Why do I love guns?

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Wed Aug 18, 2004 1:07 pm

plazul wrote: I don't know what attracted me to guns but when I first held my Uncle Merle's Winchester in my arms I fell in love with the feel of it. My dad had his fill of guns as a corpsman in some of the bloodiest battles of WWII in the South Pacific but he let me go hunting in the mountains every year with my uncle. I never got a deer but Merle always got one and we would clean and bag it together and Merle would talk about good stewardship and having respect for the resource.

Before I got to go hunting with Merle I took Gray-Y gun safety and marksmanship training with a single shot 22. I won first prize in the marksmanship competition and I got so good practicing on my own I could have probably have shot a quarter in mid air.

When I started with Merle he gave me a Marlin lever action 30-30.

Nice post. I too love guns.

As a kid I was very active with a BB and pellet gun. As a teenager I used my dad's .22 pump. When I got into college I took Rifling and Advanced Rifling in ROTC. Great learning experience.

I am now able to enjoy varmint hunting and just plain "plinking". I don't hunt anything larger than a gopher or rat.

Coyotes are a problem sometimes in my neck of the woods, but I've never had to shoot one. I won't do so unless there is a pack trying to lure or kill one of my dogs or cats. And if that is the case, a warning shot will usually do the trick - which I've done twice already.

Hunting was never an item my family was involved with so I have never had the desire.

Do you still have your 30/30? How do you like shooting it?

I used to polish the stock for an hour or more and I kept it in spotless condition cleaning it with love after every outing. By the time I was in my 20s I had quite a gun collection but I lost interest in deer hunting when I had a job at a mountain dude ranch that included cleaning deer during hunting season. I'll never forget how I stunk at the end of the day, and all those flies. Makes you want to go vegetarian.

Yikes, I bet.

Anyway, some people theorize that gun owners are insecure or closet homicidal maniacs but I just appreciate guns as things of beauty and symbols of independence and freedom. I'm proud of America's tradition under the Fourth Amendment and I would never give up my guns for security. So much for the stereotypical liberal image.

And it has been publicly acknowledged by several historians and the actual Generals of the old Soviet Regime that one of the key reasons the Soviets never moved forward with an invasion of the United States was due to the highly armed general population.

An enemy of the United States may be able to take out and "control" certain big urban areas - especially on the East and West Coasts - but I'll bet anyone dollars to donuts that they'd be driven back and have their butts kicked outside of those areas.

It's just a matter of space, tactics, training, and "inventory". Oh, and I forgot: Attitude and Patriotism.

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Wed Aug 18, 2004 1:18 pm

plazul wrote: It's definitely a good weapon for protecting house and home. I think all you'd have to do is display it and even the most determined assailant would flee in terror.

(This is my editorial to the general public who may be browsing this thread.)

You have to be careful of guns like these. The bullets don't stop very easily - and I can tell you - I would not want to live in a crowded suburban type setting with neighbors who had AK's.

You are as likely to get shot in your home (bullet passing through several walls) as the assailant is.

The little dirty secret with AK-47's is this:

1. They are tough to master with targets past 100 yards. (Doesn't apply to suburban dwellers.)

2. When their bullets ricochet, they do so with ferocity and distance.

capt_buzzard · Post by **capt_buzzard** » Thu Sep 02, 2004 3:02 pm

But they can get into the wrong hands too. The kids today think nothing in shooting up their schools and even killing their teacher and best friends.

:-2

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Thu Sep 02, 2004 3:35 pm

Hi Jaycee,

The people who were raised with guns treat them responsibly and with great respect.

Because humanity offers up so many different personality types, there are those who get caught up with the "power" of the gun. But in reality, that power is mis-placed.

Many of us view them as tools, defensive weapons, or items for sport. (Hunting, skeet shooting, plinking, etc.) It's the ones who view them as a "power trip" are the ones who cause trouble. (They usually end up dead or in jail - so it's a wash.)

Each state in the United States has different laws. In most states though, acquiring a gun is easier than buying Tequila or Rum. (I wish I was kidding!) Most states require a quick phone call to make sure you are not a felon or somesuch.

