Guns

[KJUN]

Obviously we (the UK) will always think guns are a macho solution to people who want to infringe on our personal space,, but I can now see that it goes a bit deeper than that.

Yep. We see it as a way to STOP people from infringing upon our selves. We see people as bad - not objects. Of course, some Americans blame an inanimate object and NOT the person that did the bad thing, too. I'm sure some Europeans feel both ways, too. I know the Europeans I have brought to the range typically mention years later how much they would love to go to the range with us again...and would love to come back to see us with that as a number 1 reason. It is addictive.

(I know that means nothing, but your Government has smart bombs and nukes, so unless Rich buys those as well your +++++ as well. LOL)

Tell the IRA to stop fighting because they lack nukes. Obviously, they've done well. The nukes of the 1700s were ships with cannon. We did alright with none of those. The idea is that a people are free as long as the ARMS of the people match the ones carried by the average soldier. That one-to-one fighting is what still has to be won to suppress a people willing to fight. Nukes will end a war - but not an invasion and suppression. Every time the US would use a nuke to end a city in revolt, it would cause MORE people to hate "Big Brother" than to agree with them.

PS... because i can, was always a shallow argument... LOL

Well, why do Americans want cars that can exceed the speed limit? Because they CAN. Personally, I want a car that can go as fast as possible even though I don't want it to speed. What if I NEED it to get someone to the hospital? There are no speed limits on boats in most of our waterways, but why do I want a boat that can exceed 100mph? Because I can. Don't you own something, not because you need it, but because you CAN? Why do many of us have snakes? Because we can. Why do many people have tattoos or piercings? Because they can.

I don't find it shallow if that IS the reason a person owns them. Don't think I take offense with your belief - there is nothing wrong with it. I just wanted to point out that people DO own things just because they can. We don't see a gun as that different from a car. Both are inanimate objects that can cause harm if a BAD PERSON makes them.

Why did you all get guns with a new President.

Because this country doesn't have a history of confiscation of arms. In fact, they would have to pay for them (according to the constitution that used to be followed in this country) if they did. Instead, the laws typically say "NO MORE, but the ones you have are OK." People wanted to get them BEFORE they were outlawed hoping/assuming they could keep them even if new ones are outlawed.

And, why did you all want to carry hidden weapons because a new President took power????

Similar to above. People wanted them in case those "grandfathered" in could keep them easier than people without them could get them. For example, Texas passed a new law requiring a permit (no experience necessary) to keep hots. I got cobras just so I could get the permit and have it in case the laws became stricter LATER. I wanted to get into the system while it was easy to do so. It's the same thing with the permits.

Oh, and CRIME. Crime, crime, crime. Ultimately, that is the reason MANY people typically get them. Under democrats, there has been a historical trend of lighter prison sentences and extreme gun control. BOTH things increase crime: (1) penalties are lax so criminals don't mind the risk of getting caught as much and (2) unarmed people are safer victims than armed ones. People are hoping for the best (we all hope Obama does a good job even though he does everything to make us believe the opposite will happen) but preparing for the worst that history has shown us is likely to happen.

 

[tom e]

I certainly hope that Obama doesn't touch guns, and I say that from a different perspective. I pretty much like where things are now with gun control, but I think if he did that would be a major betrayal to the agenda he got elected for. Besides that, it would really empower his opponants in an UNBELIEVABLE way. We've seen that before. So I hope he's happy with having the Republicans in the position they are now, lost in the woods with the radio shows leading the way, lol. I won't argue that he wouldn't LIKE to do something (though I don't know his mind on this) but I think he knows just what that would mean.
As for having guns to protect us from the US military, I just feel that our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are not JUST us, but they are the best of us. I am pretty sure if things got to where we needed to put this government in line with force, that they will be the only capable force to do so. If they were ever to be used against us, they'd be divided at the least. And if they were against us, it won't matter much if our fat butts had fifties and hand grenades, lol.

 

[KJUN]

Ammunition of certain types already seems to be in short supply.

Yep, but that has more to do with a rush on purchases emptying the supply chain all the way back to the raw metal excavators than anything Obama has done directly.

I think people will always try to "stock up" on something if they believe it will soon be unavailable.

Careful. Stockpiling for later use, according to the current administration, classifies you as a right wing extremist....and a terrorist threat. That puts you right up their with the other dangerous groups: 3rd party voters, food storers, pro-choicers, and...well, all those dangerous types!

