Amendment?


Quite the reverse. Americans spend an inordinate amount of time lecturing Europeans about their need to conduct workplace and school shootings on a regular basis :roll:

'cos its in the constityoushun

[Geezah]

Quite the reverse. Americans spend an inordinate amount of time lecturing Europeans about their need to conduct workplace and school shootings on a regular basis :roll:

Oh Rly, where?

[CMNot]

No-one who uses the word gun should be allowed to even look at a 'gun' cabinet.

Guns keep his children safe as much as dream catchers do.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Oh Rly, where?

Look up the numerous tedious sanctimonious postings by yourself and others of your ilk all over t'internet :roll:

[Geezah]

Look up the numerous tedious sanctimonious postings by yourself and others of your ilk all over t'internet :roll:

So I have wrote the following?


Americans spend an inordinate amount of time lecturing Europeans about their need to conduct workplace and school shootings on a regular basis

[Arfah]

If 'Guns' keep children safe then get a 106mm recoilless one for ultimate safety, that should make the university campus and fast food outlets a bit more interesting too.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

If 'Guns' keep children safe then get a 106mm recoilless one for ultimate safety, that should make the university campus and fast food outlets a bit more interesting too.

Don't forget the right to have personal tacticool nukes :)

[a_very_ex_STAB]

So I have wrote the following?

Don't be so coy we all know why you want them :)

[Lau]

Is it just me, or do people in Europe spend an inordinate amount of time and energy worrying about the Second Amendment?



Nah, we just like to tease people who are a little nuts, in this case, gun nuts . p-)

It's funny how people get all worked up about it, Europeans don't need guns for protection, and we have lower, or equal crime rate, and feel just as secure. All in all, no argument you can come up with will ever work on any European who is not pro gun ownership (or whatever it's called).

[California Joe]

Hammer Time!

http://ndnforum.com/blogs//media/blogs/sports/Hammer2.jpg

[Geezah]

Europeans don't need guns for protection,

So you feel qualified to speak for all Europeans?

Or is it you feel at ease knowing that LE are just a phone call away after the fact!



and we have lower, or equal crime rate, and feel just as secure.

Lower or equal, please, I would say that violent crime is higher over in some areas of Europe, as the subjetcs have no way of fighting back with equal or greater force.

Again you may feel secure, but there are those that do not have the luxury of youth any longer.


Man admits three more OAP attacks

An "evil" mugger jailed for robbing a 96-year-old woman who later died had his sentence increased after admitting stealing from three more elderly women.

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7563511.stm)

While you may feel secure bullies will always target the weak, so hopefully you will remember this when you grow up.




All in all, no argument you can come up with will ever work on any European who is not pro gun ownership (or whatever it's called).

I know, it's due to the amount of tripe you are fed, considering less than 60yrs ago it was considered somewhat normal to own arms in the UK, but they have been trying successfully to breed it out of it's subjects.

I came from the UK thinking firearms were evil, and it wasn't until a few years after I moved here that I realized how wrong I really was.

[Geezah]

Don't be so coy we all know why you want them :)


SO why exactly do I want them?

[CMNot]

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7563511.stm)

While you may feel secure bullies will always target the weak, so hopefully you will remember this when you grow up.

Awesome, I didn't realise the US didn't have any old people being robbed, murdered or mugged thanks to 'guns'.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Awesome, I didn't realise the US didn't have any old people being robbed, murdered or mugged thanks to 'guns'.

'tis an Earthly paradise

did you not know?

[California Joe]

'tis an Earthly paradise

did you not know?

'Tis true. Come on over for a visit Stab.

[Geezah]

Awesome, I didn't realise the US didn't have any old people being robbed, murdered or mugged thanks to 'guns'.

The part you missed is the fact that old people have a choice...........that's the difference between here and there!

[a_very_ex_STAB]

'Tis true. Come on over for a visit Stab.

I've already been and despoiled the local women ;-)

[Zeev]

Nah, we just like to tease people who are a little nuts, in this case, gun nuts . p-)

It's funny how people get all worked up about it, Europeans don't need guns for protection, and we have lower, or equal crime rate, and feel just as secure. All in all, no argument you can come up with will ever work on any European who is not pro gun ownership (or whatever it's called).

Less and less europeans feel "as secure", as you said.

And anyway, the question is even not about personnal security, it should just be a right: a sane person without criminal records should have the right to possess firearms.

I don't live in the US, but I have this opinion, does it makes me a "nut"?
I think that more than 95% of people that have guns in the US are absolutely normal people, so calling them "nuts" is not respectful, some more tolerance would be welcome.