There are some new laws that are making the gun owner responsible for his/her weapon - and surprisingly - I agree with this.

The stories you read about kids accidently or purposefully shooting someone almost always got the gun from their parents or their friends' parents. Responsible gun ownership requires securely storing any firearm. That's just basic common sense.

jaycee wrote: Don't get me wrong, you all sound very responsible but the power you must feel when wielding a gun must be...........addictive. The other adjective is scary - when in the wrong hands..........is it easy to obtain a licence or permit? Are they regulated or can anyone get one?

I wouldn't even know where to start if I wanted to.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Sep 21, 2004 9:39 am

Uncle Bob wrote: Are you kidding? In England there are sever restrictions on air rifles. A long gun

may be owned but not in your home. You must be a member of a club.The fire-

arm is stored at the club.

Hi, Uncle Bob - Do you come from Britian? I am a Brititish person, you see, and

do know a little about this. There are some restrictions on air rifles, principally

that there is a limit on the energy of the pellet (max. 12 ft. pounds); there are

also restrictiona on the age at which one may own (or use unsupervised) an

air rifle. Air rifles with a higher muzzle energy are permitted, but one needs to

obtain a firearms certificate to posess one.

WRT "long guns", a term which is not used in the UK, to my knowledge, you

may own various sorts of rifle for a number of purposes - they do not have

to be kept in a club, nor do you need to be a member of any club to own

one.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 2:47 pm

I'm british as well, we have a totally different attitude in that any suggestions that owning guns freely like in the states is a major no no. Hand guns in private hands have been banned altogether on the back of tremendous public demand after a copuple of incidents and especially after the Dunblane shootings. Basically anyone that wants to own a hand gun is regarded as a nutter that shouldn't have one.

After Dunblane the pro gun candidate standing in the local by election came very close to being lynched when he made the mistake of holding a public meeting.

As to assault rifles what the **** do you need that for.

Its not like america where guns have always been prevalent here the odds of a criminal having one are still uncommon which is why their use in robberies etc gets such publicity when it happens. So why do you need a hand gun who are you going to use it on?

I have seen articles in one or two american sites dercrying the poor british citizen disarmed by his government as if it is not accepted from choice. Not so, behind that lies the assumption we don't tell our governments what to do and there is no choice in the matter.

Our police are not armed-normally, but we do have specialist teams should they be needed. Most of the time they aren't needed and there is a great deal of opposition to arming the police on normal patrol duties. Personally i would be extremely hostile to the idea.

Seeing armed police on the continent is a bit of a culture shock believe me.

It's such a different environment I suspect most americans can't get their heads round it-then again you do tend to get the impression a lot of americans seem to worry all the time about being able to defend themselves against armed attack and live in a state of fear.

On the other hand were I american i suspect i might feel the same way. You could probably spend the next week dicussing the historical reasons why the attitides are so different. They are both right just different reasons different countries

It's not just guns, in Scotland carrying a knife will get you arrested and charged with having an offensive weapon-after all why would you need a sheath knife to go to the pub that's why the thugs carry what we call stanley knives used for cutting carpets etc. our police don't piss about you get lifted. after all why have one when you are out for the evening? I have austrian nephews used to carrying knives openly they find it odd that we have to take them off them so they don't get stopped it's doubtful they would get arrested but you bet the parents will get a warning. Just different attitudes.

Can't Brits own hunting rifles?

It's not that simple, don't forget there are 60 million people crammed on to a relatively small island. There is deer hunting in the highland and parts of england where rifles are used, apart from thwat what is there to hunt? No bear, no wolves or any other big predator shooting cows and sheep is frowned upon, grouse shooting etc is the sport of a priveleged few and is becoming a political issue.

hares have been hunted to the point they are now endangered and as for shooting bunny rabbits well ferrets are more effective.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 3:11 pm

here's a different take on the issue:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 10:36 pm

And:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,2 ... 12,00.html

and from the super radical Popular Mechanics :p :

http://popularmechanics.com/outdoors/op ... rint.phtml

gmc makes some good points above. I understand his arguments and agree that this debate is highly influenced by your location and your own personal experiences.

