View Full Version : Assault Weapons Ban to be lifted?
Smoothie104
05-14-2003, 03:01 PM
no more expensive "pre-ban manufactured" 20 round mags.
By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 13, 2003; 6:00 PM
The Republican-controlled House will not renew the federal ban on Uzis and other semiautomatic weapons, a key leader said today, dealing a significant blow to the campaign to clamp down on gun sales nationwide.
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) said most House members are willing to let the ban expire next year. "The votes in the House are not there" to continue the ban, DeLay told reporters.
His spokesman, Stuart Roy, said, "We have no intention of bringing it up" for a vote.
As majority leader, DeLay decides which bills get voted on in the House. Because the 1994 assault weapons ban expires next year, the House and Senate must pass legislation renewing it by Sept. 13, 2004. If Congress fails to act, the AK-47 and 18 other types of semiautomatic weapons that were outlawed by Clinton and a Democratic-controlled Congress a decade ago would be legal again, handing a major victory to the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups.
Past votes and an NRA survey of lawmakers before the 2002 elections suggest that a majority of House members oppose the ban's renewal, GOP officials said. But several Republicans, who requested anonymity, said some pro-gun GOP leaders worry that if members are forced into a rollcall vote, they might switch under pressure from gun control advocates.
President Bush, whose support of the assault weapons ban dates to his 2000 campaign, has drawn rebukes from NRA members and some GOP lawmakers on the issue. But several Republicans close to the White House said Bush has no plans to lobby lawmakers aggressively to extend the ban. That would allow him to officially oppose the NRA without completely turning against the powerful gun lobby by fighting hard to maintain a ban on semiautomatic weapons.
"The White House seems to think that the bill will never reach the President's desk," said a recent alert sent to members of the Gun Owners of America, a pro-gun group with close ties to Republicans. "At least that is what top officials are counting on. In pursuing this strategy, they are trying to please both sides and are playing a very dangerous game."
Congressional Republicans said Congress will renew the ban only if Bush publicly and firmly insists. "If the president demands we pass it, that would change the dynamics considerably," said a House GOP leadership aide. "The White House does not want us" to vote.
In a letter to Bush, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) said: "It is now time for us to stand up against the unconstitutional gun-grabbing and help our nation in this time of great need by allowing law-abiding citizens to use the weapon of their choice."
It's unclear how much pressure Bush and congressional Republicans will be under to bring up the volatile gun issue, especially in the 2004 election year. While many leading Senate and House Democrats are pushing legislation to renew the ban, the issue is not sharply partisan.
Many rural and southern Democrats, including a few who voted for the ban in 1994, oppose its renewal, reflecting a notable shift in the politics of guns during the past decade. An aide to a Senate Democrat who voted for the ban in 1994 and faces reelection next year said many Democrats "hope it never comes up."
The reason for the turnabout is rooted, in part, in the fallout of the 1994 vote and vice president Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign loss.
In 1994, the Democratic-controlled House and Senate narrowly passed the ban on the sale and possession of 19 semiautomatic, rapid-fire guns and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds. Proponents of the ban said those weapons -- and copycat versions that don't fall under the ban -- are frequently used in violent crimes, including the deaths of scores of law enforcement officials. Opponents said the ban violates the constitutional right to bear arms.
The Democratic-controlled House passed the Clinton-backed gun ban by two votes in May 1994. A few months later, House Speaker Thomas Foley (D-Wash.), Judiciary Committee Chairman Jack Brooks (D-Texas) and several other Democrats who supported the ban were voted out of office after the NRA and other gun activists targeted them with a relentless political campaign.
The NRA's power ebbed and flowed throughout the rest of the 1990s, hitting a highwater mark following Gore's narrow loss in 2000. Gore lost pro-gun bastions such as Arkansas, West Virginia and his home state of Tennessee, in part, some Democratic analysts believe, because he was seen as hostile to gun owners. In this year's first debate among Democratic presidential hopefuls, only Al Sharpton vigorously endorsed the registration and licensing of handguns.
Most congressional Democratic leaders and presidential candidates strongly support the assault weapons ban and appear ready to wage a public fight over an issue they believe may pack a political punch with independents and women, in particular. Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) recently introduced legislation that would extend the Clinton gun ban with only minor modifications. If the House rejects the renewal, however, Senate action won't matter.
In the House, Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) last week introduced a tougher bill that would ban a larger number of guns. "I don't want to put my members in any trouble. But if we actually face this, the American people [will support] keeping assault weapons from going back on the street," said McCarthy.
FallenAngel
05-14-2003, 06:32 PM
AWESOME :)
anyone know if this will overturn the 9th circuit court's ruling affecting those in the People's Republik of Kalifornia?
Nachtschleicher
05-14-2003, 07:37 PM
FallenAngel,
"It will have NO bearing on California. This state saddens, shocks and depresses me with its draconian politics and rose-colored-glasses wearing liberals." - sven from Battlerifles
I borrowed this from the M14/M1A forums from http://www.battlerifles.com./
To view the whole thread, click here http://www.battlerifles.com./viewtopic.php?t=12541
I sure wish I lived somewhere else than in Cali. :( Especially not in the liberal bay area. Sometimes their way of thinking is so stupid I just wanna bash them! :backhand: :bash: :fork: But rather than let them win and say, "See! Conservatives are nuts!” I keep my mouth shut, and laugh at their ignorance.
Beowulf
05-14-2003, 08:51 PM
i found this today...
http://www.nraila.org/LegislativeUpdate.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=644
FallenAngel
05-14-2003, 09:11 PM
hmm
I found THIS today... since the 9th circuit court doesn't seem to think the term "a well regulated militia..." doesn't apply to individual citizens, read this exerpt from our federal law ;).
Evidentally these people aren't as educated as we would like. :cantbeli:
United States Code (USC)
TITLE 10 --ARMED FORCES
Section 311. Militia: composition and classes.
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of militia are-- (1) the organized militia , which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which constists of the members of the milita who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
oh, wait, I'm not done yet... :D
Regarding the "unorganized militia" mentioned above, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Presser v. Illinois (1886) that, "It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve milita of the United States as well as of the States."
Though this ruling is over 100 years old, no subsequent Supreme Court ruling has contradicted it and thus still applies.
Yeah....tell THAT to the next gun-grabbing hippie you see :D
Sabre
05-15-2003, 09:25 AM
'Capable of bearing arms'
What does that mean. To me it means 'has two arms and is able to operate a weapon' (mentally capable, perhaps?)
It does not imply that those people do or should bear arms. Only that those capable of doing so are to be viewed as the reserve militia.
In other words, they are the body of people or are eligable for the 'draft' in a time of war.
Why, oh why, do you americans love your guns so much?
It can't be some love for the constitution, otherwise you'd all be climbing over eachother to do jury service, or have a greater election turnout than 50%.
It must just be the inflated sense of self esteem one gets when holding a thing that goes bang.
Do you not care about the huge number of murders/accidents/injuries that result from wide spread weapon ownership?
We had the Dunblane killings (gun nut in a primary school) and very quickly outlawed any handgun over .22. Then that was expanded to include every handgun.