[click]

Americans were granted the right to bear arms so we as citizens could resist government tyranny.

All the other reasons don't count.

QFT

/thread

[Lau]

So you feel qualified to speak for all Europeans?.

Nope. Only those who tease all you gun nuts. :)




I know, it's due to the amount of tripe you are fed, considering less than 60yrs ago it was considered somewhat normal to own arms in the UK, but they have been trying successfully to breed it out of it's subjects.

I came from the UK thinking firearms were evil, and it wasn't until a few years after I moved here that I realized how wrong I really was.

The NRA propaganda always take a while to set in. p-)

[Geezah]

Nope. Only those who tease all you gun nuts. :)

OK, then that makes sense, just confirms how unqualified you are to preach on about this subject.





The NRA propaganda always take a while to set in. p-)

NRA propaganda, I guess you're refering to the Bill of Rights?

[Lau]

OK, then that makes sense, just confirms how unqualified you are to preach on about this subject.

NRA propaganda, I guess you're refering to the Bill of Rights?


Geezah, you really should relax a little. You sound like one of those wackos who would be prepared to start a civil war if someone took their guns away.

[Geezah]

Geezah, you really should relax a little.

I'm just fine, maybe you should stop responding to threads on subjects you have little to no knowledge of.



You sound like one of those wackos who would be prepared to start a civil war if someone took their guns away.

Really, is this supposd to be part of the NRA propaganda you wrote about?

I would like for you to go into detail on this so call propaganda?

[Lau]

I'm just fine, maybe you should stop responding to threads on subjects you have little to no knowledge of.


I have plenty of knowledge regarding this subject, thank you. :)


Really, is this supposd to be part of the NRA propaganda you wrote about?

I would like for you to go into detail on this so call propaganda?

I highly doubt you would be able to see it anyway, so why bother?

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Less and less europeans feel "as secure", as you said.

And anyway, the question is even not about personnal security, it should just be a right: a sane person without criminal records should have the right to possess firearms.

That is the legal position in the UK. Although the US NRA propaganda machine might have you think different.

[Zeev]

That is the legal position in the UK. Although the US NRA propaganda machine might have you think different.

I thought that firearms posession was banned in the UK?

[CMNot]

I thought that firearms posession was banned in the UK?

Absolutely not.

[Zeev]

Absolutely not.

It also depend of what kind of guns you can get.. If that's not more than double barrelled hunting rifles, that's not very interesting, and still a restriction IMO.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

It also depend of what kind of guns you can get.. If that's not more than double barrelled hunting rifles, that's not very interesting, and still a restriction IMO.

Full bore rifles for hunting and target shooting are legal. Semi auto rifles (apart from .22) are not (following a massacre in ~1987)
Pump action and double-barrelled shotguns are legal but pistols are not (following a massacre in 1996)
There's approximately 500,000 shotgun certificate (SGC) holders and 120,000 firearms certificate (FAC) holders in the UK.

[Geezah]

I thought that firearms posession was banned in the UK?

Heavy restrictions on rifles and for handguns complete bans. The experiement to implement restrictions then bans were applied over many years even though while there was full scale legal firearm ownership there wa no reason to implement the restrictions.

A good link for reference,

Firearm Controls in Britain (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/95/95ap25.htm)

[a_very_ex_STAB]

You say these things as though 'restrictions' are somehow uniquely British and have never existed in the USA in any form.

Fully automatic weapons are restricted in the USA aren't they?

[Zeev]

Full bore rifles for hunting and target shooting are legal. Semi auto rifles (apart from .22) are not (following a massacre in ~1987)
Pump action and double-barrelled shotguns are legal but pistols are not (following a massacre in 1996)
There's approximately 500,000 shotgun certificate (SGC) holders and 120,000 firearms certificate (FAC) holders in the UK.

Ok, there's not a complete ban but if you cannot get such weapons, it is nearly the same. Not much fun.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Ok, there's not a complete ban but if you cannot get such weapons, it is nearly the same. Not much fun.

Not so many 'spree' mass shootings with weirdos going postal either :roll:

I guess it depends on what you consider to be important the fun of the few or the safety of the many

[Yarrick2]

You say these things as though 'restrictions' are somehow uniquely British and have never existed in the USA in any form.

Fully automatic weapons are restricted in the USA aren't they?not nearly as much as one would think. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

less paperwork than getting a car by the way.