 

[KJUN]

I pretty much like where things are now with gun control

With 20,000 federal gun laws on the books, I think the problem should have been fixed by now if there IS a problem, eh? This is a sensible statement, Tom. I don't agree with it since I believe we only need one gun law on the federal level: 2A. But I DO agree with the harshest punishments possible for bad people that conduct crime with the use of a gun, so I suspect we actually agree a LOT. My only reason for saying I don't like where we are is that we have too many laws on inanimate objects and too lax laws on violent criminals that misuse those inanimate objects. With rights comes responsibility. Misuse those rights, and your life should be forfeit.

If they were ever to be used against us, they'd be divided at the least.

Probably, but I'm sure the .gov would be good at sending the ones from more resistant states (Texas, Louisiana, etc.) to areas oversees to get them out of the way. Soldiers from more liberal states (kalifornia, New York, etc.) would likely be the ones sent to handle domestic suppression. PLUS, many "select divisions" have a question about "would you use force to collect guns from civilians if ordered to do so?" I'm sure they didn't pass on the soldiers that said "no" to that.

 

[ciara]

As for having guns to protect us from the US military, I just feel that our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines are not JUST us, but they are the best of us. I am pretty sure if things got to where we needed to put this government in line with force, that they will be the only capable force to do so.

This is actually what has often happened in history. The military turns on the government, which is the turning point in whatever conflict.

As far as buying guns goes, I have heard/read the statistics about folks buying. The others here have it right: The US has a history of 'grandfathering' things in when they are banned/restricted. That's why everyone is buying.

...things increase crime: (1) penalties are lax so criminals don't mind the risk of getting caught

As a CJ student I can tell you this is by no means proven. There are two primary theories in the law enforcement field about penalties. One is that penalties should be harsh, because that prevents crime. The other is that penalties are only punitive, and do not prevent anything and so are merely punishment. It has not been proven that harsher penalties prevent crimes, especially because the vast majority of crimes are crimes of opportunity. It is a much debated subject, with valid points on both sides.

 

[KJUN]

As a CJ student I can tell you this is by no means proven. There are two primary theories in the law enforcement field about penalties. One is that penalties should be harsh, because that prevents crime. The other is that penalties are only punitive, and do not prevent anything and so are merely punishment. It has not been proven that harsher penalties prevent crimes, especially because the vast majority of crimes are crimes of opportunity. It is a much debated subject, with valid points on both sides.

I disagree. It is proven that a criminal never harms another innocent person following his court-ordered death. Also, it is rare for a person in prison to harm an innocent people - especially one that doesn't work in the prison. The LONGER they are kept in prison, the less time they will have said opportunities. I understand you're just a student, but if you would think about what you said (crimes are based on opportunity and longer sentences - what I mean by stricter punishment - don't reduce crime - but they obviously reduce the opportunities) you'll see the logical fallacies in what you've been told. Also, remember that most universities are liberal in nature, and liberals don't tend to support capital punishment. People have trouble not teaching to their biases.

Take me - I preach for hours against feral cats in my science classes. That's teaching to my biases. Someone else may point at the studies that show cats kill exotic species of mice and birds and use those studies to say, "Feral cats can be good!" I don't because it is all bullpuckey, but there is MY BIAS rasing its ugly head again....lol.

 

[ciara]

I think you misunderstand what I meant, or perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Executing one person is not proven to prevent the next person from committing the same crime. It does, of course, prevent the original person from committing that crime (or another) again.

There are several theories of crime causation and prevention, and which ones are the most accurate and effective is a topic which is by no means settled. That's why I spoke up.

 

[KJUN]

I think you misunderstand what I meant, or perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Executing one person is not proven to prevent the next person from committing the same crime. It does, of course, prevent the original person from committing that crime (or another) again.

I won't disagree with that, but I don't think it is proven to NOT work, either. I completely respect your debate on that portion of this thread. It's a dead end argument since it is not a testable hypothesis on either side at this time.

With that said, taking the one BG out that did harm to an innocent is good enough for me. I don't care if it stops the next guy (except that I HOPE that it does). I'm happy that that ONE won't hurt anyone in the future. That's not perfect, but it is good enough for me. BTW, I didn't mean just violent crime in my earlier post - nor did I mean just capital punishment. I meant everything down to minor burglary and simple term prison sentences. Getting a chronically repeating BG off of the street for 2 years reduces HIS crimes more than just taking him off for 2 months.

 

[tom e]

Probably, but I'm sure the .gov would be good at sending the ones from more resistant states (Texas, Louisiana, etc.) to areas oversees to get them out of the way. Soldiers from more liberal states (kalifornia, New York, etc.) would likely be the ones sent to handle domestic suppression. PLUS, many "select divisions" have a question about "would you use force to collect guns from civilians if ordered to do so?" I'm sure they didn't pass on the soldiers that said "no" to that.