Funnily enough, it has never been legal to own an assault rifle. Wonder why? Oh yeah, those are the things that are designed for killing people, not deer.
Why do these people want/need high powered (or any) weapons? Only gamekeepers and hunters need weapons. Then only bolt action types. I doubt if deer know how to create defensive positions or are likely to engage them in a firefight.
If they fancy using a weapon that much, they should join the military. They'll soon find out if they're 'capable of bearing arms' or not.
Sabre
05-15-2003, 09:43 AM
Second amendment:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"
What is well regulated?
There is no such militia. There is no command structure, training, enlistment (offical or not) or commitment to any body necessary to predetermine the owning of a weapon.
At the time of writing there was a militia. Notably that which ousted the force of King George from 'the colonies'. That militia has since dissolved, and so should that outdated legislation.
(Good to see you got your priorities straight though. II amendment: right to bear arms...XIII amendment: abolition of slavery...XV amendment: banning racial discrimination in voting...XIX amendment: oh yeah, lets let women vote)
Nachtschleicher
05-15-2003, 09:54 AM
Sabre, you (or any other non-gun owner) will ever understand what it means to shoot and bear arms.
Funnily enough, it has never been legal to own an assault rifle. Wonder why? Oh yeah, those are the things that are designed for killing people, not deer.
While true, SOME people do hunt deer with assault rifles. The M1 Garand (which isn't deemed an assault weapon) is used by some in hunting. Most varmint hunters use a super accurate AR-15. People use assault rifles in competition (like the AR-15) becuase they can be VERY accurate. So that's why people want to own assault weapons.
Why do these people want/need high-powered (or any) weapons? Only gamekeepers and hunters need weapons. Then only bolt action types. I doubt if deer know how to create defensive positions or are likely to engage them in a firefight.
People who are competitive shooters (like me) need high power weapons because they enjoy the extreme challenge of shooting long ranges. Betcha you've never experienced the thrill of hitting the 10 or X ring at 1,000 yards, have you? The high power weapons help get the bullet there.
Like I said, you'd never understand. I am a firearms user that WOULD join the military, if I wasn't born hard of hearing. At my range, a lot of the guys ARE ex-military. I know a few who are ex-Rangers.
What's the reason for saying what you said? I read some of your posts, and you don't sound like a Liberal nut... are you just against citizens owning private firearms, or did I just take your post completely wrong? My apologies if I did. :oops:
EDIT: There is no "well regulated militia" because the goverment would be after them very quickly. I'm pretty sure Waco and MAYBE Ruby Ridge would be good examples. A LOT has changed since the Consitution was written... A LOT! :(
GearGod
05-15-2003, 10:19 AM
If the ban is lifted off of the Assault Rifles how will it change the semiauto bushmaster M4s? Will the stock be retractable? Will the magazine have 30 rounds? Fullauto capability? I dont know much about gun laws
FallenAngel
05-15-2003, 02:13 PM
Full auto? In your dreams adam. THAT law goes back to the '30s after the Tommy GUn was used by every nut-job who knocked over a bank.
Do you not care about the huge number of murders/accidents/injuries that result from wide spread weapon ownership?
If you've looked at those numbers, you'd realize that this is actually the opposite of the truth. It's been statistically proven more than once that when civilians own firearms- GOOD and EFFECTIVE firearms- that all crimes involving firearms DECREASE. Since the ban in california...most violent crimes (including murder and assault with a deadly weapon) have risen 10+%. In England where they took away ALL the guns the crime has skyrocketed. Scotland Yard never used to carry guns until the ban....I wonder what they need them for if all the guns are gone?
It's because they're not. THe bad guys are going to get the guns. Uzis, Mac10s, etc. etc. and there's no way to stop it completely. I know if I was defending *MY* home from someone with a MAC10, I don't want a bolt action hunting rifle, I want a M4 or AK that might just scare him off.
Sure, you're going to have the occasional nut job who usually STEALS guns from a responsible gun owner who will shoot up a school. But what if that same kid killed by arson? Do we outlaw Zippos? Arrest anyone who lights up? No. We say "OK...isolated incident, the kid was a nut-job. No RATIONAL person would do that..." and more on.
Ichhabe
05-15-2003, 02:32 PM
This forum is slowly turning in to a Militia/NRA-propaganda site.
FINALLY... I can buy an m60. Cause im sick of hittin a dear with a single shot and havin to cut him up later. M60 will do both! Im so happy. :P
Smoothie104
05-15-2003, 03:43 PM
Adam,
not full auto, but the retractable stocks would be legal again. As long as its not in Cali.
Enacting the Second Amendment guarantees lawful citizens the freedom to bear arms. The early American proponets of the Bill of Rights, George Mason, Tom Jefferson, et al, forsaw a need to protect the lawful citizen's right to defend and hunt by firearms. Moreover, these political thinkers foresaw an oppressive central government, tempted to use firearms to corrupt or abridge other rights. More specifically, the Second Amendment guarantees citizens the right to protect themselves against any power-governmental or other.
All freedoms under the Bill of Rights are not absolute, they are through Constitutional mechanisms abridged. Several examples are: "Fire! words" and the Freedom of Speech, a person just can't scream "Fire!" at a stadium when no fire exists, or Sweetheart strikes and the Freedom of Assembly, a labor union cannot strike with another union with no direct relationship. Firearms are no exception, numerous gun control laws are in place, all for "the safety of the people". Examples include felons cannot own or bear arms and the full auto ban.
Now to my point, I have a problem with the laws designed for the LE versus civilian firearms, particularly handguns. Over the years we have seen a split in gun production, one production line for LE and another for civilians. LE or JiJoMacLE45 can legally have the high capacity clips, whereas the lawful citizens, such as myself, get the low capacity ones. I'm a good guy, (military and no record). So, why am I banned from having several more rounds and when felons or gangstas or criminals or dirty cops will have those extra rounds. Imagine a lawful citizen and a thug or thugs in a situation where more rounds of ammo would make a difference between life and death. Just wanted to rant.
Sabre the militia of today is legally called National Guard.
He219
05-15-2003, 04:45 PM
Sabre wrote:
(Good to see you got your priorities straight though. II amendment: right to bear arms...XIII amendment: abolition of slavery...XV amendment: banning racial discrimination in voting...XIX amendment: oh yeah, lets let women vote)
:cantbeli: Sabre, We (the Colonials) used our arms to free ourselves from British rule as you noted. The Founding Fathers recognized the necessity of a right to bear arms. When was the Abolition of Slavery? When was Women's Sufferage? What does chronological history have to do with PRIORITIES???? 'All MEN are created equal' was the recognition for the Abolition of Slavery. How was it in the UK?
The first thing tyrants or domineering governments do to control and subjugate a people is to abolish firearms. An armed citizen is a threat to tyrants. Ichhabe, I though you liked your G3?
I'm happy with my G-3...
Does that make you an NRA militant? Tell me of weapons ownership in Norway?
Who determines which citizen is a threat to the community? Viewers of this site are generally interested in military tactics, equipment and weapons. In the United States we have a right to bear arms. Does cherishing our freedoms atuomatically make us NRA/Militia Nuts? How does one protect our rights and freedoms if we are not vigilant? Does that make ME some kind of a Nut?
