Gun laws

[clockwork]

this is slightly off topic but thought should be posted. The U.S. Congress is trying to place a gun ban that includes semi autos to browning model 1885 single shot rifles to most shot guns please read the list of Guns in the list.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6257

[David]

this is slightly off topic but thought should be posted. The U.S. Congress is trying to place a gun ban that includes semi autos to browning model 1885 single shot rifles to most shot guns please read the list of Guns in the list.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6257
Perhaps i have misread this. I always find legalese difficult. :o
But this is stated very early on in the bill:

‘(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
‘(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the firearms, specified in appendix A to this section, as such firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993;
‘(B) any firearm that--
‘(i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action;
‘(ii) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or
‘(iii) is an antique firearm;
‘(C) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition; or
‘(D) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.

The list you speak of is "appendix A" so doesn't this mean that these weapons are NOT banned by this bill? :shrug: :)

[clockwork]

basically there trying to ban all the weapons on the list which include single shot as well as black powder other wise they would not name them from my experiance. undar appendix A covers full auto as well as semi auto under the amended then it goes on to cover the restlike lever & slide then bolt action ECT.

[David]

basically there trying to ban all the weapons on the list which include single shot as well as black powder other wise they would not name them from my experiance. undar appendix A covers full auto as well as semi auto under the amended then it goes on to cover the restlike lever & slide then bolt action ECT.
Again, i might be misreading this, but it does seem to say that the weapons on the list are NOT subject to this ban. Please read the section i have cited again. That is what it says, is it not. :shrug:
This is a reauthorization of an ASSAULT WEAPONS ban. I think this ban is already in place and this bill serves to renew said ban. That is why it is a RE-authorization, no? It is not aimed at these other weapons as far as i can tell.

[David]

Here is a little bit more of this bill. I have bolded certain words for better understanding.

(a) RESTRICTION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding after subsection (u) the following:
‘(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.
‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.
‘(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
‘(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the firearms, specified in appendix A to this section, as such firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993;
‘(B) any firearm that--
‘(i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action;
‘(ii) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or
‘(iii) is an antique firearm;
‘(C) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition; or
‘(D) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.
The fact that a firearm is not listed in appendix A shall not be construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from appendix A so long as this subsection is in effect.

The first part bolded is "paragraph (1)". Please note that this entire section deals with weapons that are exempt from this bill, including those listed in appendix A.
The last part even assures us that even if the firearm is not on the appendix A list, it may still be exempt from this bill if it meets the criteria.

[Ed]

Lists of things that the government "allows" us to have makes me nervous.

The woman pushing this bill lost her husband to the nut who killed those folks on the Long Island RR some years ago. She has been persuing this since then.

The bill is ipso facto dishonest since it refers to a definition of assault rifles that is aesthetic. The gun banners in the US have been monkeying with commenly accepted terminology to demonize virtually every firearm. I have seen references to "assault pistols" for example.

This
‘(C) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition; or

‘(D) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.

Includes every semi automatic weapon in existence. Every one.

This is the aesthetic BS
‘(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--

‘(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

‘(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

‘(iii) a bayonet mount;

‘(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

‘(v) a grenade launcher;

These are things that are absolutely meaningless.

This

SEC. 3. BAN OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.

(a) PROHIBITION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 2(a), is amended by adding after subsection (v) the following:

‘(w)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.

suggests that one would have to trust the government enough to tell them that you have such magazines and get "permission" to keep them.

It also suggests that bad guys cannot do High School level msheetmetal work.

This is BS window dressing:

SEC. 4. STUDY BY ATTORNEY GENERAL.

(a) STUDY- The Attorney General shall investigate and study the effect of this Act and the amendments made by this Act, and in particular shall determine their impact, if any, on violent and drug trafficking crime. The study shall be conducted over a period of 18 months, commencing 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act.

(b) REPORT- Not later than 30 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall prepare and submit to the Congress a report setting forth in detail the findings and determinations made in the study under subsection (a).

They did such a thing in NJ some time ago. They found that the law did zero, nada, zilch. The law is still on the books because "it can't hurt".

I will refrain from dealing with the logical errors in this law.

Jesus. And people fall for it.

[Ed]

It's worse than I thought.

The list of firearms are those that are "acceptable" to the government. Not one surplus rifle or pistol. I estimate, what, 300 on the list. 400?

There are thousands of different firearms available.

This is confiscation and not close to being "reasonable".

[Ed]

Re reading it it seems that there are certain ambiguities.

For example, my m1 carbine is an antique (unless that definition changes) but it can (as any clip fed gun can) accept a clip > 5 rounds. So which trumps what? And for how long?

[David]

It's worse than I thought.

The list of firearms are those that are "acceptable" to the government. Not one surplus rifle or pistol. I estimate, what, 300 on the list. 400?

There are thousands of different firearms available.

This is confiscation and not close to being "reasonable".

Once again Ed:

The fact that a firearm is not listed in appendix A shall not be construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from appendix A so long as this subsection is in effect.

This country has an amazingly strong gun lobby. I don't image that the government will be taking all our guns away any time soon. I am sorry, but i see no problem with the banning of assault weapons. They are not necessary for sportsman, collectors or personal protection.

[clockwork]

look at the list and u will find guns that are out lawed on the old list such as the MINI 14 and B.A.Rs also under the law any gun older than 1898 I believe is considered a courio relic and would be excempt so why put them on a list?

I have never seen a list for guns that are allowed only guns to be banned this makes no sence to me. I also noted that the bill contradict its self in a few places. be warry of this bill

Once again Ed:

The fact that a firearm is not listed in appendix A shall not be construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from appendix A so long as this subsection is in effect.

This country has an amazingly strong gun lobby. I don't image that the government will be taking all our guns away any time soon. I am sorry, but i see no problem with the banning of assault weapons. They are not necessary for sportsman, collectors or personal protection.

[clockwork]

according to wikipeda C&R goes back 50 yrs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_License

[Ed]

Once again Ed:

The fact that a firearm is not listed in appendix A shall not be construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from appendix A so long as this subsection is in effect.

This country has an amazingly strong gun lobby. I don't image that the government will be taking all our guns away any time soon. I am sorry, but i see no problem with the banning of assault weapons. They are not necessary for sportsman, collectors or personal protection.

Ummm I collect them.

Seriously, assault waepons are already strictly controlled. And have been for ages.

What they are saying is that hunting weapons with un-pc looks are to be controlled. That's a non-starter.

BTW, semi auto .223 weapons that are wrongly termed "assault weapons" are widely used for target shooting, varment shooting and are avidly collected.

[Ed]

look at the list and u will find guns that are out lawed on the old list such as the MINI 14 and B.A.Rs also under the law any gun older than 1898 I believe is considered a courio relic and would be excempt so why put them on a list?

I have never seen a list for guns that are allowed only guns to be banned this makes no sence to me. I also noted that the bill contradict its self in a few places. be warry of this bill

The BAR is an NFA weapon. ie. a sevective fire weapon. It is handled under a completely different set of laws. But ... maybe not.

[clockwork]

there are a cpl diffrent versions of the BAR from full auto to selective fire so it can fall under diffrent regs depending on the type that a person has. I believe that machine gun kelly used this weapon

[celtan]

I think that was Bonnie and Clyde. Stole them from a Govt. Armoury (National Guard?). MGK carried the Tommy Gun (Thompsom .45)

BTW, the BAR had been around since WWI. US Soldiers weren't provided with it cuz' our Govt. was afraid that the germans would capture one and make copies of it. Instead, they were forced to use the french Chauchat, a piece-of-crap that seldom worked, even under ideal conditions. Thousands of "Yanks" needlessly died because of that decision.

I reside in San Juan, PR. Here we have the _toughest gun-laws_ in all the US of A, and also the _worst violent-crime rates_ in the Nation, comparable to Russia's.

Any criminal in PR can buy or actually "rent" an AK-47 on the housing projects, but a honest citizen can't own a flintlock family heirloom without a license, and if he's caught in the possession of an ounce of black powder, it's an automatic 5 year felony sentence !

Yes Virginia, it's true: The only ones who obey gun laws are the honest citizens, who wouldn't misuse guns in the first place. Those who commit crimes with them don't bother with the Law, it can be the toughest gun law in the Universe, and they would still break it.