Even if I lived in a smaller country, I would not want my ability for defense to be taken away. What I still don't understand, is that the legislation penalized all the good guys and gals!

You have one to half a dozen "nuts" who go crazy and kill. Is it logical to then punish the entire Country? Law abiding citizens are disarmed. Criminals get a pass and begin their hunting because they know that you are un-armed sheep.

There was a comment above about why anyone would need an assault weapon. I think there needs to be more understanding about that. There are many hunting rifles that are much more powerful than many "assault weapons." A rifle that looks "mean" or "intimidating" is usually identified as an assault weapon by our anti-gun politicians. And, unfortunately, many of the anti-gunners are claiming that they operate as machine guns - which is patently false.

Any gun can kill. The focus needs to be on the criminals - not the good guys.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 1:05 am

Once again, Tony Martin is prohibited from defending himself against such deadly threats.

In England good men and women are required to cower in the face of criminal evil, they are required to submit to violence. But as a headline in The Observer recently blared: "Gun crime spreads like a cancer across Britain."

The above is from the NRA article. Let me put this in perspective, tony martin was arrested after the shooting and went to trial he was then convicted by a jury of his peers after shooting the guy in the back as he ran away. This is not a case where the nasty government are imprisoning citizens for defending themselves he was imprisoned because the jury thought he used excessive force.

Most people in this country do not think owning gun is the answer but rather the courts need to deal more harshly when guns are used in a crime. You are allowed to use reasonable force to defend yourself what happens depends on the courts and the decisions they make. most juries won't convict in a self defence case if they do there is more to it than simple self defence.

There is a problem with our judiciary and the way the crown prosecution service in England pursues cases but that is not something that will be solved by guns. Most people here think it only right that you should be able to defend yourself but in the cold lightb if day actions taken can look very different and many judgements handed down raise eyebrows but they van be appealed.

There are often such scare articles in the press, it makes a good story most people do not live in fear except in part in inner city housing estates but again allowingeverybody to own a gun will not solve that problem.

The issue has a completely different spin on it to the US. The pro gun lobby in this country are viewed as a bunch of nutters who should not be allowed anywhere near a weapon in the first place. They take selective evidence to make their case. The author in the BBC article is an american, I suspect, starting out, with their own beliefs and looking for evidence to back them up.

The anti-liberty forces in England believed exactly that and, with a massive anti-gun propaganda campaign, they prevailed.

Our attitude is more we want the liberty not to have to worry about some nutter with a gun. The UK is the oldest parliamentary democracy in the world we are quite capable of defending our freedoms but we go about it differently, the gun laws we have were not imposed on us but actually have mass support. You have a very different culture from us in many ways this is one of them.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 1:29 am

gmc wrote: It's such a different environment I suspect most americans can't get their heads round it-then again you do tend to get the impression a lot of americans seem to worry all the time about being able to defend themselves against armed attack and live in a state of fear.

There lies the rub.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 1:41 am

Tombstone wrote: You have one to half a dozen "nuts" who go crazy and kill. Is it logical to then punish the entire Country? Law abiding citizens are disarmed. Criminals get a pass and begin their hunting because they know that you are un-armed sheep.

Oh, don't be such a tosser. The reason for increasing gun crime is that the

punishment no longer fits the crime. Think about it - reductio ad absurdum -

just suppose that there was no penalty of any sort for any crime. Would

the crime rate increase? Yes. Now, suppose that any crime was a capital

offence - would the rate drop? Yes. Note that crime in general has increased

here, whilst penalties have decreased.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Fri Sep 24, 2004 9:29 am

gmc wrote: "

They take selective evidence to make their case. The author in the BBC article is an american, I suspect, starting out, with their own beliefs and looking for evidence to back them up.

are you suggesting that those on the other side of the issue do not engage in such behaviors?

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Fri Sep 24, 2004 9:41 am

Being a tosser? The last two major gun confiscation laws that went into effect in the UK were exactly the result of what I stated.