[Yarrick2]

Not so many 'spree' mass shootings with weirdos going postal either :roll:

it is very rare for someone who actually own their firearms legally to go on a "shootin spree", Vincent Cho for instance broke the law acquiring his, he lied on the 4473 in a section that he knew if he told the truth he would not get a firearm.
Criminals by definition break the law, why should their actions impact the rights of law abiding citizens?

[Yarrick2]

Awesome, I didn't realise the US didn't have any old people being robbed, murdered or mugged thanks to 'guns'.
we also have the ability for those who are at risk (old, pregnant women, people of smaller stature) to carry a firearm for self defense purposes in a majority of states. This has happened mainly over the past 25 years and in all cases where a state introduces carry there is a drop in violent crimes of oppertunity and the numbers stay down. Why? Because in one criminals words "cops don't scare me, an armed victim does."

[Geezah]

You say these things as though 'restrictions' are somehow uniquely British and have never existed in the USA in any form.

THe NFA is nothing like the the restrictions and bans imposed on the law abiding British.



Fully automatic weapons are restricted in the USA aren't they?

I can own an M2 over here if I have the funds, can't say the same about the UK can you?

Unless of course you pursue one on the illegal market.

[CMNot]

I can own an M2 over here if I have the funds, can't say the same about the UK can you?

Yes, I have a real need for a M2 over here. I really don't understand your point.

[Geezah]

Yes, I have a real need for a M2 over here. I really don't understand your point.

Need, who said anything about need, it's a case of if I want one, I can get it.

[Arfah]

If you have no requirement for one you can't have a licence for one and therefore, can't own one. That's how UK law works.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Need, who said anything about need, it's a case of if I want one, I can get it.

But seriously why would you want one? If I wanted to fire a .50cal I'd join up again:roll:

[WCF.KAS]

I went to a kind of ghetto house party once during my time in London, there were a lot skinny little ****s with knives in their pockets eyeballing me from across the room trying to be the "ardest" in the dance. My typically american self couldn't stop thinking, I wish I had my 1911 lol.....

Someone over there told me that you can get 5 years for possesion of an non-permitted pistol, and if the judge wants to make a point he'll add an extra year for every bullet in the clip.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Someone over there told me that you can get 5 years for possesion of an non-permitted pistol, and if the judge wants to make a point he'll add an extra year for every bullet in the clip.

IIRC the penalty for possession of an illegal firearm is up to 5 years (I have seen much lower sentences in the UK newspapers though). The last bit sounds like BS to me.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

THe NFA is nothing like the the restrictions and bans imposed on the law abiding British.



I can own an M2 over here if I have the funds, can't say the same about the UK can you?

Unless of course you pursue one on the illegal market.

Sorry Geezah. But even here in Australia it is possible to own any firearm. Just got to show a "valid reason" to do so and you can own a M134 gatling if you want.

[WCF.KAS]

IIRC the penalty for possession of an illegal firearm is up to 5 years (I have seen much lower sentences in the UK newspapers though). The last bit sounds like BS to me.

Wouldn't be able to tell you if it were true or not, dude telling me seemed like he had some experience with it though p-)

Just wondering, how does the number of non-fatal/ fatal shootings in the US compare to the number of fatal/non-fatal stabbings/ beatings (with blunt weapons) in the UK after u factor in population size?

London's a crazy city, only place I've ever seen dudes bringing their pitbulls on the tube with them.

To be honest I've always thought I'd rather be shot than stabbed, know a few people that have been through both and have the same opinion.
Not a rationale against UK gun laws but thats my contribution....

[Alfacentori]

Sorry Geezah. But even here in Australia it is possible to own any firearm. Just got to show a "valid reason" to do so and you can own a M134 gatling if you want.

What have you been smoking Min?

Unless Australia's gun laws have changed radically in the last few years and I haven't noticed your assumption that we can 'own anything' is ridiculous.

Cat A-Low Power: Single Shot 12g/410, .22cal, Rimfires, Air rifles
Cat B-High Power: Bolt, Lever or Pump Action centrefires, SxS or U/O 12g/410
Cat C-Restricted to Farmers: 12g Pump action under 5rd capacity, Semi-Auto .22cal max 10 shot capacity.
Cat D-Special Purpose: Semi-Auto Centrefire max 20rd capacity, Pump Action 12g over 5rd capacity

Other classes are restricted to law enforcement and defence.

There is no provision to own any full automatics except under individual approval by the appropriate minister to collecteors who cannot buy ammunition for said firearm or shoot it for any reason without written permission. Cat D is restricted to special uses such as APB guys who do pest animal destruction from choppers.

