Gun Control thread (merged many)

[Bubblehead1980]

I know exactly what you meant by it.I was making fun of it.

Tried to anyways, you failed

[AndyJWest]

I've finally figured it out - Bubblehead is in fact a Marxist mole planted on the forum to make the political right look stupid. Sadly, he's overdone it, and blown his cover. Better luck next time, comrade. :03:

[Stealhead]

Tried to anyways, you failed

In fact I succeeded.Are you even reading the posts on this page Your reply implies that you are not because everyone is either utterly disagreeing with you or poking fun at you.

Yes we all know about your pals that PM you saying how awesome you are.

[Oberon]

I've finally figured it out - Bubblehead is in fact a Marxist mole planted on the forum to make the political right look stupid. Sadly, he's overdone it, and blown his cover. Better luck next time, comrade. :03:

Definitely, I think he and Yubba are in fact in employment of Obama. :haha: Because they're sure doing his work for him! :har:

[mookiemookie]

Two minutes separate these posts.

That's what entertains me the most about him. You read what he wrote, and you wonder if he's just like a really, really self aware person with a projection issue. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection)

[Bubblehead1980]

That's what entertains me the most about him. You read what he wrote, and you wonder if he's just like a really, really self aware person with a projection issue. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection)

I love how mookie tries to be some pseudo intellectual. My remarks were unrelated to the Thatcher quote as I was not insulted anyone in particular, I was describing the average obama voter which could only explain how such a joke based on his lackluster performance and easily researched shady background, manages to get elect.Same way other tyrants get to power, the rely on the less informed, intelligent etc in the population to go for them.This is why the appeal to EMOTION on all issues, from the economy, taxes, guns to everything, they never use facts etc The tired but useful "rich man with his foot on your neck" "white man keeping you down" etc etc . There are a lot of left wing types on here who hate that I won't back down and call them out.Some don't like my tone, they have some hang up about "civillity" on here.

Say what you want, give me a real argument against what I have said here, and we can discuss. On this issue, you can't, the second amendment is clear, the heller decision backs up what I am saying(perhaps not on registration etc specifically) and people with their heads on right, who value their individual rights and constitutional/natural right to self defense agree as well.Please try and avoid your insult and insinuations, show me I am wrong Mookie, please , please TRY. You can't. Everytime I see your name I think of The idiot spike lee played(which is not a stretch for him) in the movie "Do The Right Thing", but that is a different story and getting dangerously close to getting personal. Back on subject.Please, oh please, tell me A. How I am wrong on this.

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

"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"

That is what the Second Amendment says, clear, plain, and simple. The second amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed.Yes, it mentions militia but if you do some reading, you will find the founders also sought to facilitate the natural right of self preservation/defense, especially against tyranny, which they had lived under.They knew the nature of man, the nature of government, was to seek more and more power over time and diminish liberty.That is the spirit and purpose behind the second amendment and whole bill of rights, that is spelled out rather clearly in the above quoted line! To keep government at bay and protect the Republic.Sure, they could not imagine we would have such weaponry but they did not mention muskets or cannon etc because they knew things would advance and citizens should have proper weapons to guard against tyranny and protect one's life, liberty, and property.

The Heller decision says there is a "pre-existing right codified" in the Second Amendment which "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" Cruikshank was wrong and does not apply thanks to Heller, period.Quoting that decision, is a waste of time.

Quoting gun laws in Finland is absurd, they DO NOT apply, Finland is not the US, it has no value, no basis here in the US, the end. Well all you managed to accomplish was repeat the same thing for the millionth time, missing the entire point of why I had quoted Cruikshank and that I had obviously quoted Finnish gun laws because of their relevance to anything related to the 2nd Amendment. No wait that's right I used them as an example for something you probably didn't bother reading.

[Bubblehead1980]

Well all you managed to accomplish was repeat the same thing for the millionth time, missing the entire point of why I had quoted Cruikshank and that I had obviously quoted Finnish gun laws because of their relevance to anything related to the 2nd Amendment. No wait that's right I used them as an example for something you probably didn't bother reading.

Cruikshank does not apply.See HELLER.

[Buddahaid]

I love how mookie tries to be some pseudo intellectual. My remarks were unrelated to the Thatcher quote as I was not insulted anyone in particular, I was describing the average obama voter which could only explain how such a joke based on his lackluster performance and easily researched shady background, manages to get elect.Same way other tyrants get to power, the rely on the less informed, intelligent etc in the population to go for them.This is why the appeal to EMOTION on all issues, from the economy, taxes, guns to everything, they never use facts etc The tired but useful "rich man with his foot on your neck" "white man keeping you down" etc etc . There are a lot of left wing types on here who hate that I won't back down and call them out.Some don't like my tone, they have some hang up about "civillity" on here.