Bill Sikes wrote: Oh, don't be such a tosser. The reason for increasing gun crime is that the

punishment no longer fits the crime. Think about it - reductio ad absurdum -

just suppose that there was no penalty of any sort for any crime. Would

the crime rate increase? Yes. Now, suppose that any crime was a capital

offence - would the rate drop? Yes. Note that crime in general has increased

here, whilst penalties have decreased.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Fri Sep 24, 2004 12:04 pm

are you suggesting that those on the other side of the issue do not engage in such behaviors?

No of course not. What I meant was don't assume the author is objective, which i don't suppose you did anyway.

Being a tosser? The last two major gun confiscation laws that went into effect in the UK were exactly the result of what I stated.

True they were, but what is different in the UK is that it was as a result of overwhelming public demand that led to the restrictions not some powerful interest group/government conspiracy to disarm us. The pro gun lobby was a powerful one with influence that got firmly put in its place by the electorate not the other way around.

We come at this debate from a totally different viewpoint from americans. it's a mistake to think we are at the mercy of our government

some diverging opinions for you. We don't have a written constitution so the llegalistic arguments of the US constitution type tend not to take place and are quite alien in some ways.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date ... 543277.stm

http://www.highlanderweb.co.uk/dunbflw.htm

http://www.dvc.org.uk/~johnny/dunblane/

Six months later life is a little more bearable for the people of Dunblane. The massive support they have received has helped. The parents and surviving teachers meet every Thursday evening to talk and lend each other support. They are articulate and intelligent people who are trying to have the firearm laws in Britain changed so that never again can a disturbed individual like Hamilton murder the helpless in such a cold and efficient manner.

The parents have collected literally thousands of signatures for their Snowdrop Petition which has been presented to the government. They know, more than most, that Hamilton should never have been allowed to keep guns. They have our support but not unfortunately the support of the government for the Home Office Affairs Committee have rejected the publics calls to amend the gun laws until the findings of the public inquiry (Cullen Report) are brought forward.

Every pro gun MP in Scotland got booted out at the general election after dunblane-OK that wasn't the only issue more the last straw, It was more a case that the government wasn't left with a lot of choice in the matter.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Sat Sep 25, 2004 1:59 am

Tombstone wrote: Being a tosser? The last two major gun confiscation laws that went into effect in the UK were exactly the result of what I stated.

Please explain which two laws were the result of what? I've lost the gist a

little, and need to get back to solid statements.

Apologies for calling you a "tosser", BTW (a fairly mild insult here) - I get rather

pissed off with what I percieve to be inaccurate viewpoints.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Sep 25, 2004 9:44 am

gmc wrote: "

You have a very different culture from us in many ways this is one of them.that's very true. unfortunately, that rather significant fact is always ignored when the debate turns to statistics. The anti-gun nuts in the US love to point out that GB has a tiny fraction of the number of 'gun' homicides as the US per year (ergo GB has 'effective gun control') - while completely ignoring that we are talking about two very different cultures. The homicide rate has *always* been higher on this side of the pond. even back before there were any gun controls at all.

in the US, historically, the homicide rate using *knives* is higher than the *total* homicide rate in GB. yet somehow it's the availability of guns that is the reason for our overall high rates? easy availability of guns increases knife homicides? it's nonsense. it's a different culture.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 2:43 am

Please explain which two laws were the result of what? I've lost the gist a

little, and need to get back to solid statements.

After the hungerford killings some types of rifle were banned. After Dunblane all hand guns were banned including those in gun clubs such was the public demand.

The gun lobby did their best but really it was ban hand guns or else, certainly in Scotland any MP that didn't back it got very short shrift at the polls.

It's completely different from america, the gun lobby was and still is a very influential lobby but the people just won't have it. Some american commentators just can't seem to grasp the difference.

They always come back to defending yourself from the government and preserving your freedoms. we just vote them out of office, sooner or later governments get reminded who is boss. The tories forgot and that's why they are rapidly becoming a fringe party. A pity I think because we badly need a viable opposition to New labour who are also forgetting they rule at our behest.

Our parliamentary democracy has been a process of evolution and changed with the times so we don't have endless arguemants about what was meant when they said this they tend to be more about the substance than the detail.