Nachtschleicher, is NFA ownership recognized in California?
p-)
He219
FallenAngel
05-15-2003, 05:29 PM
What's NFA ownership? I live in California and I want to know :)
Gordon
05-15-2003, 05:33 PM
So, He219, let me get this straight.
We, here in England, are under the rule of a "tyrant" and the reason this "tyrant" does not allow us to carry a weapon is because if we did there would be an armed uprising and joe public would go on a shooting spree to clear up this despotic leadership to which he is subjected.
Hmmm ... seems a little far fetched to me.
As it is, i'd personally rather live in a country where it was illegal to own a weapon, other than for sport, and leave that business up to the police. This generally does seem to work and gun crime is pretty much kept within it's own community .. ie. the people who shoot at each other are also the people who get shot and it rarely spills beyond this.
That's just my personal opinion and I can see how if I lived in a place where it was likely that my house may get robbed by a nutter with an UZI then i'd rather have an AK or M4 to sort him out ...
I happen to be moving to the states in a few months to live with my girlfriend so does that mean i should pick up an M4 or other suitable assault rifle for self defence?
He219
05-15-2003, 06:20 PM
Gordon, glad to hear that you will be able to see the 'Wild West' America for yourself! Buy the biggest gun you can - because you can! I believe that all it takes is a US drivers license and money. The selection is getting smaller every year though. So Hurry....
Hey, I did reference Saber's post. That was Tyranny under King George! Any BIG government that tells me what to do, overtaxes me, puts me as a number rather than an individual and sees over me from the cradle to the grave is a domineering government. The Second Amendment is a Right. Once you forfeit your rights - what have you left? Reduced rights. Where does that stop? I say we draw the line as individuals - not as an extension of the state, commune or monarch. We act on those beliefs through the democratic process.
i'd personally rather live in a country where it was illegal to own a weapon, other than for sport, and leave that business up to the police
Illegal-other than sport? So would be legal IF in the context of sport; What is your definition of sport - hunting humans, animals, paper targets?
And why are we hearing of so many gun crimes in Germany when it is illegal to own a gun there? You have your opinions. We are entitled to ours.
p-)
He219
He219
05-15-2003, 06:31 PM
Sorry FallenAngel! http://www.full-auto.com/library_laws.htm
The Feds do have a program to legally own an automatic weapon (US citizens only). Certain States limit this through legislation. California allows Class3 weapons only. You go through the procedures, ask for clearance from the local chief of police, sherrif, etc. and pay the TAX ($200). IF you pass the ATF background check and meet their qualifications, you too could be eligible of an NFA weapon. :]
You go through this for each weapon or component.
NFA = National Firearms Act
p-)
He219
JiJoMacLE45
05-15-2003, 06:40 PM
Before I even get started let me say a few things. I am a member of the NRA. I believe guns don't kill people, people kill people. In five plus years as a police officer, I have taken dozens of guns off of people, and only twice that I can recall, have I confiscated legally owned firearms used in the commission of a crime(and both were domestic related incidents). It is pretty well known that the majority of firearms used in crimes are illegally owned. Either they are stolen or they are illegally purchased, whatever the case may be. So whether or not law abiding citizens are armed or not, it does not have much of a bearing on the level crime, because the bad guys are going to be packing regardless.
Let's remember that the Constitution is a living document written over two hundred years ago when 'arms' were muskets and flintlock pistols and a 'militia' was what the Continental Army essentially was. Gun nuts get a little overzealous when they start chanting 2nd ammendment because they want to pack a SAW to protect their apartment. You want home defense get an alarm, a big mean dog, and maybe a shotgun. You want protection on the street, get a CCW and a handgun that starts with no number less then 4. As far as using fully automatic rifles for hunting. Hell, you could bag a whole flock of geese with a Stinger missile, but that that would take the fun out it. Any true hunter will tell you that it is not about blowing the **** out of bambi, it's about getting out and enjoying the outdoors, regardless if you bag your limit or go home empty handed. And target shooting, hey I'd love to tool around in an Apache for a day and let a couple Hellfires rip, but there has to be a limit somewhere.
Look, I carry a gun everyday at work, I rarely go down the street to get the paper and a loaf of bread unarmed. Christ, I'm typing this with my off duty piece strapped to my side and poking into my rib cage. Carrying a firearm is part of my life. That does not mean I like guns though. I can not stand them. It is just one of those things that come with the job.
Even though I'm a card carrying member, the NRA is so set in its idiotic ways, if they even thought about what they were saying before they shoveled it out, they might make a few more friends and not be looked upon as an organization of gun toting, psychopaths, who are waiting for armageddon. The anti-gun law makers are just as bad though. They need to find a way to keep guns from criminals, not John Smith who likes to duck hunt and keeps a pistol for self defense. The two will never be able to reach a comprimise that can appease both.
That being said, nobody but the military and law enforcement needs fully automatic weapons. Nobody. You want to shoot an M16, you'll get a lot of practice at Parris Island or Fort Jackson.
Nachtschleicher
05-15-2003, 06:42 PM
He219, you asked, "...is NFA ownership recognized in California?" No, silencers and automatic machine guns are ILLEAGAL here! If they get a drift that someone has illegal silencers or machine guns, you’re going to hear a loud boom and the command, “Get down on the floor NOW!” VERY SOON.
Lol, Gordon, anything having to do with firearms is a sport in a way, I suppose. There’s hunting, and there’s target shooting (like in the Olympics). Sometimes I'm talking about shooting and stuff, and someone will ask me if I hunt. I say, "Yeah I hunt! I hunt paper targets!" After they finish laughing, I go on to tell them I've never killed anything with MAYBE the exception of a bug in the dirt berm. Even the PETA doesn’t care about bugs... I don't think.
The state of Kali is so ****ed up that others have just given up on it. I read the forums over at Battlerifles.com, and I remember one individual saying, “It’s too late for the Republic of Kali, let’s stop it before it spreads.” Indeed, liberals and their influences are starting to spread like cancer.
I hear even Sweden has passed their first gun law, and from what I’ve heard (perhaps it is a rumor or lie, but it is what I heard), it is not uncommon to see a young ‘un walking down the street with a M16.
Anyway, I’m finished for now… and my apologizes for the explicit language I used in the third paragraph.
FallenAngel
05-15-2003, 09:00 PM
Nach'
I think it's a law in Sweden that every household has to have an assault rifle (or something like that) because the Swedish are a nuetral country, and in the event of an invasion, the people would have to defend themselves individually.
HMMcrewchief
05-15-2003, 11:31 PM
I have to agree fully with duke. My take is that the forefathers wanted to give the people a way to defend themselves from a government that no longer served the people. This would give them the legal ability to organize militia with the same armament that the federal soldiers would have, and to use that militia to unseat that government. Now I might be wrong, but that is my impression. Now I don't think that anybody foresaw the leaps in firearm and military technology that exist today.
Does this amendment need to changed? I hope not, as much as I love and honor this country. I want the right to defend myself in a reasonable manner. But I also don't want Joe Publik walking down the street with the latest in full auto military technology. A middle ground must be established.