Say what you want, give me a real argument against what I have said here, and we can discuss. On this issue, you can't, the second amendment is clear, the heller decision backs up what I am saying(perhaps not on registration etc specifically) and people with their heads on right, who value their individual rights and constitutional/natural right to self defense agree as well.Please try and avoid your insult and insinuations, show me I am wrong Mookie, please , please TRY. You can't. Everytime I see your name I think of The idiot spike lee played(which is not a stretch for him) in the movie "Do The Right Thing", but that is a different story and getting dangerously close to getting personal. Back on subject.Please, oh please, tell me A. How I am wrong on this.

No one who is even one degree to the left of your thinking can discuss anything with you. "Give me a real argument", "people with their heads on right". Why don't you argue with those who try instead of dismissing them and ignoring them because they don't qualify to you're self determined entry level. You state you love to debate but all I ever see from you is dictation to the "unwashed masses".

And yes you're posts were in unrelated threads, but they show you for who you are. Do as I say, not as I do.

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

Cruikshank does not apply.See HELLER. Like I said you missed my point so I'll put it here and if you don't get it now you probably never will. "Has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

[NeonSamurai]

That's what entertains me the most about him. You read what he wrote, and you wonder if he's just like a really, really self aware person with a projection issue. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection)

No... he doesn't quite use that one, I would go down a level and look at those ones.

[Bubblehead1980]

Like I said you missed my point so I'll put it here and if you don't get it now you probably never will. "Has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

No, I get your point as you are trying to say the Second Amendment does not give citizens the right to own a firearm per Cruikshank, only to restrict the federal government. However that is not relevant as Heller decision stated there is a right, as the second amendment so obviously spells out.Heller overrules Cruikshank.McDonald V Chicago rules that states are limited the same way the feds are.:salute:

[eddie]

I put old Bubbles on the ignore list, don't have to read any more of his endless nonsense.

[Tribesman]

I put old Bubbles on the ignore list, don't have to read any more of his endless nonsense.

But then you miss the exquisite comedy, you must admit that it is a very convincing parody of a reactionary nut case that he is playing.

[Cybermat47]

But then you miss the exquisite comedy, you must admit that it is a very convincing parody of a reactionary nut case that he is playing.

Indeed so! :haha:

[Sailor Steve]

I love how mookie tries to be some pseudo intellectual. My remarks were unrelated to the Thatcher quote as I was not insulted anyone in particular, I was describing the average obama voter
Are you really that obtuse? Your description, "They don't argue specifics, they just attack", describes you perfectly. You say "they" appeal to EMOTION, yet you capitalize the word as if you're yelling instead of discussing. You react emotionally. You say you like to debate, and yet when I ask you to show one single time you've ever actually debated anything on these threads, you can't. What you're doing now isn't debate, it's ranting. You attack everyone who disagrees with you. Yes, the attacks are vague, couched in terms of those on the other side. Everyone here has disagreed with you. You say you have invisible supporters, but not one of them has bothered to step up and say so. This makes you sound like a liar.

There are a lot of left wing types on here who hate that I won't back down and call them out.Some don't like my tone, they have some hang up about "civillity" on here.
No one hates you. We don't give you credit, not because you won't back down but because despite all the hints, suggestions and observations, you still haven't listened to what I keep telling you, and you keep going about it in the lamest possible way. Again, I agree with you on most of this, but you do your best to make us all look stupid. It isn't your tone, it's your inability to actually discuss the issue. You rant and rave, and shout and yell, and call anyone who disagrees with you "Leftie", yet you keep saying things about the way they talk, and then turn around and talk exactly the same way.

Say what you want, give me a real argument against what I have said here, and we can discuss.
Why should they, when you've never discussed anything?

and people with their heads on right
You say things like that, but you come across as a far-right lunatic. That's not how you see yourself, but it is the image you project.

Everytime I see your name I think of The idiot spike lee played(which is not a stretch for him) in the movie "Do The Right Thing", but that is a different story and getting dangerously close to getting personal. Back on subject.Please, oh please, tell me A. How I am wrong on this.
Dangerously close? As soon as you said "everytime I see your name" you were already being personal. It passes because others did it as well.