Our constitution is in crisis in that we always had concensus government with the prime minister being first among equals and not a leader of the executive like a US president, and ultimately answerable to parliament and the people. In the 60's it started to be cabinet govt, under thatcher a move towards prome ministerial government as she got rid of anyone that argued with her and now under TB we have a move towards prime ministerial government that people are hopefully beginning to resent.

What I'm getting at is we don't view having a constitution and the right to bear arms as essential to our freedoms, historically things have always changed as politicians realised that they had better before the people got too pissed off. We have had our revolution and beheaded our kings, we have had our military dictatorships and rule by christian fundamentalists. I have seen it postulated that our inherent dislike of extremes stems from cultural memories.

in the US, historically, the homicide rate using *knives* is higher than the *total* homicide rate in GB. yet somehow it's the availability of guns that is the reason for our overall high rates? easy availability of guns increases knife homicides? it's nonsense. it's a different culture.

Given guns I suspect we would be every bit as bad as the US but for historical reasons we have ended up with a very different attitude. It's a peculiarly american issue that will take a peculiarly american solution, comparisons with the UK are a bit pointless.

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 9:45 am

Hi Bill,

Thanks and apology accepted.

This is a hot topic, for sure. gmc cited the two cases I was referring to - (thanks gmc!) - so no need for me expand on his thorough post.

Even with or without agreements, this is a great topic to discuss.

Bill Sikes wrote: Please explain which two laws were the result of what? I've lost the gist a

little, and need to get back to solid statements.

Apologies for calling you a "tosser", BTW (a fairly mild insult here) - I get rather

pissed off with what I percieve to be inaccurate viewpoints.

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 9:49 am

gmc wrote:

We don't have a written constitution so the llegalistic arguments of the US constitution type tend not to take place and are quite alien in some ways.

I forgot about this! Indeed, this is an important point.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/date ... 543277.stm

http://www.highlanderweb.co.uk/dunbflw.htm

http://www.dvc.org.uk/~johnny/dunblane/

Thanks for those links. Very good - and gives me a good understanding of the background issues.

xlt66 · Post by **xlt66** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 11:00 am

So, other than Plazul and Tombstone, who owns guns?

If so, have you had any formal training?

If so, how often do you practice?

If so, what is your favorite gun?

If so, do you prefer to hunt or target shoot?

If so, have you ever had to use it in a defensive situation? (Brandish or Discharge?)

________________________________

If you do not own a gun:

What type of gun would you like to own?

Would you like to join a gun club?

Would you like to learn how to hunt and put meat on your table?

Have you ever had a situation where you wished you had a gun available?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 12:49 pm

hey - this would actually be a good candidate for a poll topic. would you consider doing so?

xlt66 wrote: So, other than Plazul and Tombstone, who owns guns?

If so, have you had any formal training?

If so, how often do you practice?

If so, what is your favorite gun?

If so, do you prefer to hunt or target shoot?

If so, have you ever had to use it in a defensive situation? (Brandish or Discharge?)

________________________________

If you do not own a gun:

What type of gun would you like to own?

Would you like to join a gun club?

Would you like to learn how to hunt and put meat on your table?

Have you ever had a situation where you wished you had a gun available?

xlt66 · Post by **xlt66** » Sun Sep 26, 2004 1:32 pm

I'd prefer to see real replies to this post. Polls are too limiting (only a few items can be listed as answers) and we can't see who is responding when you use a poll. Can you tell I don't like polls?

anastrophe wrote: hey - this would actually be a good candidate for a poll topic. would you consider doing so?

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Sep 28, 2004 1:18 am

[QUOTE=Tombstone]There was a comment above about why anyone would need an assault weapon. I think there needs to be more understanding about that. There are many hunting rifles that are much more powerful than many "assault weapons." A rifle that looks "mean" or "intimidating" is usually identified as an assault weapon by our anti-gun politicians. And, unfortunately, many of the anti-gunners are claiming that they operate as machine guns - which is patently false.QUOTE]

So why would anyone want an "assault weapon"?