Well seeing as how the soldiers at any given base are from all states no matter where they are stationed, that would take a MAJOR reorganization that would make this most recent one look like a typical field problem.
Unless you're talking about the guard and reserves, nobody is ever local.

I agree with you on many points as well. Some guns that are currently banned are just banned because politicians don't understand what the differences are between them. Some guns are banned 'accidently' by a blanket ban that doesn't make any sense (like CA with the can't have 2 of these 3 features, or whatever it is. The real thinking is more is better and if something gets banned inadvertantly, good). Some that are not banned are much more 'dangerous' than some of those that are. I agree there's no sense there. I'd love to have a semi-auto Thompson, but I can't because of some random way it's configured that's illegal. I can get a 1911 though, which is much more concealable. No, I never would say it's been done well, but I do see a need to draw a line.

I remember one thread where I asked (you or Rich?) if we should be allowed to have nuclear weapons, the answer was that if the government can than we should too. I can appreciate that that's a fearless and very principled stand if that's what you feel the 2nd is meant for, but I just would fight that to the end. EVEN if that's entirely what our founding fathers meant and I had a letter from them all signed to that effect. I'll be the bad guy on that, and like I said on the other thread, I wouldn't even have to go that far. I'd probably take it as low as any explosives and some rounds regardless of weapon type.

California is just wrong. I was looking at some custom revolvers a while back and was told (though I haven't verified it) that I couldn't have one because Ca requires the actual make and model to have been tested for safety. Safety? YEAH RIGHT!

 

[ciara]

Oh, I agree with you. It has not been proven either way. I just wanted to make the point that the issue was not settled or decided one, so that no one took the statement as uncontested fact. It certainly is hotly debated, even in classes and seminars. Ask two instructors (cops, lawyers, etc), they will give you two different answers.

As far as taking the one bad guy off the street, you and I are on the same page. I don't particularly care if it prevents the next guy from doing it. I just care that the guy who did it won't do it again. That's enough for me.

 

[medusacoils]

You need to remember that the ONLY people in the UK to regularly have guns are criminals and the military...

This is a very scary thought and the reason why gun laws/controls don't work. The only people that follow laws/controls, are the law abiding one's. This completely tips the scale in the favor of the criminal, don't you think?


Wayne

 

[tom e]

I don't agree with it since I believe we only need one gun law on the federal level

I agree with that too. :cheers: I don't mean to sound like I am defending the laws which exist, just the need (IMO) for something like them. I think I'd be happiest with limit to the type of rounds that are legal. Longer or shorter barrels, extra handgrips, beer chillers, cigarette rests etc- I don't care about.:shrugs:

 

[KJUN]

I remember one thread where I asked (you or Rich?) if we should be allowed to have nuclear weapons, the answer was that if the government can than we should too. I can appreciate that that's a fearless and very principled stand if that's what you feel the 2nd is meant for, but I just would fight that to the end.

It wasn't stated as my opinion unless were were just talking silly for "fun," extrapolating a point, or using it in some hypothetical situation (like, "Where does it say we CAN'T own them?). Some people believe that (and I DO agree that their argument has a lot of validity to it), but I personally believe the 2A covers anything "like or lesser than" the average soldier gets issued. That includes handguns, rifles of any length, shotguns of any length, full autos to sniper rifles, NVD, small explosives (hand grenades, etc.), etc. APC's and rocket launchers are "iffy" topics with me because they DO fit in the grey area.

That is what I believed the forefathers meant. The average person could own anything the average British soldier had - this doesn't mean the average one was guaranteed the right to own a warship, though. HOWEVER, we know cannons of the time right up past the civil war WERE owned by private citizens...and the forefathers KNEW it and apparently didn't mind. Isn't that the equivalent of a rocket launcher today? Hence, why I can't make up my mind on what they did or did not mean. Either way, they clearly meant the items you see an average soldier carrying on a day to day basis IMO.

I put no merit in the idea that the forefathers couldn't predict the POWER of today's rifles and the damage to others a BG could do. Think of today. What would be the chance that I could go crazy, grab ANY of my rifles, and kill 280 people before I was stopped. The idea is almost ludicrous in modern Amerika. 280 are a LOT of people, and I'd be caught or stopped first. Now. think of 1780. With a musket, do you think it would be possible for someone to kill 12 people before they were stopped. With the way things were settled, that was likely pretty easy. I bet some people even did it. The key is that in both cases it is the same proportion of the population killed: one out of a million. The forefathers didn't think the risk was worth outlawing weapons, and the proportional risk THEN is much greater than it is now. THAT, when put in such a comparison, is part of what makes me so confident in my beliefs.