I'll tell you how you're wrong on this. As I said so many times "It's not what you say, it's how you say it." Again, I agree with you, but your ranting makes the rest of cringe in shame. You manage to make yourself look silly, and the jokes about you being a secret Leftie working to make the Right look bad actually have a ring of truth to them. You need to learn to actually debate a subject, and discuss it properly. Somebody with your claimed level of education should be able to do that. Until then, please stop making the rest of us look bad.

[Oberon]

I'm telling ya, he's got to be a Democrat being paid to act as a far-right Republican to make the rest of the Republicans look bad. :yep:

[mookiemookie]

Some don't like my tone, they have some hang up about "civillity" on here.

Yeah those people include most every moderator and the site owner as well.

Everytime I see your name I think of The idiot spike lee played

Charming.

And just because I'm bored, here's more:

Say what you want, give me a real argument against what I have said here, and we can discuss. No, we can't. You don't characterize anything the opposing side of your rants brings up as a "real argument." You dismiss any evidence to the contrary. Any statement or assertion from the other side is mocked, belittled and dismissed out of hand without any counter evidence.

On this issue, you can't, the second amendment is clear See, this is a perfect example of exactly what everyone's trying to tell you. You refuse to debate, you refuse to consider the fact that you may be wrong. Your arrogance refuses to let you be swayed by any counter argument, no matter how well it's crafted, no matter what evidence is presented. And members of this forum know this. You've become a joke. You know why your threads aren't taken seriously and are filled with posts where people mock you? It's because of this right here. It's not because they disagree with your politics, it's because they disagree with the way you present yourself and your behavior.

A lot of people have learned that it's useless trying to engage you in any sort of rational debate where logical consistency is valued, arguments are framed, valid evidence and counter evidence is presented, and a conclusion is reached where one side values the efforts and discussion from the other side. It doesn't happen. You're convinced that you're right and everyone else is stupid, and you refuse to ever open your mind to any other possibility. It's pointless.

[Tribesman]

There remains one important question.
Should bubbles get a pay rise due to his performance?

[Oberon]

There remains one important question.
Should bubbles get a pay rise due to his performance?

Oh, definitely, I mean, he's doing a sterling job of persuading people to vote Democrat! :yep: :haha:

[Sailor Steve]

And just because I'm bored, here's more:
Okay, I now have to file an official complaint. You are now doing what I do better than I do myself. This will not be tolerated.

Or maybe I'll just sit and spectate for awhile.

[NeonSamurai]

Okay, I now have to file an official complaint. You are now doing what I do better than I do myself. This will not be tolerated.

Or maybe I'll just sit and spectate for awhile.

I can ban him if you like, he has been getting rather uppity lately. :woot:

[Sailor Steve]

I can ban him if you like, he has been getting rather uppity lately. :woot:
Nah, it's not his fault he's a screaming commie fag pinko leftie crybaby whiner loser with two left feet and a left-handed monkey wrench in his back pocket which he doesn't know what it's for because he's never done an honest day's work in his life and spends his time in an ivy-league ivory tower planning new ways to overthrow the constitution and the 65-mph speed limit. :O:

[August]

Interesting Wall Street Journal article on the gun control bill failure.

The President might have forged a compromise from the political center out that reduced gun violence at the margins while respecting Second Amendment rights. Instead, liberals cleaned out their ideological cupboards in favor of gun restrictions that would have little practical effect but would have notched a symbolic victory over the National Rifle Association and those benighted rubes in the provinces. By so overreaching, Mr. Obama couldn't even steamroll moderate members of his own party.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324493704578430672176449846.html

[mookiemookie]

Nah, it's not his fault he's a screaming commie fag pinko leftie crybaby whiner loser with two left feet and a left-handed monkey wrench in his back pocket which he doesn't know what it's for because he's never done an honest day's work in his life and spends his time in an ivy-league ivory tower planning new ways to overthrow the constitution and the 65-mph speed limit. :O:

But....But 55 saves lives! :Kaleun_Crying:


:D

[Hottentot]

Nah, it's not his fault he's a screaming commie fag pinko leftie crybaby whiner loser with two left feet and a left-handed monkey wrench in his back pocket which he doesn't know what it's for because he's never done an honest day's work in his life and spends his time in an ivy-league ivory tower planning new ways to overthrow the constitution and the 65-mph speed limit. :O:

Speaking of which, has anyone seen Takeda for a while?

[Oberon]

Speaking of which, has anyone seen Takeda for a while?

I think after the last blow-up he's taking a hiatus. Can't blame him.
His avatar changed too.

[Hottentot]

His profile shows last activity to be from 22. of March, so you might be right. I hope he'll be back soon. There's this AAR I'm planning which he and CCIP just need to read...