There have been studies made on the performance of the anti-assault gun laws while it was on effect, and guess what? Zilch, no improvements whatsoever. It's just window-dressing for the PC minded folk. OTOH, states that allow concealed carry have lower crime-rates. Make your own conclussions.

I am in favor of gun control laws, but only those have prioven to be effective in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, and those unfit to own them.

Merry Xmas y'all!


: ) Manuel Luis



there are a cpl diffrent versions of the BAR from full auto to selective fire so it can fall under diffrent regs depending on the type that a person has. I believe that machine gun kelly used this weapon

[David]

Write yer congressman gentlemen. That always works. :rolleyes:

[Atlantia]

Its such a tough issue isn't it gentlemen?
As you'll all probobly know, the gun laws in the UK are now some of the tightest in the world. I used to have strong connections with the gun owning (target range shooting) fraternity in the UK and the total ban on handguns seemed terribly draconian when it was introduced here.
Yes, some terrible crimes ARE committed with legally held guns, but of course most are committed by criminals with illegal weapons. In fact, in the UK the main 'legally held' gun that gets missused has always been the shotgun, and those remain legal because they have such a powerful lobby of users.
We now have a situation where even replica handguns are essentially prohibited.
Has it done any good?
Well, I have to say as someone who athough a lifelong weapons collector (now of course my guns are all relics) and essentially a pacifist who would never ever consider shooting a gun at anything more than a paper target, I think it has had a positive overall effect.
I think banning replicas and toys is a step too far, but I do believe that banning handguns (and nearly all semi automatic rifles) here, has made a difference. Certainly I believe it has affected their use in violent crime, for several reasons.
So was it worth the sacrifice of hobby gun owners?
Well, I would have to say that I think it was (And I say this for the UK as our situation is completely different from yours).

Although we do of course still have a problem with gun crime, it is certainly not as bad as it could be, or IMHO would be if guns were more a part of the British way of life. We have managed to move to a situation where most British kids grow up playing with toy guns, but have no experience of shooting a real one and certainly no experience of killing anything with one. Therefore, I do believe that guns are seen in a completely different way here. Obviously some people DO want to illegally own a gun, but thats a BIG step over the line, and puts you in a definate criminal category. I think this combination of fear of/lack of experience of/and criminalisation of gun ownership does mean that to most people here, the idea of having a gun or using one in anger is just not 'on the table'.

I wish there WAS a solution, simple or not for you guys. I fear that in the end there will come a moment where you have to sacrifice many of your rights of private gun ownership to begin a long term process of lessening gun crime.
I honestly can't see even the most progressive President starting such a contentious process when it will surely take many, many terms of office to show any real results.

I know I've drifted way past the subject in hand, just thought you might want to read the views of someone who spent a lot of time around guns then DID see them banned.

Sad thing is, of course its worth the sacrifce if it works! But where DO you guys start?

Peace all, don't 'shoot me down' for thinking gun control can be a good thing.
;)

[celtan]

But that's the thing Atlantia,

Puerto Rico, Boston, New York: Extremely restricted gun controls (specially shotguns): High Crime Incidence
Britain, Spain, Japan: Extremely restricted gun controls : Low Crime Incidence (in native populations, inmigrants bring different values)
Ohio: Liberal gun laws: Low Crime Incidence
Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, likewise.
Los Angeles: Liberal Gun Laws: High Crime Incidence

So the crux is not gun control, but the local society mores behind it. In Britain, even drunkards at pubs are usually well behaved.

Draconian gun laws are not the answer. But some control is definitely needed, its only a matter of neither too much nor too little.

Best

M



Its such a tough issue isn't it gentlemen?
As you'll all probobly know, the gun laws in the UK are now some of the tightest in the world. I used to have strong connections with the gun owning (target range shooting) fraternity in the UK and the total ban on handguns seemed terribly draconian when it was introduced here.
Yes, some terrible crimes ARE committed with legally held guns, but of course most are committed by criminals with illegal weapons. In fact, in the UK the main 'legally held' gun that gets missused has always been the shotgun, and those remain legal because they have such a powerful lobby of users.
We now have a situation where even replica handguns are essentially prohibited.
Has it done any good?
Well, I have to say as someone who athough a lifelong weapons collector (now of course my guns are all relics) and essentially a pacifist who would never ever consider shooting a gun at anything more than a paper target, I think it has had a positive overall effect.
I think banning replicas and toys is a step too far, but I do believe that banning handguns (and nearly all semi automatic rifles) here, has made a difference. Certainly I believe it has affected their use in violent crime, for several reasons.
So was it worth the sacrifice of hobby gun owners?
Well, I would have to say that I think it was (And I say this for the UK as our situation is completely different from yours).

Although we do of course still have a problem with gun crime, it is certainly not as bad as it could be, or IMHO would be if guns were more a part of the British way of life. We have managed to move to a situation where most British kids grow up playing with toy guns, but have no experience of shooting a real one and certainly no experience of killing anything with one. Therefore, I do believe that guns are seen in a completely different way here. Obviously some people DO want to illegally own a gun, but thats a BIG step over the line, and puts you in a definate criminal category. I think this combination of fear of/lack of experience of/and criminalisation of gun ownership does mean that to most people here, the idea of having a gun or using one in anger is just not 'on the table'.

I wish there WAS a solution, simple or not for you guys. I fear that in the end there will come a moment where you have to sacrifice many of your rights of private gun ownership to begin a long term process of lessening gun crime.
I honestly can't see even the most progressive President starting such a contentious process when it will surely take many, many terms of office to show any real results.

I know I've drifted way past the subject in hand, just thought you might want to read the views of someone who spent a lot of time around guns then DID see them banned.

Sad thing is, of course its worth the sacrifce if it works! But where DO you guys start?

Peace all, don't 'shoot me down' for thinking gun control can be a good thing.
;)

[Atlantia]

But that's the thing Atlantia,

Puerto Rico, Boston, New York: Extremely restricted gun controls (specially shotguns): High Crime Incidence
Britain, Spain, Japan: Extremely restricted gun controls : Low Crime Incidence (in native populations, inmigrants bring different values)
Ohio: Liberal gun laws: Low Crime Incidence
Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, likewise.
Los Angeles: Liberal Gun Laws: High Crime Incidence

So the crux is not gun control, but the local society mores behind it. In Britain, even drunkards at pubs are usually well behaved.

Draconian gun laws are not the answer. But some control is definitely needed, its only a matter of neither too much nor too little.

Best

M

Hi Manuel,

Hmmm, I (formerly) worked in nightclubs for 10 years, and the British seem to drink for sport, as if it was an Olympic event and we are in training!
But as for behaviour, it seems to depend on the city/area.
Some places I worked are fairly well behaved, like Torquay! Generally very drunk, but overall good natured.
Portsmouth on the other hand, very drunk, and like the wild west, with fights quickly getting out of hand and spreading to half the pub/club.

All the towns I worked in had occasional stabbings, drunken glassings etc.
Very rarely shootings, in fact I've never seen one with my own eyes in 10 years. There were a couple, that happened at venues I frequented when I wasn't there, but they were very rare.

Thats because they are usually the result of premeditation and not 'impulse'.
I've known people who've been stabbed, and in fact had a kinfe pulled on me once when promoting a club, I've sadly seen many, many people get their faces and even throats cut with glasses, and god only knows how many with injuries from being kicked, punched or smacked with some stool or ashtray. I'm very happy to say that none ever actually died from injuries sustained in a club I worked in, but a couple of times I think it was close, and a guy I worked with was involved in a minor exchange of words with a guy in a pub who then asked him to 'step outside' and then stabbed him 13 times, leaving him critically injured.

My point is that as there are so few guns around, people don't impulsively settle scores with them (generally). I have NO DOUBT that if the people I've seen trying to beat each other senseless or slash each other with a broken glass or bottles had been carrying guns then I'd be recalling all the shootings I've witnessed.

Of course its a bigger issue than impulse arguments, in some British cities where the drugs problem is out of control, or where the kids all think they are 'gangsters' there are regular shootings, but mostly, violent disagreements between average hot headed idiots and even minor criminals are settled with nothing more dramatic than a few punches. sometimes it goes further, like I've mentioned above, but thats not the norm.