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Sep 28, 2004 1:22 am

gmc wrote: (in the) UK ... we are quite capable of defending our freedoms but

we go about it differently, the gun laws we have were not imposed on us but actually have mass support. You have a very different culture from us in many ways this is one of them.

I actually suspect that there is a majority for further gun control in the U.S.A.,

but that pressure groups "scare" politicians away from giving their support.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Sep 28, 2004 1:36 am

Tombstone wrote: This is a hot topic, for sure. gmc cited the two cases I was referring to - (thanks gmc!) - so no need for me expand on his thorough post.

That's lucky, isn't it. I'm still very unsure of what you meant, though.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Sep 28, 2004 1:44 am

xlt66> So ... who owns guns?

xlt66> If so, have you had any formal training?

I don't understand the question.

xlt66> If so, how often do you practice?

For competition? About once a week.

xlt66> If so, what is your favorite gun?

Various, for various purposes.

xlt66> If so, do you prefer to hunt or target shoot?

Neither. They're different.

xlt66> If so, have you ever had to use it in a defensive situation? (Brandish or Discharge?)

Don't be ridiculous.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Sep 28, 2004 4:27 am

That's lucky, isn't it. I'm still very unsure of what you meant, though.

After the hungerford-where a rifle was used laws were brought in to prevent people keeping rifles in their own homes. After Dunblane all handguns in private hands were banned. The pro gun lobby in america portray this as being a knee jerk reaction from anti liberty forces in the UK. Which basically is a load of crap.

to quote tombstone

You have one to half a dozen "nuts" who go crazy and kill. Is it logical to then punish the entire Country? Law abiding citizens are disarmed. Criminals get a pass and begin their hunting because they know that you are un-armed sheep.

I was was trying to help him understand that in the UK it's more a case of F(*& o** you mad bastards you're not getting to keep your guns. Which attitude seems incomprehensible to some americans.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Sep 28, 2004 4:35 am

gmc wrote: After the hungerford-where a rifle was used laws were brought in to prevent people keeping rifles in their own homes.

That's news to me. I'm sure it would also be news to the Firearms Licencing

officer from the police who came to my house to advise on security and check

my safe.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Sep 28, 2004 5:22 am

That's news to me. I'm sure it would also be news to the Firearms Licencing

officer from the police who came to my house to advise on security and check

my safe.

OK maybe it was to keep them locked up and have them checked by the police to ensure they were locked up safely-it was along those lines anyway.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Sep 28, 2004 5:30 am

Sikes> That's news to me. I'm sure it would also be news to the Firearms

Sikes> Licencing officer from the police who came to my house to advise on

Sikes> security and check my safe.

gmc wrote: OK maybe it was to keep them locked up and have them checked by the police to ensure they were locked up safely-it was along those lines anyway.

Careful, inaccuracies will fuel the fire of all the "gun nuts" in the U.S.A. who're

worried that they may have their right to wear tee-shirts curtailed!

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Tue Sep 28, 2004 9:36 am

Hi Bill,

The problem is the definition - and the growing list of "assault" features.

I don't consider a shotgun with a protruding "pistol" grip an assault weapon.

I don't consider a semi-automatic shotgun an assault weapon. Can it shoot more than 5 rounds before reloading? If so, you have an evil assault weapon.

So why would anyone want an "assault weapon"?

I want a semi-auto shotgun for skeet shooting = I want an "assault weapon".

A genuine assault weapon, is a hand-held, selective fire weapon, which means it's capable of firing in either an automatic or a semiautomatic mode depending on the position of a selector switch. This type of firearm has been heavily controlled since the 1930's.

I don't want a real assault weapon. I just don't want some namby-pamby politician telling me in a few years that any gun that can fire more than one or two rounds without reloading is an assualt weapon.