Sorry. Ahem. GUNS!

[Ducimus]

Interesting Wall Street Journal article on the gun control bill failure.



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324493704578430672176449846.html


Thanks for the link.


On the more humorous side, someone already made a " Hitler Finds Out Gun Control Failed In The Senate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbBZZyL7EJY) " video.

[Tribesman]

On the more humorous side, someone already made a
Which is really funny as hitler was a gun nut who abolished most restrictions on firearms.

[Sailor Steve]

Which is really funny as hitler was a gun nut who abolished most restrictions on firearms.
For "good" Germans, yes. Jews, on the other and, were not allowed to own guns at all. Occupied countries were ordered to surrender all firearms.

[Tribesman]

For "good" Germans, yes. Jews, on the other and, were not allowed to own guns at all.
Jews were not allowed rights at all.

Occupied countries were ordered to surrender all firearms.
Occupied territory has nothing to do with domestic law does it

[Sailor Steve]

Jews were not allowed rights at all.
A segment of the population was not allowed gun ownership because that segment was controlled. That's the point of the discussion.

Occupied territory has nothing to do with domestic law does it
The Nazis did indeed employ gun control. Quibbling over where they did it is still quibbling.

[Tribesman]

A segment of the population was not allowed gun ownership because that segment was controlled. That's the point of the discussion.

So the jews in germany were like the blacks under the founding fathers when they wrote the 2nd.

The Nazis did indeed employ gun control.
But the point is that the nazis abolished most gun regulations from the republic era.
However. Can you name any state which has not had firearm regulations?


Quibbling over where they did it is still quibbling.

The devil is in the detail as always, and since militarily occupied territory is a whole different legal sphere it is well outside the scope.

[Sailor Steve]

So the jews in germany were like the blacks under the founding fathers when they wrote the 2nd.
Exactly.

But the point is that the nazis abolished most gun regulations from the republic era.
But they still confiscated guns from the "wrong" people.

However. Can you name any state which has not had firearm regulations?
No. That's part of the old "Federal Control vs States' Rights" argument. We want Federal control over some things but not over others. Where the line is drawn in each case is always the proverbial bone of contention.

The devil is in the detail as always, and since militarily occupied territory is a whole different legal sphere it is well outside the scope.
So Hitler did believe in gun control for anyone but the select few. This is what most gun-control advocates want. Ted Kennedy wanted strict gun control, but had armed bodyguards with him wherever he went. I fail to see a difference.

[TarJak]

However. Can you name any state which has not had firearm regulations?


Somalia

[Tribesman]

Exactly.

So the 2nd amendment as enacted gave the same sort of gun regulation as Hitler had?:hmmm:

But they still confiscated guns from the "wrong" people.

Do you mean all the guns they couldn't have under the previous government?


So Hitler did believe in gun control for anyone but the select few.
Wrong way round, he believed in everyone having guns apart from the select few.


Somalia
Perfect, Thanks Tarjak:rotfl2:

[TarJak]

TBH Somalia does actually have gun regulations, it just didn't have an effective government organisation to enforce them.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/somalia

It is actually an excellent argument for there being a strong law enforcement capability to prevent citizens from doing whatever they want with weapons. Since the establishement of central governement and reestablihsment of the military, the ratio of gun homicides has dropped from 33.1:100,000 per annum in 2002 to 1.5:100,000 in 2008.

[Sailor Steve]

So the 2nd amendment as enacted gave the same sort of gun regulation as Hitler had?:hmmm:
No. The Second Amendment guaranteed the right for "everybody", just as the First and Third and the others do. They didn't consider the slaves to be Citizens, so they witheld the right. Just as Hitler did. And they were both wrong to do so.

Do you mean all the guns they couldn't have under the previous government?
What the previous government did or didn't do is irrelevant, just as it was for the founding Americans. An injustice was done. We finally corrected it as best we could. The point is that Hitler was only for gun rights for his own elite.

Wrong way round, he believed in everyone having guns apart from the select few.
Quibbling again.

[Tribesman]

The Second Amendment guaranteed the right for "everybody"
So by "everybody" you mean terms and conditions were applied to the right to bear arms from the moment ink was put to paper

What the previous government did or didn't do is irrelevant
Not so, you cannot confiscate something someone doesn't have.