You are of course absolutely right that its the underlying causes and peoples willingness to use violence that needs to be addressed, and social factors area to area will of course affect the figures I agree.

But so also do attitudes towards weapons and their use, and a familiarity with guns and the realisation that many others around you are probobly carrying them with no good intention must certainly be a reciepe for more shootings.
I completely agree with your comments, but would add that if guns were routinely carried by more young men in the UK for defence/offence or whatever, then that would also directly (as your figures above show) corrolate to a slight rise in shootings in the areas which already have lower violent crime and a huge rise in those areas which currently suffer from lots of muggings/stabbings/pub fights resulting in actual bodily harm.

Yes, its the intent in the heart of the person that is the problem, but the more efficient the weapon the more likely the result is to be serious, and when drugs or alcohol are mixed with anger, desperation or addiction then the last thing you want thrown into the mix is a weapon that makes anyone a 'big dog'.
So what do you do? You have to weigh up the rights of peaceful law abiding citizens to own weapons against a seeming inability to cure the social factors that mean that if those weapons are also in the wrong hands they'll get used against other law abiding citizens.

In the UK, very few people really 'need' a gun. Certainly the vast majority of pre-ban fullbore firearms were owned for target shooting.

So the ban was hard on club target shooters and collectors. Especially smallbore sports shooters (Olympic hopefuls).

But if it helps alter the attitude towards guns in general, and makes them seem more socially unacceptable, then it can do some good.

Until we can fix the causes. That might be a long way off.
:(

Regards
Gene

[clockwork]

I would like to point out that I have carried a gun for many yrs in and out of bars. I have been in many disagreements and have never pulled it out. I normally try to talk to the person or I will just leave the bar. I have been to gun shows were there was tens of thousands of guns and ammunition and tons of people drinking and have never seen a incident. So it comes down to a persons lack of self respect for them self’s and others in my humble opion.

plus I think that it also stems from lack training in proper use and the bad stigma that the media hypes up, also plays a part of it. My whole family has been raised around them and respects them we know what kind of damage they can inflict.

[David]

So it comes down to a persons lack of self respect for them self’s and others in my humble opion.
plus I think that it also stems from lack training in proper use and the bad stigma that the media hypes up, also plays a part of it. My whole family has been raised around them and respects them we know what kind of damage they can inflict.
What it comes down to really is that there are people who want to use these weapons to cause great harm to others. Many of them are very well trained in the use of these weapons. We live in a very dangerous time, when a few welled armed men with automatic weapons can terrorize an entire city and by extension, the entire world. Mumbai is only the beginning of a new style of terrorism that we can expect to see tried again and again. Can criminals and terrorists get a hold of these weapons illegally. Depends on how far and "draconian" the laws become. Probably, but i don't particularly feel comfortable with the idea that home grown terrorists in the States (or anywhere) could just stock up for their next attack at the local gunshow. I would rather see getting these weapons as difficult a procedure as possible. I would also rather not live in the wild west where "good" citizens carrying weapons gun down the bad criminal (and god knows who else might be standing by) because a cop isn't around. Let's face it, not every "good guy" who packs a gun has the kind of training necessary to use it in a public place defending himself against crime in a manner that guarantees the safety of those innocents who might be in the general area as well. They are not trained police or military. And if you lose to the criminal you might not lose just your life, but your friend's and/or family's lives, other innocent lives around you and more than likely you could put yet another hand gun into the hands of a criminal when he takes it off your dead self. Think you are faster/stronger/better than the criminal. Hey, they do this for "a living".
I am strongly in favor of a persons right to own a gun. You hunt, you target shoot, you collect, that's fine. But i see no reason for assault weapons and automatic weapons to be in the hands of civilians. But you collect such weapons? Sorry, the world is not the place it used to be. Public safety trumps my right to own something which can fall into the hands of those who would use it to do great harm. Am i being to PC? If so i don't really care. :)

[Atlantia]

I would like to point out that I have carried a gun for many yrs in and out of bars. I have been in many disagreements and have never pulled it out. I normally try to talk to the person or I will just leave the bar. I have been to gun shows were there was tens of thousands of guns and ammunition and tons of people drinking and have never seen a incident. So it comes down to a persons lack of self respect for them self’s and others in my humble opion.

plus I think that it also stems from lack training in proper use and the bad stigma that the media hypes up, also plays a part of it. My whole family has been raised around them and respects them we know what kind of damage they can inflict.


And bitter experience has shown me that confrontations (especially in bars and clubs) can be extremely unpredicable.
It is often those around the disagreement who escalate the trouble.
The other person in the group who comes back from the bar or toilet and seeing a heated discussion makes a bad judgement call (based on the alcohol content in their blood) and attacks the person arguing with 'their buddy' who is taken completely by suprise. They hit you, your friends join in, their friends join in..... and you have a gun on you! Can you see where that could end up?

You are probobly a completely decent law abiding chap, but I have to tell you that when you are helping to run a club and the final responsibility for the staff and customers (which can be a vast number of people) is all or in part down to you, the thought that one of your 'well behaved' customers would bring a loaded gun onto the premesies is absolutely terrifying.

Unless you are a uniformed Policeman in a country where they are routinely armed and the circumstances you mentioned were all during the course of your duties?

[clockwork]

well I do happen to be a Police Officer. So carrying a gun is second nature to me. as for the assult rifles if U take them away from the honest person then only the criminals and the Goverment will have them and who is the bigger crook between the above mention 2. LOL All studies on gun control shows that it does not work if conducted by a truelly non biased group and there was a dept of justice survey that concluded the same thing several yrs ago.

[BBJW]

Once again Ed:

The fact that a firearm is not listed in appendix A shall not be construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from appendix A so long as this subsection is in effect.

This country has an amazingly strong gun lobby. I don't image that the government will be taking all our guns away any time soon. I am sorry, but i see no problem with the banning of assault weapons. They are not necessary for sportsman, collectors or personal protection.

David- First off an "assault weapon" by definition capable of full automatic fire. Semi-autos are not therefore the dreaded assault weapon. I hunt with a semi-auto rifle, collect them (as well as blades), and use one to protect livestock. I do not care if you think they are necessary or not. You don't have to own one if you don't want to. If you lived in England you probably would have been all for the "assault sword" ban.

bbjw

[David]

David- First off an "assault weapon" by definition capable of full automatic fire. Semi-autos are not therefore the dreaded assault weapon. I hunt with a semi-auto rifle, collect them (as well as blades), and use one to protect livestock. I do not care if you think they are necessary or not. You don't have to own one if you don't want to. If you lived in England you probably would have been all for the "assault sword" ban.
Well it is pretty hard to kill 164 people with a sword like they did in Mumbai. Of course those were assault weapons, not semi-automatic ones, i am aware of the difference and they are indeed "dreaded".
If you really feel you "need" a semi-automatic rifle to hunt and protect your live stock that's your business, but i'm not at all interested in fighting for your right to keep them. I don't need them. I'm also not interested in fighting to take them away from you either. You don't care if i think they are necessary or not, but you see, i don't care if big brother takes them away from you, so really i think it's best if we just agree to disagree. I am sure that you are personally being a responsible citizen with you guns. I am not convinced that we can assume the same for everyone though. :)

[BBJW]

Well it is pretty hard to kill 164 people with a sword like they did in Mumbai. Of course those were assault weapons, not semi-automatic ones, i am aware of the difference and they are indeed "dreaded".
If you really feel you "need" a semi-automatic rifle to hunt and protect your live stock that's your business, but i'm not at all interested in fighting for your right to keep them. I don't need them. I'm also not interested in fighting to take them away from you either. You don't care if i think they are necessary or not, but you see, i don't care if big brother takes them away from you, so really i think it's best if we just agree to disagree. I am sure that you are personally being a responsible citizen with you guns. I am not convinced that we can assume the same for everyone though. :)

The fact is that many of those killed in Mumbai were killed by grenades and other explosives. 10 trained and determined terrs with other rifles/pistols and pump shotguns could have done almost as much damage. ALSO the Indian police had very poor equipment. Few or no walkie talkies. No night vision or thermal imaging and some were armed with bolt action Enfield rifles. Had the Indian police had better equipment and training there would have been fewer casualties.