TacoDelRio
05-16-2003, 02:19 AM
I live in the Peoples Republik of Kommiefornia, and I know your pain. The laws here are RIDICULOUS, and even if they are not like a communist country, they are still too bad for my Country.
The 2nd Amendment (my favorite) does'nt say that civilians cannot own automatic weapons, anywhere. Even if automatic weapons were primitive to nonexistant at the time, I still think that I, as an American Citizen, should be ensured the right to own any small arm I so desire, even if I want an M249 SAW or an M16A2. It's not about the guns, it's about the individuals maturity level, and their responsibility whilst using/possessing these weapons. I for one, have never hurt anyone with any firearm ever. I'm sure alot of you guys are this way too. I'm pretty sure that I can control an automatic rifle. And myself.
My idea (note I said "my idea, aka opinion) of a militia is any citizen/civilian who is ready and willing to defend his/her country. The National Guard is a poor excuse for a militia. I am glad to see that people join it, I guess, but the people should defend themselves. It should be their obligation to do so. By having a National Guard, we keep this defense of our rights and freedoms out of families, and put into the government. This makes it hard to pass on values to kids too easily tempted by todays society.
Just my two cents.
Hooah p-)
Ichhabe, I though you liked your G3?
I'm happy with my G-3...
Does that make you an NRA militant?
He219
It's not Ichhabe's own G3, it's Government property. And if he's not an active shooter/competitor in NROF (reserve NCO) he's not even supposed to be able to fire the rifle, due to the redrawal of the firingpins from all issued, norwegian G3 home guard rifles.
But still Norway is among the four countries in the western hemisphere with the largest amount of privately owned firearms.
http://home.no/jervno/jervguns.jpg
Sabre
05-16-2003, 07:56 AM
Woah!!! I really put the cat amongst the pigeons, didn't I?
Right. First of all, I don't secretly want to remove all the rights afforded by the constitution to the people of the US.
Secondly, I am not an emissary of an evil 'liberal tyrant' (oxymoron) waiting to take over the country.
Do you really think that if a tyrant got into power that the whole of the armed forces would follow him? Surely those who would protect the people by force would be the army, that's what they're there for. Also, what are random bands of people going to do against the most powerful military on the planet if they do side with the 'tyrant'.
Back to reality.
Nachtschleicher:
I am not a gun owner, true. I have not experienced the 'thrill' of firing at 1,000 metres (yards, whatever). I have only fired at 500 metres with an SA80 and 600 with an LSW.
I think the thrill was lost somewhere in the aproach run and pepper-potting run down! (not to mention the respirator still full of CS gas!)
I am against civilians owning weapons (other than those necessary for professional use, and well controlled target and hunting rifles kept at the clubs).
I know high power weapons are more accurate, but there is no need for them to be fully or even semi automatic. It may be a pain to get a group if you have to **** it each time, but people managed with enfields, martini's etc.
To all:
Retractable stocks etc are just parts of ineffective legislation to make it look like politicians are 'tough on guns'. If I wanted to hide a full length M16 prior to gunning down a shopping centre, I'm sure I could do it. The problem is me getting hold of an M16, cut-down, M4, retractable stock etc not withstanding.
10 round mags, again same thing. It takes me a matter of seconds to change a mag going through all the drills. What's the diff between me stood in the Trafford Centre (mall) with a 'bushmaster' and 5x 30rd mags or with 15x 10 round mags. Weapons like the G3/SLR have 20 round mags, and the SLR is semi auto. That didn't stop it being a very effective weapon to the British army over 30 years.
Nachtschleicher and Duke:
Militia. Right, a lot has changed. The militia was necessary in the 1780s-1800s as there was a limited standing army. Canada was controlled by the British and (if I am not wrong about 1812) was a threat to the US. People subsisted off hunting and farming. Guns were needed as a tool, not a 'right'. I think the founding fathers foresaw a much more immediate threat of British invasion as a reason to ensure people had weapons and were eligable to be called up, rather than the possible tyrant of the future.
The National Guard is the militia. The Territorial Army in Britain is also a militia, more than a reserve (RMR, 21 and 23 SAS are different). The NG are armed. They are well regulated (command structure, accountability, term of service etc). Is this not what the 2nd amendment wanted? Civilians who served in a militia (NG) and bore arms. The diff is that weapons are not needed to hunt squirrels for food etc and weapons have come on a bit over 200 years, so the NG has armouries to keep them in safely. Repeat. There is no need for civilians who choose not to be in this well regulated militia to bear arms.
Fallenangel:
Yes. Violent crime in the UK is up. Yes that includes murder and assault with a deadly weapon (we use blunt objects and knives in the UK). If you look, the rate has been rising for some time and is not due to the removal of firearms.
Scotland Yard don't carry guns. The armed response units carry guns. Now, regular (trained) officers in the metropolitan and other police forces are carrying MP5s and pistols. That's because of a Mr. Bin Ladin, not some gangsta in brixton.
The UK has a higher rate per capita of burglary than the states. This is due to the fact that (unlike Tony Martin) the average UK homeowner is not likely to blow an intruder away. The intruder is not going to be armed anyway, why risk a more serious sentence for carrying a gun if your just robbing an old lady?
Instead, the TV might get nicked and sold for drugs. (eliminate drug dependancy and you get rid of 75% of violent crime in the UK). Boo hoo, go ring the insurers and get the latest model. Let the police handle the crime.
Zippos? I don't know if you heard but after Dunblaine Prince Philip (Queen's husband, duke of edinburgh, or phil the greek) who is known for making stupid comments ("That looks like an Indian made it...", "Seen them before (africans), where's the Gin and Tonic?" etc...) said:
"If a cricketer, for instance, suddenly decided to go into a school and batter a lot of people to death with a cricket bat which he could do very easily, I mean, are you going to ban cricket bats?"
This is right on the line of 'guns don't kill people, people kill people'.
If I went into a primary school in a small Scottish town and yelled 'BANG!', I wouldn't kill too many children now would I.
He219:
I'm just saying that before giving people the 'right' to shoot out the government, maybe they should have given them the right to vote them out first.
Also, weren't slave traders tyrants? Where the laws allowing slaves to own guns to shoot their 'masters' with?
The scroll bar's getting very small now, so I think I'll stop.
Gordon
05-16-2003, 08:13 AM
we use blunt objects and knives in the UK
for blunt object read L85A1, that's the SA80 before it was modified.
I am against civilians owning weapons ....blablabla...but there is no need for them to be fully or even semi automatic. It may be a pain to get a group if you have to **** it each time, but people managed with enfields, martini's etc.
To be able to run through an official IPSC rifle stage I need my high power, semi auto rifle. I would never be able to get a decent result with a bolt action.
People manage with old typewriters too, but I would never toss my new fangeled computer out the window just because some brain dead schnook decided comps were unnecessary.
Instead, the TV might get nicked and sold for drugs. (eliminate drug dependancy and you get rid of 75% of violent crime in the UK). Boo hoo, go ring the insurers and get the latest model. Let the police handle the crime.
Problem is the perp would try to knock you off as well. Look what happend to late George Harrison when he got a drug crazed burglar inside his house. Same thing here in Norway, burglars often attack or kill the house owners in their beds.