Quibbling again.
Details Steve details.:03:
To go back to the bit you originally said was quibbling.
Do you remember the recent episode about the current US "owner" of a Polish rifle that was taken from a German soldier by a GI which the Polish government are claiming as their property?
The terms the allies set for weapons in occupied territory upon surrender was exactly the same as the Axis had set in their occupied territories.:yep:


@Tarjak
TBH Somalia does actually have gun regulations
I know, its what makes it a perfect example to bring up.

[Sailor Steve]

So by "everybody" you mean terms and conditions were applied to the right to bear arms from the moment ink was put to paper
No. I said that already. I also said that I didn't excuse them for that. Just as I don't excuse Hitler.

:03:
Okay, the smug, arrogant "wink" is the last straw. I've already been chided again for quoting, you, so I guess we're done.

[Tribesman]

No. I said that already.
Yes. I was making it clear.
I also said that I didn't excuse them for that.
So you don't agree with the 2nd as it was written?
Important details you see, which come to the core of the issue since it is the meaning of the 2nd which is in question.


Okay, the smug, arrogant "wink" is the last straw
So a "wink" is smug and arrogant???
You appear to have lost the plot there.

[Madox58]

I wanted to have a LEGAL fire range for Air Guns out back of my home.
So I did the proper stuff and made a call to local Village numbers.
Simple question..............
Is it legal to fire Air Guns where I'm at?

THAT opened up a world of hurt and MANY hours spent getting a some what LEGAL answer that STILL is not 100%!

I was told first that they defer to the Sheriff's Office judgement for our county.

OK. Call them and get this kind of crap layed on me.
"It's a fire arm so we follow Ohio Code"

HMMM KAY...

Guess what? Air Guns are NOT defined as a fire arm under Ohio Laws.
So the local LEO's do not know what a fire arm is it seems!

I called the Mayor of my Village and chatted with him.
He tried the same line until I started demanding references to printed Laws.
As it turns out?
There are NO laws on the books that stop me from fireing any weapons, of any caliber, right where I sit now!

I can fire a .50 cal through my house if I so please and be legal doing so as long as it hits nothing someone can complain about!

Many people think that what is a law in one area applies to them.
It don't all the time.

I don't give a crap about Califorication laws and other States that do that.
You may assume laws that really do not exist!

[TwoGamers]

Get rid of them completely. Problem solved

[TarJak]

Get rid of them completely. Problem solved

Get rid of what or who? Guns? Gun Owners? Anti-Gun lobbyists? People who want to get rid of them completely?:hmmm:

[TwoGamers]

Guns should have specified. I'm Australian though so I'm biased because we don't have easily accessible guns and we hear about all these shootings in America and we just sit their and yell at our tvs asking how you are allowing guns to still be so easily acquired.

[Ducimus]

Guns should have specified. I'm Australian though so I'm biased because we don't have easily accessible guns and we hear about all these shootings in America and we just sit their and yell at our tvs asking how you are allowing guns to still be so easily acquired.

Ok, now your sputtering the same horsecrap accross two different threads. Your trolling at this point. Some of your countrymen would disagree with you as well. Not everyone believes as you do.

Your also proof positive that progressive advocates for a police state, those that would surrender their rights and liberty for the illusion of safety - live all over the world.

[Sailor Steve]

Your trolling at this point.
I disagree. I don't think he's trolling, just stating his opinion. From his point of view he has a valid point, and he doesn't understand the thinking here. Of the colonies only America and India actively tried to throw off British rule, and only America actually went to war over it. He doesn't understand that the American Revolution, the shooting part anyway, started the day the British Colonial Governor of Massachussetts sent troops to confiscate a privately-held armory full of cannons. He doesn't understand that we wrote the Second Amendment to guarantee that it would never happen again. The British government learned the lesson and let the other colonies go peacefully, though they still are part of the Commonwealth and consider themselves to be subjects of the same Crown. He lives in a world where the government is benefactor and friend, though to listen to some British members here you wouldn't think so.

We, on the other hand, live in a world where the government was created by us for our use, not the other way around. That this is no longer true is to our shame, but we keep our guns and our Second Amendment in the hope that if push comes to shove we will be able to do something about it. That these shootings happen is tragic, but it is not the fault of the guns or the gun owners; it is the fault of the sick minds who do these things, and that is what needs to be dealt with.

TwoGamers isn't a troll. He just doesn't understand.

[TarJak]

Of the colonies only America and India actively tried to throw off British rule, and only America actually went to war over it.
:timeout: Not quite right Steve. Malaya and Aden also waged war against their colonial overlords.:know:

[Sailor Steve]

:timeout: Not quite right Steve. Malaya and Aden also waged war against their colonial overlords.:know:
LOL. Good for them, and I gladly stand corrected. :sunny:

[Bilge_Rat]

Steve,

Canadians also tried to overthrow the British in 1837, a joint operation by Quebeckers and Ontarians, although it was not successful.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellions_of_1837

It did however push the British to grant limited home rule in 1849 and "de facto" independence, at least in domestic matters, in 1867.