Doesn't sound like like I'm free to buy a gattling or anything else auto or even semi auto does it?

Alfa

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

Start up a armoury that supplies weapons for movies ya noob

Where there is a will there is a legal way my friend. Now whilst it would be near impossible to obtain such a permit. It's still possible.

:)

[CMNot]

Well, figures are collated all over the shop, and crime recording in Britain is...colourful at times to say the least. One of the ways we judge crime figures over here is by asking people what crimes if any they have been subjected to etc. which is an unusual way of going about business but is meant to fill the gap between reported/unreported crime.

Home Office (which I think roughly translates to your Department of State) figures show of 49 firearm related homicides in 2005-06 and 59 in 2006-07. Not really managed to dig much up for 07-08 yet, if they've been published. That translates to somewhere around .00000097 per capita (population is roughly around the 61m mark) firearm homicides. In 06-07 there were 507 serious injuries attributed to firearms (this would be all shootings, ADs etc.). Not sure if these figures take into account police shootings, but I heavily expect not.

Similarly to the US (and mostly elsewhere), 'gun crime' (like the much vaunted 'knife crime' over here) is centred around deprived urban areas. For our part that is areas of London, Manchester (notorious my whole life for crime) and the West Midlands (or Birmingham, our second largest city).

Legislation is strict (which I appluad) and if you are a legal owner and are caught ****ing about, after you've been prosecuted for whatever you were doing (which will likely hurt anyhow) you'll almost certainly never own again. There is however a tendency to set tariffs for **** knuckles way down low, which kind of undercuts the whole point in the process.

[Alfacentori]

Start up a armoury that supplies weapons for movies ya noob

Where there is a will there is a legal way my friend. Now whilst it would be near impossible to obtain such a permit. It's still possible.

:)

I might just do that you hippie scum p-)

I would imagine that every country has a highly restricted written permission special case only clause in their firearms regs, but thats not what you said and you know it. The fact is our laws do make it nigh impossible for everyday citizens to obtain anything semi or full auto, ten or so professional movie armourers excluded.

Alfa

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I said you need to show a "valid reason" and you can own practically any type of firearm.

That's all I said nothing more nothing less.

:)

[Alfacentori]

I said you need to show a "valid reason" and you can own practically any type of firearm.

That's all I said nothing more nothing less.

:)

*Goes off to scheme valid reason to own SLR*

Alfa

[gilgoul]

Not any more a failure than using Austrian in 1938 as an example.



No need to trust it blindly, the best weapon against any government, is education. A well educated population will not be easily fooled. A well armed one will.









This has to be the most ridiculous argument I ever read from you, and there are a bunch of ridiculous arguments in your record on MP.net
But after all, Europe has proved time and again that the most "enlightened" and "educated" population fell victims or complying victims of their own government.
The first act in Hitler's newly gain chancellorship was to register, restrict and then ban private gun ownership.
Even thought the Germans and Austrians were arguably among the best educated peoples in Europe.

[Russian_dude]

Um... I love guns and all... but private ownership of them has NO bearing on the crime situation. For every situation where somebody defends themselves with a gun against an attack you have another where either a kid shoots himself accidentaly, road rage use etc.

In Pakistani badlands, many people, in fact most households own AK47s... so their crime rate should be several times less then Denmarks... get real.

Canada is much safer then the US and yet it's hard to own a weapon there. Switzerland is safe and is flooded with weapons. This just to show that guns in society have no relation to the crime rate. In fact I bet that the more socialist a country is... the less crime it has.

[Chiptox]

What have you been smoking Min?

Unless Australia's gun laws have changed radically in the last few years and I haven't noticed your assumption that we can 'own anything' is ridiculous.

Cat A-Low Power: Single Shot 12g/410, .22cal, Rimfires, Air rifles
Cat B-High Power: Bolt, Lever or Pump Action centrefires, SxS or U/O 12g/410
Cat C-Restricted to Farmers: 12g Pump action under 5rd capacity, Semi-Auto .22cal max 10 shot capacity.
Cat D-Special Purpose: Semi-Auto Centrefire max 20rd capacity, Pump Action 12g over 5rd capacity

Other classes are restricted to law enforcement and defence.

There is no provision to own any full automatics except under individual approval by the appropriate minister to collecteors who cannot buy ammunition for said firearm or shoot it for any reason without written permission. Cat D is restricted to special uses such as APB guys who do pest animal destruction from choppers.