If I went into a primary school in a small Scottish town and yelled 'BANG!', I wouldn't kill too many children now would I.
No, but if you went to the more seedy parts of any large brit or scottish town, you could very easily
buy an illegal weapon, and do terrible things with it.
In England where they took away ALL the guns the crime has skyrocketed. Scotland Yard never used to carry guns until the ban....I wonder what they need them for if all the guns are gone?
-violent crime is on the up, bulglary is going down, this is because of effective policing, the fact that it is hard to commit a regular crime. so they use knifes not guns.. the police carrying weapons are anti-terrorist and you hardly ever see them.
don't use the UK as an argument for guns in the US
just a few days ago there was another killing in a school in the states on the same day a woman who grabbed a gun off a police officer and threatend the police with a gun to her young childs. what did the police have to do? they shot her in the head there was a picture (and video) of the police officer distraut holding the kid both splattered with blood. Police shouldn't be made to do that...
Ichhabe
05-16-2003, 09:01 AM
Loke wrote:
Same thing here in Norway, burglars often attack or kill the house owners in their beds.
What kind of reality level are you living in Loke? It happens from time to time, but not often. Get real!
Problem is the perp would try to knock you off as well. Look what happend to late George Harrison when he got a drug crazed burglar inside his house.
yes and that had nothing to do with the fact that he was famous, did it?
going on that america must be a really dangerous place people get murdered in the street look what happened to John Lenon.
makes no sense does it?
What kind of reality level are you living in Loke? It happens from time to time, but not often. Get real!
Define often then.
Cut, it makes so much sense that famous people must take even more care to prevent lunatics breaking into their house causing harm. And regular Joe's like me and you could just as well be harmed by an intruder/burglar.
So taking preventive steps is the logical thing to do. Hoping for the police to sort it out afterwards is just stupid and dangerous.
Gordon
05-16-2003, 09:41 AM
Define often then.
Often:
(adv.)
1. Many times; frequently. Opposite to seldom.
2. In many instances; in cases frequently occuring.
(adj.)
Done / made / happening / occuring many times; frequent.
That's what the dictionary says .... is that what you meant?
No, I wanted Ichhabe to define his understanding of the word "often".
GearGod
05-16-2003, 09:55 AM
Wow this topic is getting crazy.. I have some questions/comments:
Alright so its just retractable stocks would be legal again? Is that it? What about magazine capacity, flash hider/suppressor whatever, anything else? Cant be just stocks?
Also about the ClassIII license that one person may be correct(CORRECT ME IF IM WRONG I MAY NOT KNOW THE FACTS) about how a person can own fullauto weapons after going throught the process of background check/police chief approvaral etc. Is it also true that you must have some store/secure facility where you store these guns-- And your like allowed to sell only to Law Enforcement only---
What about those people who rent out fullauto weapons to fire at target ranges and stuff? Do they have a license to have class3 weapons AND allow people to fire it? How does that work? I think this could eventually lead to MILES/SIMUNITIONS games-- Like how they do it at http://www.incredible-adventures.com/urban-ops1.html
MILES/SIMUNITIONS are after all, made by commercial companies such as
simunition.com
CUBIC CORPORATION http://www.cubic.com/cda/prod_services/miles2000/index.html
Cut, it makes so much sense that famous people must take even more care to prevent lunatics breaking into their house causing harm. And regular Joe's like me and you could just as well be harmed by an intruder/burglar.
So taking preventive steps is the logical thing to do. Hoping for the police to sort it out afterwards is just stupid and dangerous.
not it the UK, buglars avoid confrontation there nearly no cases of this especially when you compare it to the amount of buglar/homeowner shoot outs in the US
ok say a armed buglar comes into your house and you having grabbed your gun, you turn a corner, he sees you and your gun, now is he going to run away scared or shoot at you.. and if you saw him first would you gun him down straight away? shoot him in the head? you think he deserves to die like that?
Ichhabe
05-16-2003, 10:00 AM
This is getting kinda wacky... hehe.
Not often= (in Norway) once a year, but seldom more than twice a year.
Most killings in Norway, as in the western world is done by;
A) Relatives
B) Friends
C) Someone that are in their social circle...
You should start reading more carefully through posts Ichhabe, before making any rash comments.
I specified "burglars attacking or killing house owners". I was NOT talking about general murder statistics.
You should start reading more carefully through posts Ichhabe, before making any rash comments.
I specified "burglars attacking or killing house owners". I was NOT talking about general murder statistics.
wouldn't that mean that the killing of house owners would happen less often? and your saying give 'em a gun that way they die anyhow..
GearGod
05-16-2003, 10:22 AM
Ahh I see we are speaking about home defense. Heres I would do:
If I had the funds, I would get the best electronic home security system along with bodyguards/security. It would almost be impossible to get to me unless these guys were professional mercenaries like the ones in Tomb Raider hehehe
If I didn't, I'd get an affordable home electronic security system, a dog(optional), and a bushmaster semiauto M4 with surefire flashlight/visible laser ---if I see any invaders pointing a weapon at me hes going down.. If hes unarmed I'd intimidate him with my blinding flashlight/laser along with SWAT-style "GET DOWN! GET DOWN ON THE GROUND NOW!" (***UPDATE-- LOL Perhaps fire "warning shots in the air" like the military does) hahaha ---and cuff him with plastic zipties/metal cuffs--
But when you think about it, nothing like thats going to really happen-- Are you really that lucky? I think not--
You should start reading more carefully through posts Ichhabe, before making any rash comments.
I specified "burglars attacking or killing house owners". I was NOT talking about general murder statistics.
wouldn't that mean that the killing of house owners would happen less often? and your saying give 'em a gun that way they die anyhow..
Hm, are you refering to the quoted post, or the one I posted further up?
In any case, you don't make much sense.
Ichhabe gave you "murder stats" but you said you were only talking about buglary murders, surely you see that is less than the total murders
and if you were only talking about assaults I was reffering to my post:
ok say a armed buglar comes into your house and you having grabbed your gun, you turn a corner, he sees you and your gun, now is he going to run away scared or shoot at you.. and if you saw him first would you gun him down straight away? shoot him in the head? you think he deserves to die like that?
Ichhabe
05-16-2003, 10:31 AM
Whatever Loke. Burglars killing people in their own home happens maybe once, or twice a year. And giving easier accsess to guns wount help that statistic anyway.
Specially when you concider Norwegian law upon what is regarded as "proper" self defence.
He219
05-16-2003, 10:33 AM
Nice posting, JiJoMacLE45! I find that most Law Enforcement officers share your opinion. Of course you wouldn't want superior firepower facing you out there on the street - logically so. However, I do believe that the right should exist, albeit with strident registration, training and character evaluation. A flat ban discredits the law obiding enthusiast/citizen. I obliged California lawmakers and timely registered my pre-ban weapons (as well as all gas-op's) to be a law obiding citizen. It does seem silly that beating the date makes me a legal owner while some other law obiding citizen is now denied that right.
FallenAngel, I suppose that all reservists should be allowed to carry an AW. My relatives in Switzerland have very nice Sig's.