Bill Sikes wrote: [QUOTE=Tombstone]There was a comment above about why anyone would need an assault weapon. I think there needs to be more understanding about that. There are many hunting rifles that are much more powerful than many "assault weapons." A rifle that looks "mean" or "intimidating" is usually identified as an assault weapon by our anti-gun politicians. And, unfortunately, many of the anti-gunners are claiming that they operate as machine guns - which is patently false.QUOTE]

So why would anyone want an "assault weapon"?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Sep 28, 2004 10:49 am

Bill Sikes wrote: I actually suspect that there is a majority for further gun control in the U.S.A.,

but that pressure groups "scare" politicians away from giving their support.
your suspicion is incorrect. the politicians are more scared of being labeled as 'pro gun' than of being labeled anti-gun, by a wide margin.

there are more than 20,000 gun control laws in the united states. there is absolutely no need for any more.

sorry to turn to simplistic responses, but what is needed is not gun control, but crime control. something on the order of more than 60% of violent crime in the US is committed by repeat offenders. that means that violent criminals go to prison for some length of time, are let out, and recommit violent crimes upon release.

the solution to 60%+ of the problem should not even need to be spelled out.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Sep 28, 2004 10:52 am

Bill Sikes wrote: xlt66> If so, have you ever had to use it in a defensive situation? (Brandish or Discharge?)

Don't be ridiculous.
what is ridiculous about the question?

guns are used more than two million times per year in the united states for self defense, mostly in the realm of brandishing.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Sep 28, 2004 10:55 am

gmc wrote: After the hungerford-where a rifle was used laws were brought in to prevent people keeping rifles in their own homes. After Dunblane all handguns in private hands were banned. The pro gun lobby in america portray this as being a knee jerk reaction from anti liberty forces in the UK. Which basically is a load of crap.
oddly enough, in a country just a few hundred miles from england, virtually every home has in it a fully automatic machine gun. yet their violent crime rates are lower than england's.

I was was trying to help him understand that in the UK it's more a case of F(*& o** you mad bastards you're not getting to keep your guns. Which attitude seems incomprehensible to some americans.
the problem of course, is that the 'mad bastards' are unlikely to abide by the law. so they'll keep their guns, thank you very much.

laws only work on the law abiding.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Sep 28, 2004 10:57 am

Bill Sikes wrote: Sikes> That's news to me. I'm sure it would also be news to the Firearms

Sikes> Licencing officer from the police who came to my house to advise on

Sikes> security and check my safe.

Careful, inaccuracies will fuel the fire of all the "gun nuts" in the U.S.A. who're

worried that they may have their right to wear tee-shirts curtailed!
careful, lapsing into ad hominem and ad absurdum arguments are a quick way to fuel the fire of all those who care about an honest discussion of the issue.

ahem.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Sep 29, 2004 2:03 am

anastrophe wrote: sorry to turn to simplistic responses, but what is needed is not gun control, but crime control. something on the order of more than 60% of violent crime in the US is committed by repeat offenders. that means that violent criminals go to prison for some length of time, are let out, and recommit violent crimes upon release.

the solution to 60%+ of the problem should not even need to be spelled out.

Goes along with a comment I made (to Tombstone) in another thread.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Wed Sep 29, 2004 2:15 am

gmc> After the hungerford-where a rifle was used laws were brought in to

gmc> prevent people keeping rifles in their own homes. After Dunblane all

gmc> handguns in private hands were banned. The pro gun lobby in america

gmc> portray this as being a knee jerk reaction from anti liberty forces in the

gmc> UK. Which basically is a load of crap.

anastrophe wrote: oddly enough, in a country just a few hundred miles from england, virtually every home has in it a fully automatic machine gun. yet their violent crime rates are lower than england's.

What, surely not dragging that hoary old one about Switzerland out?

Here's a table for you to look at that I swiped:

Gun Deaths - International Comparisons

Gun deaths per 100,000 population (for the year indicated):

Homicide Suicide Unintentional

USA 4.08 (1999) 6.08 (1999) 0.42 (1999)

Switzerland 0.50 (1999) 5.78 (1998) -

Scotland 0.12 (1999) 0.27 (1999) -

England/Wales 0.12 (1999/00) 0.22 (1999) 0.01 (1999)

* Homicide & attempted homicide by handgun

Data collected by Philip Alpers, Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and HELP Network

Additional data can be found in Table A.10 of the World Report on Violence and Health, published by the World Health Organization on 3 October 2002.

From: http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm

If you care to mention which "violent crime rates" it may or may not make a

difference.