[Sailor Steve]

That looks more along the line of our own "Whiskey Rebellion", in that it wasn't a national revolution but a disaffected group taking up arms. Canada didn't rebel against the Crown. I like the part where there were only 4100 "Patriotes", but 25,000 American supporters.

[Tribesman]

Get rid of them completely. Problem solved

That makes no sense.
Firearms are a useful tool.

[Ducimus]

On the subject of guns. As much as i love my rifle, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAMIE3aL7Ac) the history geek (and spaghetti western fan) in me wants an 1851 Richards-Mason conversion. (http://www.cimarron-firearms.com/conversion-revolvers/conversion-revolvers-1851-conversions/1851-richards-mason-navy/1851-richards-mason-38-spl-7-1-2-in-ca925.html) :D

[Platapus]

On the subject of guns. As much as i love my rifle, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAMIE3aL7Ac) the history geek (and spaghetti western fan) in me wants an 1851 Richards-Mason conversion. (http://www.cimarron-firearms.com/conversion-revolvers/conversion-revolvers-1851-conversions/1851-richards-mason-navy/1851-richards-mason-38-spl-7-1-2-in-ca925.html) :D

Why that one especially?

[TwoGamers]

In what way a firearms a useful tool? Still allow them on properties (I really need to specify more) but don't have them widely avaliable to everyone.

[Buddahaid]

In what way a firearms a useful tool? Still allow them on properties (I really need to specify more) but don't have them widely avaliable to everyone.

They really get the point across when you say you're not interested in a copy of Watchtower. :D

[Tribesman]

In what way a firearms a useful tool?
Decorating.
A firearm in your country can be a useful tool for accesorising your properties appearance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dead-wild-dogs-fence.jpg

[Platapus]

http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh123/TX_Mad_Dawg/Funny%20Stuff/Ownership.jpg

[AndyJWest]

They really get the point across when you say you're not interested in a copy of Watchtower. :D

I'm beginning to think there may be something to be said for gun ownership after all... :)

[Sailor Steve]

You never know when the British might come for their back taxes.
Do you think I should stop talking to Jim on Skype? Suddenly paranoid...

[Armistead]

Do you think I should stop talking to Jim on Skype? Suddenly paranoid...

Maybe invite him over for a cup of tea and accidently spill it on him.

[Sailor Steve]

Maybe invite him over for a cup of tea and accidently spill it on him.
I want to see if he's spying on me, not have him beat me to a bloody pulp!

[Armistead]

I want to see if he's spying on me, not have him beat me to a bloody pulp!

When Jim's in his best boxing stance {fist up, nose in air} kick him right in the nads. When he's laying on the ground moaning about cheap American tactics, just reply as we have before.

"I won"

[August]

Jim's a cop. A dozen donuts and he'll not only help you move, he'll help you move the body. :yep:

[nikimcbee]

Jim's a cop. A dozen donuts and he'll not only help you move, he'll help you move the body. :yep:

http://tucsoncitizen.com/retroflections/files/2011/08/sarafan2blogspotcom1.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=SEOYHiPCCyf5uM&tbnid=2XG-_trOgkI-AM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftucsoncitizen.com%2Fretroflection s%2F2011%2F08%2F21%2Fdunkin-donuts-2%2F&ei=2FB3UbTXLeTw2gXOnoCYCg&bvm=bv.45580626,d.b2I&psig=AFQjCNG9PWtGaVdioF__o-MvugLOfRV4Iw&ust=1366860368156008)

+

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_A_opcg_BeKs/TJ6JMONxaBI/AAAAAAAABsM/byiSejVf4Ng/s1600/Newcastle+Brown+Ale+2.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=fL__GU4SkexdWM&tbnid=aKdx5xgYP5A_yM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailybeerreview.com%2F2010%2F 11%2Fnewcastle-brown-ale.html&ei=F1F3UfmLKuqg2QXbuIGwBQ&bvm=bv.45580626,d.b2I&psig=AFQjCNGH0cuUB6d5RQ6TpXSU_tz06rI4iA&ust=1366860435337114)

Jim will be your best friend......forever.:haha::woot:

[Ducimus]

Why that one especially?

Because it would be fun to shoot, cheaper to target practice with, looks like it came out of the old west, and would be historically correct with the extractor. Just something to have for fun really.