Doesn't sound like like I'm free to buy a gattling or anything else auto or even semi auto does it?

Alfa
This makes baby Rambo Jesus cry.

No 30 rd Ruger 10-22 mags. :-(

You don't get the "fun" blisters from loading them. :-(:-(:-(

[a_very_ex_STAB]

Canada is much safer then the US and yet it's hard to own a weapon there. Switzerland is safe and is flooded with weapons. This just to show that guns in society have no relation to the crime rate. In fact I bet that the more socialist a country is... the less crime it has.

I believe that Switzerland has one of the highest (if not the highest) rates of domestic firearms murders in Europe (typically with military issue weapons). They have also had 'spree' type shooting incidents with military issue weapons as well.

[Chiptox]

Canada is much safer then the US and yet it's hard to own a weapon there. Switzerland is safe and is flooded with weapons. This just to show that guns in society have no relation to the crime rate. In fact I bet that the more socialist a country is... the less crime it has.
For the most part in the US the more socialist leaning an area the higher the crime. The hotspots of Chicago, Washington DC, New Orleans, Detroit, etc, are all left leaning. This isn't to imply at all that socialism causes crime, only that it doesn't solve it.

Russia, Venezuela, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa and many more have a higher per capita murder rate than the US. Which points to something else (or multiple things) as a contributor rather than (or in addition to) the country's political bent or their citizen's firearm ownership.

In the end, the causes of crime are a weird socio-economic-cultural-racial-whoknows thing and damned if anyone can put their finger on it.

[CMNot]

For the most part in the US the more socialist leaning an area the higher the crime. The hotspots of Chicago, Washington DC, New Orleans, Detroit, etc, are all left leaning. This isn't to imply at all that socialism causes crime, only that it doesn't solve it.
321321321
http://www-tc.pbs.org/wnet/wp-content/blogs.dir/4/files/2008/09/286_miller_mccarthyism.jpg

[Russian_dude]

I believe that Switzerland has one of the highest (if not the highest) rates of domestic firearms murders in Europe (typically with military issue weapons). They have also had 'spree' type shooting incidents with military issue weapons as well.

I meant general crime.

[Russian_dude]

For the most part in the US the more socialist leaning an area the higher the crime. The hotspots of Chicago, Washington DC, New Orleans, Detroit, etc, are all left leaning. This isn't to imply at all that socialism causes crime, only that it doesn't solve it.

Russia, Venezuela, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa and many more have a higher per capita murder rate than the US. Which points to something else (or multiple things) as a contributor rather than (or in addition to) the country's political bent or their citizen's firearm ownership.

In the end, the causes of crime are a weird socio-economic-cultural-racial-whoknows thing and damned if anyone can put their finger on it.

Bad use of statistics. The cities will have higher rate of crime... regardless of their political leanings. You have to look at a country as a whole.

[a_very_ex_STAB]

I meant general crime.

Well I don't know what their general crime stats are in Switzerland. i do know they have lots of junkies and where there's junkies there tends to be crime!

[Netzach]

The message ' These guns keep our children safe ' will be of no consolation to the family of an eleven year old boy in Marshall County, Mississippi,
who died yesterday from gunshot wounds to the chest, at the hands of his nine year old brother, following an argument about a computer game.

[Lau]

The message ' These guns keep our children safe ' will be of no consolation to the family of an eleven year old boy in Marshall County, Mississippi,
who died yesterday from gunshot wounds to the chest, at the hands of his nine year old brother, following an argument about a computer game.

Meh, It's not important. The child's parents and his brother killed him, not the weapon used.

Guns don't kill people, people do. :roll:

[Netzach]

^
You forgot to mention that the nine year old child had been allowed to handle a shotgun under supervision from his father. This nine year old
child had also been trained under his fathers supervision to load a shotgun. You also forgot to mention that this nine year old child had time to
retrieve the shotgun from it’s cabinet, load the weapon, and threaten his brother further, before killing him. Throughout this tragic incident, the
father who had instructed a nine year old child on how to load a shotgun, was on the premises. The Marshall County Sheriff concluded that no
further action could be taken over this ‘accident’ because the child responsible is under the age of thirteen. It is hard not to conclude that guns
did not keep these children safe, and what laws are in place to make the responsible adult accountable, if negligence on his part can be proven.

[brainplay]

Considering the premeditated steps the kid took before blowing his brother away, what would have stopped him from using a hammer, knife, or samurai sword (won't believe how many kids and adults have these)?