You may not care about my Constitutional rights, but I care about yours and have fought for them and would do so again.

bbjw

[Gonzalo G]

We all come from a very different societies. There are many motivations and obscure fears behind the gun control. I would pont the matter as follows:

* What right does a State has to impose over it´s subjects any limitation to their liberty, if it does not constitute an actual offense against the criminal law? Which is the limit of the State to make laws constraining civil and personal rights? Like the right to defend the live against a criminal activity not controlled by the same State which pretends to disarm the civil society.

In the past and in the present, the protestant societies had intended to control the personal behaviour over the basis of moral values. So it came the Prohibition. What the Prohibition did to control crime and alcoholism? Nothing. It only created an inmense and powerfull network of organized crime, and it grew to stay indifinitely in the basement of the social and political order. What does the laws against drug consuming and trafficking had made to stop the traffic and drug related crimes? Nothing, it only has created a new generation of a more powerfull organized crime, and more offcial corruption. Lets face the facts: laws must be evaluated against statistics and efficacy indexes. This prohibitions have a great economic burden over the pockets of the public, without significant results. It only maintain an inmense state police bureaucracy with few results. Meanwhile people wants drugs, alcohol or guns, they will get them at any cost, and they will be sold to enrich the organized crime, no matter prohibitions.

* What confidence would we give to political tycoons to legislate in favour of the people, when they only live to their personal benefit? Are they to be trusted? Threir personal criteria is always correct, or instead, they bend to the side of convenience?

In the catolic Latin America, gun control is exercised to mantain an overwhelming superiority od the represive organs of the State over a population exploited by an oligarchy, with their parodies of democracy, which is in fact a clientelist order permeated by an inmense corruption. In Mexico, there was no gun control until the rise of the gerrilla movement, originated on the stupid and inept measures of a deeply authoritarian government. I purchased my first own gun at Sears at 18 years old without any requirement but my money, and the criminal rate was VERY low at that time. Now, we have gun control since then, and a very high rate of gun involved homicides. Crime is not controlled with efficacy because crime is good business. The common criminal pays to the police to recive protection, and the money flows up, to the highest levels. Organized crime is a better business. They pay directly to the highest levels. And they have rocket launchers, assault rifles, machineguns, cal .50 BMG sniper rifles, armoued cars, hand grenades and so on. How it is possible, without the protection of somebody, some institutions, very important? We have a great wave of violence on the country for this reason. And meanwhile, the governments tightens the gun control over the civil and honest population, which is defenseless. So...

* The fact is that crime violence is not affected by gun control, only good citizens register their guns. The other violence, comming from psychopaths, sociopaths and unadaptated people, is generated by the same societies which suddenly are afraid of what they have created theirselves. Poverty, racism, opression and ignorance are different forms of violence, and every form of violence exercised over some people, generates an equivalent response. Just take a night trip to the hoods to see. The public cult of the violence on the media is another factor. But nobody tries to control it, because movies, TV programs and other media, are good business. You can limit the rights of the people, but don´t try to touch the big business. What we need is to change the social context. This, can limit more efectively the violence, alcoholism and drug consumption. I understand the canadians have more guns per capita than USA americans, but a very low index of violent homicides....why? Why they do not sepeak so insistently about gun control? Why in Mexico, with so few guns on the hands of the honest vast majority of the population, we don´t have a SINGLE gun store in the whole country, and all comes from the black market? Because it is good business, because it generates many money to the dealers, and their protectors, the corrupt politicians and police officers. So, you can purchase a black market pistol, and register it if it´s caliber is legally accepted by the law, without questions asked. Of course, guns are very expensive in this way, but you can get ANY gun you want, legal or not.

The entire world is now in a recession. The financial capital had used the lack of international controls to make big and unethical speculative business to the expense of the general economic stability, producing another deep cyclic crisis. We all going to suffer this situation. This, will bring more gun violence on the streets, more drug adictions and more alcoholism. But, where are the intentions to control this, more dangerous weapons? They try to give aspirins to cure a pneumonia, but they do not fight against the roots of the sickness. This is hypocrisy. We don´t need gun control. We need to control our politicians....and the too smart people. I respect the pain of the persons who had sufered a loss on the hands of the senseless violence, but this is no reason to make many other inocent people to pay for this.

Please excuse me for this protest. I am not a liberal. I am not a right wing follower. I am only a citizen tired of all this situation. More gun control is going to be a big business for some people, but useless. Today, the ban against assault rifles has expirated since 2005, I believe. The criminal statistics did not change with the ban, or without the ban. The ban has no effect over society. They only give a false and temporary sense of security. The ban only limits honest people. And the problems are not resolved with laws, though bad laws creates many serious problems...and good business for the too smart people. :shrug: :mad:


By the way, Manolo, it was not Bonnie and Clyde, it was Dillinger.

Regards

Gonzalo

[David]

You may not care about my Constitutional rights, but I care about yours and have fought for them and would do so again.
The constitutional right that you speak of is open to vast interpretation. I feel not even a twinge of guilt for not stepping up and defending your right to owns guns that i personally don't believe should be in the hands of regular citizens. I also am not fighting to have them taken away from you, so why don't you just drop it and agree to disagree as i suggested. You are not going to change my mind on the subject.
I only got involved in this thread because i though Clockwork was misreading this bill and over reacting to it. In fact he was misreading the bill and thought appendix A was a ban list, not the exempt list that it actually is. I have no real interest in getting into a debate over the constitutionality of one's right to own semi-automatic or automatic weapons. That is a fool's debate and there will never be any winner.

[Atlantia]

David- First off an "assault weapon" by definition capable of full automatic fire. Semi-autos are not therefore the dreaded assault weapon. I hunt with a semi-auto rifle, collect them (as well as blades), and use one to protect livestock. I do not care if you think they are necessary or not. You don't have to own one if you don't want to. If you lived in England you probably would have been all for the "assault sword" ban.

bbjw

Its interesting you cite the 'sword ban' in the UK, as it clearly WAS an example of 'bad lawmaking'.
If we look at the figures (roughly) which led to the ban, if memory serves, we are talking about up to 60 000 incidents per year involving attacks with bladed weapons (worse case figures) in England and Wales.
However we are talking about approximately 5 or 6 actual deaths per year from attacks with the banned 'Samurai' class of reproduction swords.
That compares with many, many hundreds of deaths from 'stabbings' amongst which the preferred weapons are cheap chinese kitchen carving knives.
Statistically, more people are killed in the UK every year by: Boiled sweets, peanuts or wearing unsafe slippers.

Now for purposes of this discussion, the reason why the UK sword ban is an interesting example of lawmaking is that it is a headline grabbing attempt by a government to address a real problem with a ridiculous token law.

And introducing 'a little' gun control in the US is like the 'sword' ban here.
Like throwing a deckchair off of the Titanic.

So what do governments do?
Ours sees a problem with knife crime, and a public expectation of 'tough new laws to combat it' so is scared into banning something which will make no difference whatsoever.

Can I ask you, how many guns do you own?
If your government actually did decide to 'take the bull by the horns' and bring in large limits on gun ownership, and say for example they passed a law by which you were only allowed to own a side by side shotgun, for purposes of killing animals on your land, would you be prepared to turn in your other guns and accept government compensation? (which is effectively what was done in the UK).

Second part of the question is of course, even IF (which I serious doubt will ever happen) they did do that, and everyone legally owning guns did turn them in. How the hell would any administration tackle the millions of illegal weapons?

From an outsiders POV it sadly looks like any gun control with any chance of actually being passed into law in the States is just going to be at best a coat of paint on the golden gate?

Its obvious how strongly you feel about your 'right' to own guns, and clearly at least a sizeable minority of Americans agree with you. But by the same token, your experience of guns is going to be totally different from many other Americans. But surely nobody can argue that the US does have a huge problem with guns being used in violent crime, so from a pro-gun POV, how would you tackle it?

Regards
Gene

[clockwork]

Dave first off if you read the bill you would see that the bill contradicts it self and all the sudden there are gun on this bill that were outlawed on the old one. So do I think I miss read it not really since it was written with a bunch of attorney that double speak in every way. The Second amendment was given to the American people so that we could never be oppressed by the government and is not open to vast interpretation as you state. if you truly understand are history it is special interest groups and attorneys that have warped over the last 50 years. So I have to say that I completely disagree with you on your interpatation of are rights in this country.