For the record, the loss of a life - whether there are 12 or 280 million people in the total country is just as regrettable. I don't mean to belittle a life - I just use the above example since the argument of "no really, really bad" weapons is referencing protection of society and not protection of a single individual.

 

[KJUN]

I think I'd be happiest with limit to the type of rounds that are legal

I'm just curious: what rounds do you not like.

Take, for example, "Armor Piercing Rounds." I know the media convinced people "AP" rounds should be illegal to protect all those cops getting killed, but when the law was passed NO SINGLE COP wearing a vest had ever been killed with an "AP" round. Even the definition of an AP round is messed up. All large caliber rifle rounds are AP by nature, but they are legal. All that are illegal are, in essence if I am allowed to simplify, cheap steel-cored pistol rounds. AP doesn't bother me, but it does bother me that we can't have them but the military can.....lol.

Steel cored 9mm rounds, for example by way of a story, are outlawed as AP. However, imported lead cored ones with a steel jacket coated with brass are legal because the core is not steel. However, they act like steel cored on penetration tests - or better because the denser lead portion. As a bonus, these are machine gun rounds, so they are hotter than any US-based 9mm round (meaning even more penetration), but they are legal. These are better AP than illegal APs, but they are legal and the others or not. Politicians can mess up anything, can't they?

Tracers, since they can be a fire hazard, may need to be limited by state or limited according the the "burn conditions" of an area. I could see the merit in such an argument, but I'm not sure if these are what you meant.

 

[BobbyHill]

California is just wrong. I was looking at some custom revolvers a while back and was told (though I haven't verified it) that I couldn't have one because Ca requires the actual make and model to have been tested for safety. Safety? YEAH RIGHT!

You've got the gist of it. Every model has to be "drop tested" to see if it will withstand a drop onto concrete without the firing pin dropping. This rule even applies to a gun of the same model but with a different finish. Yes, you heard right. Same mechanical parts, but in a different color/finish? Sorry, you've got to have both models drop tested. This makes it harder on smaller gun manufacturers as they have to submit guns they will never see again, as well as pay regular fees to California to keep their guns on the list. You'll be happy to know that this is currently being argued against in the California Supreme Court.

 

[KJUN]

You've got the gist of it. Every model has to be "drop tested" to see if it will withstand a drop onto concrete without the firing pin dropping. This rule even applies to a gun of the same model but with a different finish. Yes, you heard right. Same mechanical parts, but in a different color/finish? Sorry, you've got to have both models drop tested. This makes it harder on smaller gun manufacturers as they have to submit guns they will never see again, as well as pay regular fees to California to keep their guns on the list. You'll be happy to know that this is currently being argued against in the California Supreme Court.

I didn't know that. Common sense law would say each DESIGN would have to be tested. Not model (or finish), but DESIGN. If the same firing pen DESIGN is used, it should be safe on a gun whether they change the barrel length, capacity of the cylinder, FINISH, grips (assuming no grip safety, of course), etc. I know kalifornia is anti-gun, but I didn't realize they had THAT particular law on the books that was interpreted that way. Sorry.......

 

[Rich Z]

I remember one thread where I asked (you or Rich?) if we should be allowed to have nuclear weapons, the answer was that if the government can than we should too. I can appreciate that that's a fearless and very principled stand if that's what you feel the 2nd is meant for, but I just would fight that to the end.

It wasn't stated as my opinion unless were were just talking silly for "fun," extrapolating a point, or using it in some hypothetical situation (like, "Where does it say we CAN'T own them?). Some people believe that (and I DO agree that their argument has a lot of validity to it), but I personally believe the 2A covers anything "like or lesser than" the average soldier gets issued. That includes handguns, rifles of any length, shotguns of any length, full autos to sniper rifles, NVD, small explosives (hand grenades, etc.), etc. APC's and rocket launchers are "iffy" topics with me because they DO fit in the grey area.

That is what I believed the forefathers meant. The average person could own anything the average British soldier had - this doesn't mean the average one was guaranteed the right to own a warship, though. HOWEVER, we know cannons of the time right up past the civil war WERE owned by private citizens...and the forefathers KNEW it and apparently didn't mind. Isn't that the equivalent of a rocket launcher today? Hence, why I can't make up my mind on what they did or did not mean. Either way, they clearly meant the items you see an average soldier carrying on a day to day basis IMO.