HMMcrewchief, I'm sure the Kentucky Longrifle was equally a threat at the time that an AW may be today. What happens when the regulated State Militia becomes Federalized by the President? State Militia Autonomy would be relinquished.
Loke, very impressive. I had no Idea about Suomi. Thanks for sharing that with us...
Sabre wrote:
Do you really think that if a tyrant got into power that the whole of the armed forces would follow him? Surely those who would protect the people by force would be the army, that's what they're there for
Just look at Germany. Hitler was voted into office. He then demanded allegiance of the armed forces with an oath. They obeyed Him. He was a Tyrant. The Wehrnmacht was powerless to protect individual rights. The SA/SS made sure to that. Civilian ownership of guns was made illegal. End of threat.
A government can circumvent the democratic process and eliminate individual rights by suspending the Constitution. Yes, we can vote a government out first. IF that would fail, what are our options? An armed citizen is a threat to tyranny. Do 200 years indicate that history doesn't repeat itself.....?
If you (all) believe that crime with gus will somehow be deminishing anytime in the near future, I would say you are mistaken. In fact, I believe we will see more gun crimes around the globe. It seems inevitable. The criminal element will always have access. Why shouldn't we? To conclude, the idea of a stable world without crime and cradle to grave govenment care is rediculous. History has proven that political turmoil and self-determination give rise to violence. Do you believe a Utopia is around the corner any time soon?
Have a great day!
p-)
He219
GearGod
05-16-2003, 10:39 AM
Its pretty simple gentlemen:
1)Get home security/bodyguards
OR
2)Get home security/shoot armed robbers(who points the weapon at you)
there is no problem if they can't get weapons
and is that shoot to kill?
Whatever Loke. Burglars killing people in their own home happens maybe once, or twice a year. And giving easier accsess to guns wount help that statistic anyway.
Specially when you concider Norwegian law upon what is regarded as "proper" self defence.
You still don't get it do you!?
I was talking about incidents where intruders HARM or kill the house owners.
Ichhabe gave you "murder stats" but you said you were only talking about buglary murders, surely you see that is less than the total murders
and if you were only talking about assaults I was reffering to my post:
ok say a armed buglar comes into your house and you having grabbed your gun, you turn a corner, he sees you and your gun, now is he going to run away scared or shoot at you.. and if you saw him first would you gun him down straight away? shoot him in the head? you think he deserves to die like that?
A very hypothetical situation, not easy to say what could happen.
I would gun the intruder down if he didn't surrender or leave the house. Placement of shot would probably to upper center of body mass, that's what I'm trained to to. But as I said, I'm no clairvoiant who can see into the future.
Nachtschleicher
05-16-2003, 11:06 AM
I just thought I should post this...
http://www.battlerifles.com/albums/Humor/aaj.sized.jpg
and this...
http://www.battlerifles.com/gallery/Humor/aas
(the second pic rexes, I don't know why)
Thank you, that's all.
well you say it's unlikely there, imagine how unlikely it is here with no guns.
I'm happier with only the military and the police having guns
that might be looking possible in the states with the amounts of guns going around
http://www.happinessonline.org/images/columbine.gif
Where the hell do you live cut? Antarctica? :roll:
EU
I have nothing against guns, otherwise why come to this site. I want to see trained soldiers or police marksmen with weapons, not burglars and kids.
besides the majorit of robberies happen when no-ones home, so they''ll just steal your AW
Ichhabe
05-16-2003, 11:33 AM
Where do you live Loke??? Trained to hit the upper body mass. Sweet jumping Jesus. You really are something, LOL.
JunglistSoldier
05-16-2003, 11:38 AM
Is there something wrong and/or irregular with aiming for upperbody mass? It's where the body is at it's widest and thus is easiest to hit, but maybe your one of them nuts who want's to frikkin shoot people in their legs, ichabe?
I think what Ichhabe means by that, is that the upper body mass i where the vital organs are do you really want to murder a burglar?
JunglistSoldier
05-16-2003, 12:20 PM
well, if _I_ were to shot another human being that human being would make a significat threath to me, ie. pointing a gun at me or something along those lines, cause if someone is trying to shoot you you don't aim for the legs.
Gordon
05-16-2003, 12:23 PM
Yo Cut, what exactly do you mean by the EU, it's kinda a big place and the laws differ throughout ... can you be a little more specific.
Also, if some burglar entered my house and we were both armed i'd kill him and take my chances in court afterwards ... as long as I legally owned my weapon that is ... i mean who's got the time to try and shoot the bloke in the arm / foot / kneecap ... whatever.
JunglistSoldier
05-16-2003, 12:38 PM
excatly gordon, first you worry about protecting yourself and your family and TEHN about court. and a gun toting druggie might not refrain from shooting you just cause you put a round in his leg!
Where do you live Loke??? Trained to hit the upper body mass. Sweet jumping Jesus. You really are something, LOL.
That was your words buddy, not mine.
And I see you have no idea whatsoever what IPSC style shooting is about. And that's sad.
Yo Cut, what exactly do you mean by the EU, it's kinda a big place and the laws differ throughout ... can you be a little more specific.
Also, if some burglar entered my house and we were both armed i'd kill him and take my chances in court afterwards ... as long as I legally owned my weapon that is ... i mean who's got the time to try and shoot the bloke in the arm / foot / kneecap ... whatever.
I'm from London
And only the police and the army got guns in London?
You gotta be joking right!!!???
armed criminals
no but far less than in new york
Ichhabe
05-16-2003, 02:03 PM
Where in Norway do you live Loke?
Must be acrappy place with seasoned criminals...
Gordon
05-16-2003, 02:25 PM
Loke - of course we got armed criminals in London, i don't think anyone's gonna even try to deny that. The point is, as I made it earlier, that generally they just shoot each other and it's kinda rare for a criminal to go on a shooting spree in public. You'd have to be extremely unlucky to get caught up in a firefight anywhere in England, not that it doesn't happen it just doesn't happen often. (for a defintion of often you can refer back to my earlier post if it bothers you and you don't already know what it means)
So, it's not necessary for the average Joe to have defend himself from gun toting lunatics as he walks down the street.
I'm from Bristol myself and the easiest to avoid getting shot is to not go to the one or two places where you're likely to get shot at. There's only limited reasons why you'd want to go to any of these places anyway and if you had a reason to go you'd probably be a criminal and have a gun yourself.
So, all in all ... to bring some relevance back to what this post is actually about, i'd rather live in a place like England where it's illegal for the public to run around with assault rifles and take my chances that I won't be caught up in the middle of firefight when I next go out to get a curry.
Loke - of course we got armed criminals in London, i don't think anyone's gonna even try to deny that.
cut just did:
imagine how unlikely it is here with no guns.
I'm happier with only the military and the police having guns
And the comedy award goes to:
...(for a defintion of often you can refer back to my earlier post if it bothers you and you don't already know what it means)
Har har, you are such a funny little man. Sarcasm was never your forte was it. :lol:
He219
05-16-2003, 02:41 PM
Cut, you live in London. I thought you said you were from India or second generation? No offense. I'm second generation European! hehe p-)
As for center of mass - IF you were forced into the unfortunate situation of having to defend your life - YOU SHOOT TO KILL. You risk your own life and that of others by attempting leniancy on a hostile.