Gonzalo G great write up and I agree with you completely.

[clockwork]

Gene the cure is simple don’t punish the lawful gun owners, as they have for the last fifty yrs. But actually enforce the laws and make the criminals do the time and not let them of with 1 tenth of the sentence. the morals in this country are crumbling under special interest rule like spanking your child if he/she does wrong. since when is it a good idea to have the Gov. tell you how to raise your child. this is just a example and I can go into many more. we need to reestablish values in this country and not worry about PC nonsense.

[Lew]

well I do happen to be a Police Officer. So carrying a gun is second nature to me. as for the assult rifles if U take them away from the honest person then only the criminals and the Goverment will have them and who is the bigger crook between the above mention 2. LOL All studies on gun control shows that it does not work if conducted by a truelly non biased group and there was a dept of justice survey that concluded the same thing several yrs ago.

Clockwork

If you are a police officer than you represent of the government and therefore in your statement you are calling yourself a criminal/crook? As law enforcement you have had intensive professional training and deemed psychologically stable to own and use automatic fire arms so I no problems with that. Unfortunately in some states in this country all you need is a valid drivers license and you can walk into any gun store and in a few days you will have a gun. Honestly I have no problem with someone wanting to own a hunting rifle(bolt action 30-06), shot gun(pump action) or even a hand gun for home protection or target shooting but there is no reason someone needs an AK-47 that holds 20-30 rounds to hunt with or protect their property that is really over kill!


Lew

[David]

Dave first off if you read the bill you would see that the bill contradicts it self and all the sudden there are gun on this bill that were outlawed on the old one. So do I think I miss read it not really since it was written with a bunch of attorney that double speak in every way. The Second amendment was given to the American people so that we could never be oppressed by the government and is not open to vast interpretation as you state. if you truly understand are history it is special interest groups and attorneys that have warped over the last 50 years. So I have to say that I completely disagree with you on your interpatation of are rights in this country.
Clockwork, i will not argue with you that the bill might have some contradictions, however, your understanding of it originally clearly was mistaken. I also will not argue that lawyers use double-speak and are often hard to understand, so i do see why you might have been confused. As for the second amendment, it has been a point of argument for years so obviously it is open to vast interpretation as to exactly what our founding fathers had in mind. You say that you disagree with me on my interpretations of rights in "this country". Aren't you in Germany. What country are you talking about? MY country or YOUR country. Is American constitutional law a hobby of yours? I personally don't assume to fully know nor interpret the rights of Germans.

[Atlantia]

Gene the cure is simple don’t punish the lawful gun owners, as they have for the last fifty yrs. But actually enforce the laws and make the criminals do the time and not let them of with 1 tenth of the sentence. the morals in this country are crumbling under special interest rule like spanking your child if he/she does wrong. since when is it a good idea to have the Gov. tell you how to raise your child. this is just a example and I can go into many more. we need to reestablish values in this country and not worry about PC nonsense.

Hi 'Clockwork'

I think we can all agree that laws 'should' be enforced. But the UK government finds it hard enough to find the and punish the few (comparatively) gun carrying kids in our cities. Where do you suggest the US government starts to tackle the problem in a country awash with guns?

It cant just be about punishment. Even if you could catch and punish everyone illegally carrying or owning a gun in the US where would you put them all to serve out their full term sentences?

You'd need an 'escape from New York' sized prison!

And as for the Government staying out of raising kids?

I'd say the government needs to get MORE involved.
O.K, I'd agree that there are rare occasions where a kids needs a slap on the butt, and I am sure I deserved most of the ones I got off my parents as a kid! lol
But kids need protecting too.
So we need some legislation in that area.

Kids need to grow up respecting each other and feeling connected to each other, their community, and the State.


Gun ownership in the US is a traditional right, but so many more important rights have been sacrificed in recent years without a fight, and compared to some of the social problems in the US (and in Europe) does owning a gun really matter?
How much freedom and safety does having one really give you?


Just a quick google brings up these stats: (From the Harvard University Gazette)

In the US;

Every year, more than 30,000 people are shot to death in murders, suicides, and accidents. Another 65,000 suffer from gun injuries.

firearms kill about 85 people every day.

To put that into context, thats the equivilent of the 911 attacks every 5 weeks, year in, year out.
Or the US' entire casualties in Iraq to date, every 7 weeks.


So how do you start to tackle it?

regards
Gene

[David]

Just for a point of reference, here is the second amendment in it's entirety:

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.

Please note that this "right" is tied to the opening requirement of "a well regulated militia" and that it is the right of "the people", not an individual. This amendment also could not possibly forsee the technological developments in weaponry that would allow for guns with the devastating killing capacity of many assault weapons or even semi-automatic ones.
People are welcome to interpret this amendment as they see fit, and debate and discuss accordingly, but please don't try to tell me that there is not room for a vast amount of interpretation of this single sentence that was written over 200 years ago. :rolleyes:

[BBJW]

Gene- Saying firearms kill people is like saying a spoon makes you fat. The Second Amendment was put there to protect the rest of the Constitution. And David...the people are the militia. You can't pick and choose how to interpret the entire Constitution. David, I hope I'm wrong, but I seriously doubt you would fight to protect any part of the Constitution since you would just interpret it to suit your need. Well said Gonzalo. I'm thru with this thread.

bbjw

[Lew]

Gene- The Second Amendment was put there to protect the rest of the Constitution. And David...the people are the militia. You can't pick and choose how to interpret the entire Constitution. David, I hope I'm wrong, but I seriously doubt you would fight to protect any part of the Constitution since you would just interpret it to suit your need. Well said Gonzalo. I'm thru with this thread.

bbjw

BBJW

The local militias were needed 200 yrs ago before there was a large organized standing army. So I think the U.S. armed forces along with the national guard and the 50 different state guards and the local and state police have our backs. You live in Idaho so I guess that if Canada ever decides to invade our country you will be ready to defend the homeland. ;) What is needed is common sense laws when it comes down to it. Btw your comment questioning Davids loyality to defend the constitution was a very low blow and should be struck from the thread.


Lew

[David]

Gene- Saying firearms kill people is like saying a spoon makes you fat. The Second Amendment was put there to protect the rest of the Constitution. And David...the people are the militia. You can't pick and choose how to interpret the entire Constitution. David, I hope I'm wrong, but I seriously doubt you would fight to protect any part of the Constitution since you would just interpret it to suit your need. Well said Gonzalo. I'm thru with this thread.
Making comments about my character based on my interpretation of a constitutional amendment is both unnecessary and uncalled for. You see any individual as part of a "well regulated militia", i do not. Please don't lower yourself to making judgement calls on what i am willing to fight for just because i am unwilling to fight for your right to own a semi-automatic weapon.
Sorry it pisses you off that people disagree with you, but hey, that's my right. Aren't you interested in fighting for it?
He's a nice little story lifted right out of today's newspaper. Right here in my fair city a 17 yr. old is on trial for killing his mother and shooting his father. Seems when he was 16 he went out and bought a video game against his parents orders. When they found out the father, a minister, took the game away and put it in a lock box with his 9mm hand gun. Well, the kid found the box, pried it open, went into the living room and told his mom and his right reverend dad to close their eyes because he had a surprise for them. Bang, bang, now mommy's dead and Rev. Dad is shot in the head. The kid could get life without parole. I guess it was his right, but why a minister feels the need to own a hand gun i do not exactly know. I guess he did the right thing keeping it locked up, but that still didn't help. Yep, guns don't kill people, people do, but i would be willing to bet that if the kid didn't find the gun when he retrieved his video game that mommy might just be alive today. From all reports the kid is really sorry for what he did. If the means were absent at his moment of anger this tragedy might have never occurred. So much for a "well regulated militia". :rolleyes:

[Atlantia]

Gene- Saying firearms kill people is like saying a spoon makes you fat. The Second Amendment was put there to protect the rest of the Constitution. And David...the people are the militia. You can't pick and choose how to interpret the entire Constitution. David, I hope I'm wrong, but I seriously doubt you would fight to protect any part of the Constitution since you would just interpret it to suit your need. Well said Gonzalo. I'm thru with this thread.

bbjw

Of course firearms kill people, as do kinves. But Firearms are designed to be the most efficient killer that we can produce. You know this, you kill things with guns. The fact that 'guns kill people' is a truism does not make it invalid in the argument for gun control.