The other option, while just as fun, isn't historically correct:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C237-F8rL_s

[Jimbuna]

[/URL]

+

[URL="http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=fL__GU4SkexdWM&tbnid=aKdx5xgYP5A_yM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailybeerreview.com%2F2010%2F 11%2Fnewcastle-brown-ale.html&ei=F1F3UfmLKuqg2QXbuIGwBQ&bvm=bv.45580626,d.b2I&psig=AFQjCNGH0cuUB6d5RQ6TpXSU_tz06rI4iA&ust=1366860435337114"] (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=SEOYHiPCCyf5uM&tbnid=2XG-_trOgkI-AM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftucsoncitizen.com%2Fretroflection s%2F2011%2F08%2F21%2Fdunkin-donuts-2%2F&ei=2FB3UbTXLeTw2gXOnoCYCg&bvm=bv.45580626,d.b2I&psig=AFQjCNG9PWtGaVdioF__o-MvugLOfRV4Iw&ust=1366860368156008)

Jim will be your best friend......forever.:haha::woot:

Most definitely :sunny:

[TwoGamers]

Steve thankyou I understand your second amendments reason now. I'm not an expert and Im not saying your wrong. Thank for the explanation:yeah:

[Platapus]

Because it would be fun to shoot, cheaper to target practice with, looks like it came out of the old west, and would be historically correct with the extractor. Just something to have for fun really.

The other option, while just as fun, isn't historically correct:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C237-F8rL_s


Just reading that one review on the site saying that the pistol is prone to jamming. It is a good looking pistol though.

[Oberon]

Just reading that one review on the site saying that the pistol is prone to jamming. It is a good looking pistol though.

:yep: Very pretty indeed.

I wouldn't mind having a look over the Buntline, real from the era or not, it's still a nice gun and used by my favourite character in For a Few Dollars More.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r98TScXZCEk

In regards to real weapons from the era, I'm more of a rifle man but I do admire the original Colt revolvers. I'd love to try a Winchester, and I'd really love to try a Gatling or Maxim...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1pcfn_KMnA

The impact that thing had on the battlefield...a sobering thought.

There's quite a few weapons I'd like to fire, or just hold to get a feel of them, I've been playing battlefield games for years, simulators and that, but to actually see, to feel, the real thing, it gives an extra connection to history. Sure, you can never really appreciate what our forefathers went through, but with enough thought, you can get fairly close.

Maybe if I ever make it to America. :shucks:

EDIT: (watching the Dragoon video) Ha, so that's how they do a ramrod on the old pistols, what a clever design, much more convenient than the traditional stick method.

[Stealhead]

Just reading that one review on the site saying that the pistol is prone to jamming. It is a good looking pistol though.


Seems that design is a bit weak and not truly strong enough to handle smokeless powder.It is a replica of a smokeless frame which means that it is more or less a smokeless frame beefed up to take .38 special but not thousands of rounds.

Of course it seems to be more for fun than for tons of use.If someone had a problem they where likely putting rounds through it as if it where not a replica and not an open frame revolver.Something you take out once in a while and shot a few dozen rounds with.


I would rather have Colt Single Action Army replica* it would have a much more intuitive ejector.The reason I would go with an SSA would be that it can fire .45 long colt with no problems because it was designed to fire long colt.The fire arm replica Ducimus mentioned is actually a movie prop made to look like a percussion cap revolver but firing modern smokeless rounds.It is a replica of a prop gun that only needed to work during the filming of a movie.The firearm it is trying appear to be can be seen at 2:10 in this video as can the Colt SSA which is shown throughout.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp52zvKdxLg

* meaning a replica that is actually a modern firearm using original design prints and not "rinky dink" for lack of a better term.Not say that the gun Ducimus mentioned is bad it is just not a sturdy firearm.

[Oberon]

IIRC the Buntline prop I mentioned in my post is also a modification of the SAA (which was also used vanilla [or thereabouts] in For a few dollars more).
Popular in its simplicity, particularly compared to its predecessor. :yep:

[Stealhead]

IIRC the Buntline prop I mentioned in my post is also a modification of the SAA (which was also used vanilla [or thereabouts] in For a few dollars more).
Popular in its simplicity, particularly compared to its predecessor. :yep:

The firearm in a few dollars more is nothing like a colt SSA though not sure why you think that it is.What it is supposed to be is a Colt 1851 this was a percussion cap revolver not something you want on a movie set so the prop guns where made to appear like a 1851 but fire .38 special in the film blanks of course.The real Colt This man explains it well
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhCAyD6bVfs

In the real old west they actually did convert cap guns over to primer guns not very often though*. the difference would be that back then everything was still black powder which produces far less pressure than smokeless requiring a stronger frame.The guns in the Fist full of dollars films are trying to look like a Colt 1851 converted to primer type rounds.