In a domestic situation, the liabilities are reduced with death of an intruder. In this lawsuit happy environment, the criminal may sue for restitution - like the guy who fell through a skylinght while attempting a burglary and won a negligance lawsuit!! A dead enemy doesn't talk.
p-)
He219
Gordon
05-16-2003, 02:42 PM
Here's an english lesson my friend ... that goddamn sarcasm, again:
And only the police and the army got guns in London?
You gotta be joking right!!!???
armed criminals
no but far less than in new york
I take it what he means by this is - we have armed criminals but less than in new york.
Correct me if i'm wrong ... jesus, i just can't help myself ... ;)
For real He219 ... it's one kinda crazy world we live in where you can have your house robbed, get hurt by the robber, kill or injure the robber and then get sued for it.
He219
05-16-2003, 02:44 PM
Ichabe, you too are from Suomi, right? You like your K-98, unless I am mistaken?
p-)
He129
He219
05-16-2003, 02:55 PM
Gordon wrote:
There's only limited reasons why you'd want to go to any of these places anyway and if you had a reason to go you'd probably be a criminal and have a gun yourself.
Wow, a place in the UK where only the Police dare go....
You guys really think America is the Wild West with Waco style shootouts on the way to the grocery store... We are some 300 million people. The probability of violent crime is proportional. The media just has more to report. Statistically speaking - of course.
When that tuning fork is developed with a natural frequency that resonates a person into a gelatin mist - are we going to make those tuning forks illegal? Ok, maybe a bad example. It's the criminal that is resolved to commit a crime that is the culprit, not the instrument. The automobile is proven to be the most lethat weapon through individual negligence resulting in mortality rates worse than all combat.
p-)
He219
Ichhabe
05-16-2003, 03:13 PM
He 219; I am from the most wonderful country in the whole wide world, Norway. The true Red, White and Blue country. We are simply the BEST in the world. If y'all don't like it, I could not care less.
Here's an english lesson my friend ... that goddamn sarcasm, again:
And only the police and the army got guns in London?
You gotta be joking right!!!???
armed criminals
Yep, it confirms my sarcasm skills is way better than yours.
no but far less than in new york
I take it what he means by this is - we have armed criminals but less than in new york.
Correct me if i'm wrong ... jesus, i just can't help myself ... ;)
You are wrong. Cut was very clear about what he meant the first time:
imagine how unlikely it is here with no guns.
I'm happier with only the military and the police having guns
...but then changed his mind after I reminded him about criminals having as many guns as they like, even in crusty old London.
I am from the most wonderful country in the whole wide world, Norway. The true Red, White and Blue country. We are simply the BEST in the world. If y'all don't like it, I could not care less.
YEAH, GO 17 of MAY!!! http://www.p4.no/images/Forsiden/norsk_flagg_ingr.jpg
I totally agree with Ichhabe on this one.
yeah sure change and twist what I said
oh and go Norway! http://www.p4.no/images/Forsiden/norsk_flagg_ingr.jpg
Don't be a child, stand up for what you said no matter how naff it was.
I didn't change and twist what you said. If you check carefully you will see I've quoted you with the utmost carefullness, and attention to word and detail.
Infact I didn't change or twist anything of what you said because I quoted directly from your post come to think of it.
[Mr.T] It's Norway you Foo...[/Mr.T]
no but far less than in new york
I take it what he means by this is - we have armed criminals but less than in new york.
Correct me if i'm wrong ... jesus, i just can't help myself ... ;)
You are wrong. Cut was very clear about what he meant the first time:
no actually he's spot on exactly what I meant, you twisted my words
imagine how unlikely it is here with no guns.
I'm happier with only the military and the police having guns
...but then changed his mind after I reminded him about criminals having as many guns as they like, even in crusty old London.
and then you base the same misunderstanding for that comment
and what's with the crusty old london comment? Have you ever been? and if so when was it in the 70's?
Cut, you live in London. I thought you said you were from India or second generation? No offense. I'm second generation European! hehe p-)
As for center of mass - IF you were forced into the unfortunate situation of having to defend your life - YOU SHOOT TO KILL. You risk your own life and that of others by attempting leniancy on a hostile.
In a domestic situation, the liabilities are reduced with death of an intruder. In this lawsuit happy environment, the criminal may sue for restitution - like the guy who fell through a skylinght while attempting a burglary and won a negligance lawsuit!! A dead enemy doesn't talk.
p-)
He219
nope 100% English, I think I might have a welsh great-grandmother though. I spend six months working in India last year which might have made you think I was Indian
no actually he's spot on exactly what I meant, you twisted my words.
Then how in the name of anything holy are you gonna squirm your way out of this one:
imagine how unlikely it is here with no guns.
I'm happier with only the military and the police having guns
You deny saying it?
I have hacked my way into your account and changed and twisted your words?
Your'e just like Bill Clinton; " I did not have ****** relations with that woman, Loke made it look like so" (I've added the last part meself).
I would never go to London as I might get popped if I end up in the wrong part of town (according to a couple of limey brits on this web board).
wtf?
seems right to me if I fill the bits that don't make sense without the previous question
imagine how unlikely it is here with no guns. (it being a burglary with a armed burglar which you or someone else said was unlikely to happen in the US)
I'm happier with only the military and the police having guns (as apposed to kids to fat to get into the army and pissed off with the world)
what I put it brackets was just to put it into the early context, so whats wrong with it? that's how gordon & I understood it, so now you explain what you understood of it.
And if you havn't be to london you can stop commenting on the situation here. and before you asked I have been to the states and I have been to new york the city which I used as a example.
well you say it's unlikely there, imagine how unlikely it is here with no guns.
I'm happier with only the military and the police having guns
unaltered quote, the bold is to show you what you missed out, go check if you want its on page 3
woodland
05-16-2003, 08:40 PM
Hey, He219. You really dont know, do you? All it takes is a driver's license and money? Nooooooo....
You need a drivers license, proof of residence (utility bill), firearms ID arms (in all states that use it, not all do), handgun purchase permit (if that applies in your state), then a down fee for the gun, an overnight check with the state police, and then you can get the gun AFTER paying the full amount up front. Of course getting a firearms ID card costs money and takes 3 months while the Handgun purchase permit needs to be filled out once for every handgun you buy with a maximum of 4 each time you apply, and that takes 3 months to process also... then you have a 90 period when you can use that purchase permit.
It's a ton of tiem and money to get even the ****tiest guns here, it is not the Wild West...
Woodland! is GAY GAY GAY!!! p-)
Light Fighter
05-16-2003, 08:47 PM
The gun debate will go back and forth and a true victor will never really come of it, so we all have to deal with it, to some people guns are bad, to others guns are good, simple as that. Both sides make valid points, but neither side will get any farther by debating the other.
As far as home protection, myself, I own a Colt 1911 (.45) that was given to me by my father. I have a wife and a 13 year old daughter to protect and I will do anything to keep them safe and would not hesitate one second to the though of killing a man that has broken into my home to cause harm to myself or those that I love. I wouldnt hesitate one moment to pull the trigger on someone that has broken into my house, clear centermass shot. None of that shoot to wound. If someone wants to come into my home and put my famlies lives in danger, I will put theirs in danger in the blink of an eye.