I put no merit in the idea that the forefathers couldn't predict the POWER of today's rifles and the damage to others a BG could do. Think of today. What would be the chance that I could go crazy, grab ANY of my rifles, and kill 280 people before I was stopped. The idea is almost ludicrous in modern Amerika. 280 are a LOT of people, and I'd be caught or stopped first. Now. think of 1780. With a musket, do you think it would be possible for someone to kill 12 people before they were stopped. With the way things were settled, that was likely pretty easy. I bet some people even did it. The key is that in both cases it is the same proportion of the population killed: one out of a million. The forefathers didn't think the risk was worth outlawing weapons, and the proportional risk THEN is much greater than it is now. THAT, when put in such a comparison, is part of what makes me so confident in my beliefs.

For the record, the loss of a life - whether there are 12 or 280 million people in the total country is just as regrettable. I don't mean to belittle a life - I just use the above example since the argument of "no really, really bad" weapons is referencing protection of society and not protection of a single individual.

Well there are different ways of looking at this. The PURPOSE of the Second Amendment was to achieve parity between the arms that the government could have, and those "the people" could have. We have to assume the reason applicable then is applicable today as well.

But when it comes to nuclear weapons, yes a lot of people will stumble over that one. But there actually is a logical exit from that argument. Such weapons are really not "arms" in the sense we normally think of them at all. They are actually weapons of policy and under strict control of the heads of state before they can be deployed. No soldier has the authority to deploy a nuclear device in any country I am aware of. It is a POLITICAL weapon, generally of the MAD doctrine (mutually assured destruction). So with that in mind, I think a logical dividing line can be made between arms as are guaranteed to "the people" that they can "keep and bear", and those arms which are the sole provenance of the highest levels of the government to be deployed only under the requirements of necessity for national matters. Of course, gray areas will abound anyway.....

As for the days of when the US Constitution was penned and the weapons of the day, as far as I know, any private citizen could have owned their own private warship if they had the financial means to purchase and man it. What do you think pirates were? And even with that knowledge, there were no restrictions governing such weapons mentioned in the Second Amendment at all. Surely our forefathers didn't just FORGET about such weaponry, now did they?

 

[wade]

Mike, one thing to keep in mind is that in the US just like everywhere else, there are lots of opinions. Often the ones stated the loudest and most often do not necessarily represent the majority. I agree with most of what is said here, but as an outsider looking in, it is only fair to point out that KJ and Rich both represent one group who don’t necessarily represent the majority.

Sit down KJ, don’t go ballistic on me here. I’m just saying that although I am very much in favor of gun rights and will fight to keep them, I don’t see a bad man behind every bush and I don’t expect to have to use my guns to defend myself from my government. I think my point of view is probably closer to main stream. That doesn’t make me right and you wrong, I’m just pointing it out to an outsider who is wanting to understand Americans in general and not just Cajuns.

 

[tom e]

I'm just curious: what rounds do you not like.

I like them all! But I don't think I should get to buy some of them just cause I'd like to.

I'd probably draw the line at some 'grizzy bear' round and admit I have no idea what that would be, lol. I myself have a 30-06, but I believe there are legit reasons to want something bigger than that.
If you were hunting grizzlies or expecting that you might be somewhere that you'd have to defend yourself against one, what would you use that you can put to your shoulder? That should easily be an adequate round for any type of defense type scenario you'd ever encounter, even up to an armed invasion.
I like the way that full auto is regulated- assuming I understand it correctly, where you need to be approved. I think maybe some rounds like a .50 should be that way as well (or rather the rifles that fire them- sorry Rich, nothing personal.) The only reason I say that is because of the danger a .50 poses even in an accidental discharge. In any given neighborhood, how many whole houses would that round go through? I'd imagine quite a few.
As stated before, no law should consider how 'scary' the rifle looks IMO. A rifle which looks scary is a peaceful deterrent if anything. I also don't believe that a rifle that has an adaptation or accessory that makes it more efficient to use, ought to be on the chopping block. What's wrong with efficiency if we agree that the round has a legit purpose in the hands of a civilian?

 

[wade]

Is the only justification for a gun to protect yourself or to hunt? Can’t I have a 50 cal because I like to break clay pigeons from across the valley? KJ has his argument to suit his needs and desires, but there is more to the world than KJ’s needs and desires. (Sorry KJ) Isn’t the fact that I just like to shoot guns a legitimate reason to own them?