Nobody can argue that easy access to firearms makes it much easier for people to kill each other than it would be it without that access.

And exactly how many times has your Constitution been ammended, changed, and in fact completely disregarded since the right to bear arms was written into it?

Aren't the pro-gun lobby doing exactly what you accuse others of when they doggedly cling to the parts of the constitution that support their views while voting for a leader who has changed fundamental areas and widely re-interpreted others for that matter.

You are just repeating the constitutional mantra without even trying to answer any of the underlying questions.

If not gun control, then what?

Do your views on the constitutional rights of Americans to own guns extend to those who don't choose to abide by the modern interpretation of that right and own guns 'illegally'.
Where does the constitution say, 'Right to bear arms after a seven day cooling off period and as long as you've never been convicted of.......etc'.
How do you interpret 'well regulated militia'?

Its all up for interpretation BB!
It has to be! Things change, nations grow, times change etc.

The constitution is a truly great document, and Americans are fully justified in the pride they feel for it. But just like any document of its age, it cannot address all modern issues.

And I'm sorry to say the constitutional argument is obscuring the real issue.

80+ Americans a day Dead, and many more injured! How do you stop that kind of bloodshed without starting with gun control?

Regards
Gene

[A. G. Maisey]

Philosophically I find that I am able to agree with the imposition by any society of gun, and other weapons controls.

Provided that those controls are adequately re-inforced by a prolific and well trained police force.

In a society where the possession of any weapon by an unauthorized person is not possible, and where the society can strive to fulfill its purpose of enriching the Elites of the society, then we can say that those controls which prevent unauthorized possession of weapons by a populace are both effective and useful.

In such a society the management of the Society Units (people) can be tailored to produce the most effective outcomes. Society Units can be produced to fulfil identified and specific needs within the society, and replaced when they cease to be productive. Out of date, and non-productive units can be disposed of when retired from service, thus reducing overall maintenance costs of the society.

This policy of specifically engineered Society Units, and management of those Society Units to maximize outcomes, would produce very positive results for the Elites of the society, and of course, that is the purpose of such a society.

However, should we as individuals choose not to live in such a society then we do need to possess weaponry.

We need to possess weaponry to ensure that the Elites of our society cannot create the type of society I have outlined above.

The banning of any type of weaponry is the thin edge of the wedge and can only lead to tighter and tighter controls being put in place.

The price we pay to ensure that a society has the capacity to control the Elites of the society is the possession of weaponry by all members of a society, equally.

Remove from any person the right to possess weaponry and you have started down the road towards total control of the society.

If we support total control of our society, then philosophically, we should support all and any weapons controls.

[clockwork]

David I am a U.S. Citizens and not German. So I am not assuming anything when it comes down to interpretation of law. As for a sentence that was written 200 yrs ago has help up very well and is still relevant. I belonged to a militia in California growing up that is composed regular every day people, so they still exists and it was State sponsored. If you look into the reasons for the 2nd amendment which was almost the 1st , I think you would have a better understanding of it. If you go back and read the writing of Thomas Jefferson the creator of the Bill of Right and the U.S. Constitution with a little help from Virginia Bill of Rights I believe.

Gene if you want the Gov telling you what to do with your children that’s fine as long as it is not in the U.S. Gov messes up to much as it is they don’t need to messing up the children. We can blame guns all you want but they don’t kill people kill and I rather that they use gun than making bombs or chemical weapons since less people will be hurt. People will always kill people and that is a fact, but there are many more destructive ways that will be utilized if you could every take away all the guns which will never happen. In this country alone 1000s of people defend the property every day you will not hear about it since the media is anti gun you will only here about the negatives. We would not need more jails in the country if they ran them like Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio

Lou yes with all the new laws I am in some since becoming a criminal. I have purchased items legally that have become illegal. The only reason they are still legal for me is because of my work. But in all fifty states you need a valid State issued ID and must go a background check before you can pick up your gun at the store. There are some loop holes in it but not many, the problem is that the state police are not checking the mental back grounds in some of the applicant referring to the Virginia incident this yr or last.

[Atlantia]

David I am a U.S. Citizens and not German. So I am not assuming anything when it comes down to interpretation of law. As for a sentence that was written 200 yrs ago has help up very well and is still relevant. I belonged to a militia in California growing up that is composed regular every day people, so they still exists and it was State sponsored. If you look into the reasons for the 2nd amendment which was almost the 1st , I think you would have a better understanding of it. If you go back and read the writing of Thomas Jefferson the creator of the Bill of Right and the U.S. Constitution with a little help from Virginia Bill of Rights I believe.

Gene if you want the Gov telling you what to do with your children that’s fine as long as it is not in the U.S. Gov messes up to much as it is they don’t need to messing up the children. We can blame guns all you want but they don’t kill people kill and I rather that they use gun than making bombs or chemical weapons since less people will be hurt. People will always kill people and that is a fact, but there are many more destructive ways that will be utilized if you could every take away all the guns which will never happen. In this country alone 1000s of people defend the property every day you will not hear about it since the media is anti gun you will only here about the negatives. We would not need more jails in the country if they ran them like Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio

Lou yes with all the new laws I am in some since becoming a criminal. I have purchased items legally that have become illegal. The only reason they are still legal for me is because of my work. But in all fifty states you need a valid State issued ID and must go a background check before you can pick up your gun at the store. There are some loop holes in it but not many, the problem is that the state police are not checking the mental back grounds in some of the applicant referring to the Virginia incident this yr or last.


Hi Clockwork.

So, as a policeman, who I presume has seen plenty of gun crime, how would you start to stop it?

Regards
Gene

[clockwork]

We need to start it in the home by teaching kids respect and morals which are a thing of the past it seems. People do not have respect for there fellow man and that makes it easy to kill them. Plus the general society now days does not seemed to be fazed by such tragedy’s.

[Atlantia]

We need to start it in the home by teaching kids respect and morals which are a thing of the past it seems. People do not have respect for there fellow man and that makes it easy to kill them. Plus the general society now days does not seemed to be fazed by such tragedy’s.

I completey agree.
But thats going to take a generation, what do you do to change things now?

[clockwork]

make examples of them by giving them a harsh sentence and they must complete the whole sentence and not a cpl yrs in club fed.

[David]

We need to start it in the home by teaching kids respect and morals which are a thing of the past it seems. People do not have respect for there fellow man and that makes it easy to kill them. Plus the general society now days does not seemed to be fazed by such tragedy’s.
Well, it's hard to argue with this. Still, i am sure that the Christian minister in my news story thought he was teaching his kid respect and morals and that kid turned around and commited what is probably the worst crime possible, killing his own mother and attempting to kill his father. I don't think we can count on this method for an answer.

[Atlantia]

Well, it's hard to argue with this. Still, i am sure that the Christian minister in my news story thought he was teaching his kid respect and morals and that kid turned around and commited what is probably the worst crime possible, killing his own mother and attempting to kill his father. I don't think we can count on this method for an answer.


Its so difficult isn't it David, as you say, even kids brought in a strong and traditional moral family enviroment are not immune to the ills of modern society. Its such a complex issue, there seem to be so many factors.

theres no doubt that kids need strong example based 'leadership' from the adults around them, but they need to be taught to care about the people around them and feel a genuine fellowship with them.

Sadly we bring kids up to think of people they dont know as a potential threat now.
Instead of having hope for a future filled with technological wonders, colonies on the moon, space exploration, an end to disease, etc (like we did when we were kids) they are living in a world terrified of one global catastrophe after another.
Where is the future we planned?

Look at the role models kids want to grow up to be like now!
When I was a Kid I wanted to be Captain Kirk or Neil Armstrong!
If you'd have asked me what career I wanted it would have been things like Policeman or astronaut or Doctor!
What do kids want now?
To be like 50 Cent, get instant fame on some reality TV show or at best be some overpaid sports star.