Reply to cut's post.
BWAHAHAHAHHAAHHA, golly gosh darn man, you really crack me up :lol:
I never said anything about anything being unlikely to happen in the US.
I was talking about burglars/intruders forcing their way into innocent peoples homes and attacking them...in...wait for it...try to guess what country...err...NORWAY..yay.
And you accuse me of twisting and changing stuff :lol: 2k.
It still don't change your "imagine how unlikely it is here with no guns."
I assume "here" is London.
I assume by "no guns" you mean neither the criminals nor the law abiding citizen have guns due to draconian gun laws.
But the criminals still have free access to illegal guns no matter what laws are implemented. And if you think they have an unwritten gentlemanly gangster code of law that says they will never use a gun in a breaking and entry, you are a pretty naive and gullible person.
And the London part came from:
I'm from Bristol myself and the easiest to avoid getting shot is to not go to the one or two places where you're likely to get shot at.
And since I gather Bristol not to be much worse than London, why go there if I might get shot.
And I don't care if you have been to the states, good for you.
Just as London, I've never been to the states either.
He219
05-16-2003, 09:22 PM
Thanks Woodland. It's been a while since my last purchase. Seems things have gotten worse. I remember taking the Basic Firearms Training Certification at the store and waiting 30 days though....
Happy Constitution Day, Norway (5-17)! I have been there several times and like it very much. Drove once and by ship twice. Oslo is a great place....Did I get Suomi wrong or something? I remember the terminology from the place with the giant ski jump, Holmenkollen. Loke you crack me up! Ichhabe, chill out. I'm not your enemy. If that was a cynnical statement and directed at me - then you've got me way, way wrong.
Hey Cut, no offense. Just read into the Indian part of your previous postings. London is becoming more dangerous these days. Be careful.
p-)
He219
Reply to cut's post.
I'm from Bristol myself and the easiest to avoid getting shot is to not go to the one or two places where you're likely to get shot at.
And since I gather Bristol not to be much worse than London, why go there if I might get shot.
And I don't care if you have been to the states, good for you.
Just as London, I've never been to the states either.
right firstly you honestly think your likely to get shot in london. most people shot in london are you and black and in east london. it's nothing racists it's a recent thing, they're supposedly "fashion accessories".
If you can never be bothered to get your ass out of norway or where ever you are then stop commenting on life in london or in the states which you have never experienced.
Then you must stop making comments about the right to own guns, since you don't own any.
Sabre
05-17-2003, 10:39 AM
Centre of mass?!
No hesitaion of killing a man?!
Endangering my family?!
Hands up who's killed someone...any takers...no? Thought so.
How can you say you would shoot dead some kid who's trying to nick your DVD armed only with bad breath?
For those of us with actual training in the use of firearms, I'm sure we could quickly despatch a 'perp' in a few seconds. What about the majority of gun owners who have no idea how to responsibly or accurately use a weapon?
What about the kids who get up for a glass of water to find their dad's aim is a little off,the bullet missing the criminal and hitting them?
What about the little boy who has his friends round and decides to play with the 'family rifle', BOOM, one less kid to feed.
If your weapon and ammunition is separatley located and locked up (as it should be), how on earth are you going to get them both out, load the weapon and find the intruder before he's 'foxtrot-oscar'-ed? You must be very paranoid if you're up at the first bump in the night, loading the elephant gun.
What would I do in the event of an armed robber coming into my house?
1. Check to see if pigs are flying
2. Ring the POLICE on my mobile
3. Stay out of his god-damn way!
What would I do in the much more likely event of getting attacked on a night out? Simple, kick the **** out of them and leg it. It's called self defense; that's different to homicide.
He219:
Are you seriously trying to suggest that there is an equal number of gun-related deaths/crimes per capita in the UK as in the US?
What a load of rubbish!
For example, in the UK in 2000-2001, there were 19,500 reported/alleged instances where firearms were said to be present.
In that year, there were around 16,000 cases where firearms were were said to be the principal weapon. Of those 16,000, 10,000 were air weapons.
There were 488 fatal or serious injuries resulting from firearms, of which 15 were deemed to be homicide. So that's 8x10(-6) (ten to the power of -6) deaths per capita, roughly.
Compare that with the 30,000 deaths due to firearms in the US, that's around 0.0001 deaths per capita.
budanski
05-17-2003, 11:12 AM
LETS BAN ALL CARS
Traffic Is Four Times as Lethal as War -- WHO (World Health Organisation)
Mon May 12, 2:16 PM ET
GENEVA (*******) (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=594&ncid=594&e=1&u=/nm/20030512/hl_nm/traffic_war_dc) - Traffic kills four times as many people as wars and far more people commit suicide than are murdered, the World Health Organization (news - web sites) (WHO) said on Monday.
In two reports on injuries, both accidental and deliberate, the United Nations (news - web sites) agency said injuries killed more than five million people in 2000, one tenth of the global death toll.
Nearly 90 percent of injury-related deaths took place in poorer countries.
Road deaths, totaling 1.26 million, claimed the highest number of victims, followed by suicide at 815,000 and interpersonal violence at 520,000.
Wars and conflict ranked sixth -- between poisoning and falls -- with 310,000 deaths.
WHO said age, ***, geographical region and income level all played a part in the distribution and incidence of fatal injuries.
Such fatalities were twice as prevalent among men as women, the reports said. Three times as many men, for example, died in road traffic accidents as women. And men were also three times as likely to be murdered.
Death rates from road accidents, burns and drowning were particularly high in Africa and Asia, and homicides were three times as frequent as suicides in Africa and the Americas.
But in Europe and southeast Asia suicide rates were more than double murder rates.
He219
05-17-2003, 02:46 PM
Sabre,
I was not attempting to equate violent crime rates (committed with guns) as an equal proportionality here as in the UK, but as a relative proportionality with an increased incident rate due to larger population.
I'm sure there is some ligitimate geometric expansion associated to the incident rate with a larger population that is not prevented from weapons ownership, so I would change your probability formula to model the effect.
Also, the use of a weapon in self-defense is a judgement made in the most critical of cases and Not when one is startled by the local meter-reader walking into your backyard. I don't exactly keep the M4 under my pillow and am not paranoid of violent crime where I live. I would also beat the crap out of somebody first and would employ force neccessary to counter the threat. Walk if you can, overpower if attacked, kill if in mortal jepardy. We are not some Charles Bronsons on a death wish here.
I was also attempting to dispel as a myth the likelyhood of encountering a violent crime committed with a gun. I would probably be more likely to be hit by lightning than be a victim of a gun related crime here in Southern Clifornia. I will Not be taking the Bently to a Liquor Store in Compton for a Lottery Ticket - as an example of situational awareness that is crutial to risk analysis anywhere you go in this world.
We have freedoms here that you do not. We must also bear the consequences of those who abuse those freedoms granted upon us by our Forefathers only 200 years ago.
Have a great day!
p-)
He219
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.