We completely idolise the wrong people in society, focusing on the arrogant and selfish who hardly make a valuable contribution to society while ignoring those who strive for the betterment of those around them. The media glamorises criminals, from gangster rappers to the Sopranos!
Our whole attitude has been skewed to the point where kindness is too often seen as some kind of weakness or even a subterfuge to hide an ulterior motive.

The mantra today seems to be 'I'm alright Jack' and 'Might is Right'.
I remember the days when some people still believed 'Its nice to be important, but its more important to be nice'.

So we've got kids growing up, often in less than perfect environments, with no great dreams or ambitions for the future (in a world thats going down the tubes anyway) who are being constantly told by the TV (which lets face it is their main influence) that getting rich quick is the ultimate ambition and role models like 50 Cent.

And into that mix is introduced easily accessible guns!

I have sympathy for gun owners who don't misuse them..
Well, in honesty I would not shed a tear if people couldn't hunt anymore for lack of guns ;)
But I think that there comes a point where regardless of the rights of people to own lethal weapons so long as they use them responsibly we have to realise that so many other parts of our society are f***ed that we need to protect people from themselves and each other until we can find a way to fix things.

Its strange how we are arguing over whether a 200 year old document can still be completely relevant today, when I hardly recognise the world we live in now compared to the one I grew up in in the 70s.


Regards
Gene

[celtan]

You all posit valid arguments, worth of considering.

All I know is that if I didn't carry, I wouldn't be here today, nor perhaps my better half.

I hate hurting people, the exception is when the alternative is to be the one hurting, and even then, its a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils.

And yet...

After the bullet has left the barrel, and the "bad" guy lies at your feet gasping and crying for his mother, then you realize the enormity of your actions, and the inevitability of the consequences.

That's when the situation has become irretrievable, when you realize you can't go back to the prior "state of innocence", a second after you have taken the irrevocable step.

Did the miscreant leave behind parents, a wife and children, now suddenly destitute? Could you have prevented the situation? Was it really necessary to have pulled your iron out?

You will have to carry that albatross for the rest of your life.

Again it's a matter of empathy, and few people still have it, mainly because it is no longer emphasized by either parents or society. Now, it's all Me, Me, Me!

Which also explains how even children today are often involved in violent crimes...

Homo Lupus Homini!

Manuel Luis Iravedra

[Matchlock]

Celtan,

I have tried to follow this thread as well as any German can who has got used to very strict gun laws.

I my eyes, you made the best point of all considering that very second after the bullet has left the iron. And empathy is something we really seem to have lost in our society. It is exactly as you put it: It's all Me, Me, Me now...

His 'mighty' brain has enabled man to rule over all other beings including his own species, everybody seems to think of himself as kind of a ruler - and that's exactly where the gun comes in. If man doesn't manage to go back to his soul and listen to human feelings such as empathy and respect, and if he does not hand them on to the young generation, he will not inherit the earth, he will destroy it - and himself. Life, after all, should not be about acting against each other but acting together, side by side.

Homo homini lupus ...

Michael

[Pukka Bundook]

Very well put, Celtan and Michael.

I believe respect is the basis for everything, and without it we can go nowhere.
This might be why countries like Switzerland and Finland, with gun-ownership as high as that of the 'States, have very low crime rates.

Clockwork,
I agree with just about every word you have written.
The problem I believe has some roots in parents abdicating their responsability at home, ...they're just not there, and the kids are out getting into all kinds of stuff.
Parents are meant to bring kids up, Not some government program, day-care or anything else.
If we rely on gov't to do Our job, we are on a down-hill slope.

I note that some of you boys here think it is OK to ban certain classes of firearms. I can only state the obvious,... look at the UK, stricktest laws it's ever had, and More crime than ever before. Even knives with blades over 4 inches are in the works now.

Believe it was Abraham Lincoln stated;

"....If we don't hang together, we'll All hang seperately!"....

Richard.

[Atlantia]

look at the UK, stricktest laws it's ever had, and More crime than ever before. Even knives with blades over 4 inches are in the works now.


Richard.

The crime figures are actually a subject of some contention at the moment over here. It really depends on how you read them, but our rates of violent crime OVERALL is roughly steady or declining. Some areas have shown slight increases, and there in lies the contention as some of the rises have been attributed to better detection, recording and increased reporting, while other areas have shown a decrease. Anyway the UKs figures are a whole thread in themselves.

As for strict laws!
In the UK any blade over 3.5cm IS classed as an offensive weapon if carried without specific cause (such as a fisherman carrying a knife whilst actually fishing or travelling to or from that activity) intent does not have to be proved, possesion in public is an offence. While any blade or sharp CAN be classed as an offensive weapon under certain circumstances even if below the 3.5cm threshold if intent can be proved.

Virtually all knives are legal to own in the home. With a few exceptions.
Those are in the main knives with concealed baldes that can be opened with one hand (apart from simple folding penknives with a small catch on the blade which are not specifically designed to be opened with one hand) In other words, completely prohibited knives include: 'switch blades' Spring opening knives, gravity knives, butterfly knives.
The recent addition of any curved bladed, single edged 'sword' where the overall length is 18inches is still undergoing some revisions as the authorities realise just how unenforcable such a vague law is. Although they are still legal to own 'in the home'

Other banned weapons in the UK include:
Electrical stun guns
Self defence gas/CS spray/Mace
Spring opperated telescopic batons (I think)
Air weapons with a muzzle velocity of over 12ft/lbs
Brocock air cartridge system weapons
The list is endless!

[Gonzalo G]

He's a nice little story lifted right out of today's newspaper. Right here in my fair city a 17 yr. old is on trial for killing his mother and shooting his father. Seems when he was 16 he went out and bought a video game against his parents orders. When they found out the father, a minister, took the game away and put it in a lock box with his 9mm hand gun. Well, the kid found the box, pried it open, went into the living room and told his mom and his right reverend dad to close their eyes because he had a surprise for them. Bang, bang, now mommy's dead and Rev. Dad is shot in the head. The kid could get life without parole. I guess it was his right, but why a minister feels the need to own a hand gun i do not exactly know. I guess he did the right thing keeping it locked up, but that still didn't help. Yep, guns don't kill people, people do, but i would be willing to bet that if the kid didn't find the gun when he retrieved his video game that mommy might just be alive today. From all reports the kid is really sorry for what he did. If the means were absent at his moment of anger this tragedy might have never occurred. So much for a "well regulated militia". :rolleyes:

Sad story and wrong conclusions. Where is the problem here? The type of society and it´s culture-education? Or the guns? I believe something went very wrong with the education of this boy, as many other boys do not make such kind of things, even having access to fireweapons. Who was responsible for this facts? The persons involved, or the guns?

We cannot make rules over exceptions, even if they have great publicity. How many people have guns in their houses and never get involved in crimes? Let me tell you: the vast majority. How many incidents of this kind do we have? Very few, proportionally, though very publicited. Do we know how many people is saved per year thanks to gun possession? No, we have a very incomplete information, since this is not a matter of interest for the media.

But do not avoid the facts: gun, or any other kind of weapons control, do not stop the crime incidence. The sickness is not in the guns, but in other places. Gun forbidding is a crime in a society where the government cannot garantee the security of the population, and the people need some kind of protection. Somebody here speaks about society taking decisions. But the politicians who take decsisions do not really represent the public will, or the society, they ony attend power groups. Gun manofacturers are not the only who make lobbying. Anti-gun organizations also does, and also the different churches. I wonder if the ones subscribing the idea of the supression of guns, can garantee the security of the rest of the population. Not all people can live in secure cities or areas, protected by their money or their kind of job.

But we talk about many things at the same time. The problem are not the guns, or their type, but who owns them and who uses them. Maybe this is the real control it must be excersised. But the criminal elements always have access to guns, laws or not. Controls never control but the good citizens. Somebody mentioned the efficacy of the police as complement of the gun control. But then again, the problem is in the society, as corruption always will permit the distribution of guns, as it will be a big business in a society where guns are forbidden, as in England. And the result of this new prohibition? The same crime rates, more police and political corruption, a better area of opportunity for the organized crime and it´s subsecuent invigoration and so on. More gun killings for the control of this new market among the gangs, if people demands more guns. Less defense for the rest of the society in front of this wave of new violence. The pave to hell is full of good intentions, as we say.

Let´s make a better and more productive effort, trying to change the social conditions which produces violence. Though, it will take more personal involvement, not as easy as to applaud useless laws from a confortable chair in home. The problem is that erroneous laws are very difficult to erradicate. Much bureaucracy lives of this kind of laws, over the shoulders of the tax payers. More police to control, but less real control. Less liberties for the honest individuals and more powerful mob gangs (and politicians).

By the way, I am not an anarchist. I worked for several years in the training of police officers, forensics and lawyers for the General Attorney´s Office of the State (in Mexico, it has the responsability of the investigation and prosecution of crime, and it is a different institution than in the USA). And I am also a certificated trainer on "Weapons and Police Shooting" by the National System of Public Security, which is a federal and local network of all the institutions dedicated to justice enforcement. I have a pragmatic view of this subjects because I know the conditions of this area. And also, I am alive because I had a fireweapon to defend myself as a private person against an armed attacker. And I wish all the decent people, like Celtan, could have the same opportunity in the same conditions (are you decent, Celtan?) :D

[Pukka Bundook]

[QUOTE=Atlantia]The crime figures are actually a subject of some contention at the moment over here. It really depends on how you read them, but our rates of violent crime OVERALL is roughly steady or declining. Some areas have shown slight increases, and there in lies the contention as some of the rises have been attributed to better detection, recording and increased reporting, while other areas have shown a decrease. Anyway the UKs figures are a whole thread in themselves.

Hi Atlantia.

Thanks for bringing me up to date on how things stand in the UK.
I came to Canada in 1984, and have never been back.

I would like to question the crime rate being static or falling.
What I must ask, is;
Compared to when?
Over ten years, maybe so, but compared to the 60's, 70's or even early 80's it is Way out of control.

Where we lived in the industrial north, you could go anywhere safely, not lock your door, and not expect trouble. (In late 50's and 60s)
Now, in the Same area, (around Middlesbrough) It is plain not safe to be out on a night, and as for non-violent crime, the cops don't turn up if a vehicle is stolen, they just tell you to 'phone insurance.
The village of Normanby, close to the farm I grew up on, was a quiet little spot, Now, the cops if chasing a suspect, turn 'round and go home if they get to the town limit. If they follow, they are showered with bricks or whatever.
( we still have relatives over there)
A relative of mine was sitting on a wall outside his house in another village. (Same area)
Some punks came along, asked if he had any dope, ..told them to get lost, and as he got up, one kicked him and broke his nose.
He let the lad go, (did contemplate breaking his leg, as he had a hold of it & is a black belt.)
Went with his dad to see the police.

You know what he was asked by the police??
".....Why didn't you get a stick and smash his face in?" !!

Doesn't this show the level of frustration amongst the police force?

This relative's old man asked, " can we have a sniff around, see if we can find him?"
Police answer; " Yes, but if you get him, let us know, and we won't go looking for anybody"

Eegads! and I used to play and ride mi bike around there!

No respect for anything or anyone.

All I can say is, if half the population was packing heat, some of these punks would think again.

Footnote;
The guy that broke P's nose, later gate-crashed the chief superintendant's daughter's B.day party.
when she wouldn't let him in, he head-butted her and broke Her nose.
I think about that time, he was put on a hit list, or at least a "hurt" list.
They got him.
It was professionals.
Took out his cheek-bones, and mashed both hands.

I grieve for that country.

So again, compared to when is violent crime down?
I would love it to be down, but think that figures are being messed with, so the powers that be do not look so inept.

Best wishes,

Richard.

[David]

All I can say is, if half the population was packing heat, some of these punks would think again.

Footnote;
The guy that broke P's nose, later gate-crashed the chief superintendant's daughter's B.day party.
when she wouldn't let him in, he head-butted her and broke Her nose.
I think about that time, he was put on a hit list, or at least a "hurt" list.
They got him.
It was professionals.
Took out his cheek-bones, and mashed both hands.
So Richard, this guy sure is a punk. No argument there. What are you suggesting, shooting the bully dead? Wow, long live vigilantism! :rolleyes:

[Jim McDougall]

this is slightly off topic but thought should be posted. The U.S. Congress is trying to place a gun ban that includes semi autos to browning model 1885 single shot rifles to most shot guns please read the list of Guns in the list.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-6257


Actually, this is indeed 'off topic' as when we began this forum it was unique in bringing the discussion of firearms into the scope of discussion, as well as broadening our topics to all types of arms and armour.
We did however decide not to include firearms post 1900, primarily because of the heated discussions that can often arise with the controversial topic of gun control legislation, and its deviation to editorials that both conflict and distract from the study of historic weaponry.

I think we all are concerned with the ever encroaching movement of government bodies toward legislating ownership of weapons, but it seems that activism and action toward these matters should be handled separately and personally by those inclined to do so.

This forum was initiated as a subforum in a medium where the principle focus has always been primarily edged weapons, and the inclusion of firearms was in recognition of thier importance as historical weapons along with the edged weapons. I know that I have learned a great deal from the contributions here concerning firearms of historic periods, though I admit I have never been especially interested in guns, and often felt that the inclination for guns to dominate weapons collecting was disappointing. It seemed that every weapons collecting show was a 'gun show' with a few edged weapons here and there.

There is clearly great interest in firearms as evidenced by the participation here, but I personally prefer to focus on learning about historic weapons here rather than focus on the aggravation of constant legislative problems and issues. It would seem that the 'modern' guns have sort of come in 'under the radar' here. You'll notice the posts becoming increasingly aggressive in this thread, which is exactly what I had hoped to avoid in our forum, and seems to run hand in hand with these editorial threads, especially involving current legal issues. This is not intended to be a 'political 'forum.

Regardless, I know there are concerns about issues of weapons ownership, and you guys have all expressed some interesting and pertinant views, but this topic is, as noted, outside our scope.

All the best,
Jim

[Gonzalo G]

Sorry, Jim. You are right. But gun control also becomes edged weapons control, given enough time, and collectors would be also affected. By then, when collectors intend to resist it would be too late. Bureaucracy alwas tend to expand to the expense of society, absorbing the social energy available. From one control we go to the next. This gives greater power to the politicians over the population. I was only intending to establish this point, as general view which is related to collectionism. I believe that if this tendency continues, even the antique and useless firearms will be included in the gun control, as they are in some countries. Like mine.

I did not meant to be aggressive. I apologize if somebody felt offended by my words, tough passionated, they are not aimed to hurt any person.
Regards

[Jim McDougall]

I understand that these issues affect edged weapons as well, but my point is that the intent of the forum is to discuss and share information on historic weapons, not to provide a place to air political views which only leads to disharmony between participants. Simply reviewing the quickly changing texture of the posts on this thread illustrates my point. I think everyone is entitled to opinions and perspective, but prefer to avoid philosophical discussions on politics and religion here. I hear enough of all this stuff on the news! :)

I 've always admired the gentlemanly manner between members here in discussing weapons, and prefer to keep it that way. Discussing modern legal problems and bans on assault rifles etc. here has nothing to do with learning about the history of weapons. I think everyone involved in collecting is basically concerned with protecting thier right to own historic weapons, and should channel thier views and perspective on these issues toward the legislative representatives in thier locale who might effectively take them into consideration. From what I understand, profuse written letters to politicians has had considerable effect on the application of certain legislation, so this is better use of well reasoned opposition to these matters.

For what its worth, everyone has well expressed thier views, and I think that for the most part, much of what has been said is well placed and well written, but think we should give it a rest at this point, and keep our forum on track.

Best regards,
Jim


P.S. I am not against guns, and I have been at the wrong end of the barrel and 'took lead', so understand the passion this topic can provoke.

[Pukka Bundook]

Jim,

May I just be permitted to answer David's statement, that I am suggesting shooting someone?
I Never suggested shooting anyone.
Merely showing the frustration of the UK police. and a crime problem that is bigger than the Government cares to admit..

A deplorable state of affairs.

If this is deleted, That's OK, but wanted to clear things up!

All the best,

Richard.

[Jim McDougall]

No problem Richard. On that note, I think everyone has had a chance to say thier peace so any further issues lets go to PM's . Its always unfortunate when opinions and discussions take these turns, and inevitable with certain topics.....kinda like talking politics and religion at family get togethers:)

Lets get back to studying weapons history OK guys!

All the best,
Jim