*I may be 100% incorrect in this statement it seems unlikely when one could simply buy a more modern pistol that was primer fired I think the conversions are Hollywood myth and in the "Fist full of Dollars" trilogy they wanted a different looking firearm than the Colt SSA.

In reality in the real old west most people owned a pistol more to scare away or kill animals (such a coyotes) than anything else so many people used the older cap type pistols well into the 1880s.

Honestly I think that the Colt 1861 Navy is a much better looking design it also used percussion caps.



this is a real Colt 1851 or a replica but black powder and percussion cap like an original.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cdya8qK7vtM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hns_tEWBFD0)


Colt 1851 original
http://i1162.photobucket.com/albums/q527/datsun260zyojimbo/colt-1851-navy-revolver-15_zpsf405c0eb.jpg (http://s1162.photobucket.com/user/datsun260zyojimbo/media/colt-1851-navy-revolver-15_zpsf405c0eb.jpg.html)

Colt 1861 original same basic operation as the 1851
http://i1162.photobucket.com/albums/q527/datsun260zyojimbo/Colt_Navy_Model_1861_zps32ab742e.jpg (http://s1162.photobucket.com/user/datsun260zyojimbo/media/Colt_Navy_Model_1861_zps32ab742e.jpg.html)

Colt SSA
http://i1162.photobucket.com/albums/q527/datsun260zyojimbo/Pietta1873ColtSAAcopy1stmodelcroppedbright_zpsd4d2 4611.jpg (http://s1162.photobucket.com/user/datsun260zyojimbo/media/Pietta1873ColtSAAcopy1stmodelcroppedbright_zpsd4d2 4611.jpg.html)

Man with no name prop replica
http://i1162.photobucket.com/albums/q527/datsun260zyojimbo/ca9081-manw-nonameconv-nosnake-7_zps09b91fd2.jpg (http://s1162.photobucket.com/user/datsun260zyojimbo/media/ca9081-manw-nonameconv-nosnake-7_zps09b91fd2.jpg.html)

Not trying to pick on you trust trying clear up confusion between a Colt 1851 a Colt 1851 converted to primer and the prop and replica of said prop.the prop was intended to look like a primer converted 1851.


The best bet is to buy a Ruger Vaquero it is a modern SSA and not a replica I used that term incorrectly earlier.At any rate a later 20th century Colt SSA or a Vaquero is the best bet because t is a sturdy firearm people use them very often and many hunt with them.You can also use this weapon for defense and have no concerns.

http://www.ruger.com/products/vaquero/index.html?r=y

[reignofdeath]

I disagree. I don't think he's trolling, just stating his opinion. From his point of view he has a valid point, and he doesn't understand the thinking here. Of the colonies only America and India actively tried to throw off British rule, and only America actually went to war over it. He doesn't understand that the American Revolution, the shooting part anyway, started the day the British Colonial Governor of Massachussetts sent troops to confiscate a privately-held armory full of cannons. He doesn't understand that we wrote the Second Amendment to guarantee that it would never happen again. The British government learned the lesson and let the other colonies go peacefully, though they still are part of the Commonwealth and consider themselves to be subjects of the same Crown. He lives in a world where the government is benefactor and friend, though to listen to some British members here you wouldn't think so.

We, on the other hand, live in a world where the government was created by us for our use, not the other way around. That this is no longer true is to our shame, but we keep our guns and our Second Amendment in the hope that if push comes to shove we will be able to do something about it. That these shootings happen is tragic, but it is not the fault of the guns or the gun owners; it is the fault of the sick minds who do these things, and that is what needs to be dealt with.

TwoGamers isn't a troll. He just doesn't understand.


Sorry to dig this up, but was reading a few pages deep and found this, Steve I have to hand it to you this is very well written post, I agree completely about the worlds we live in part. :yeah:

[Ducimus]

* meaning a replica that is actually a modern firearm using original design prints and not "rinky dink" for lack of a better term.Not say that the gun Ducimus mentioned is bad it is just not a sturdy firearm.


Well, like i said, I didn't want the movie prop gun. The one I'd rather have this Richards-mason Conversion.
http://www.cimarron-firearms.com/media/catalog/product/cache/6/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/c/a/ca925-rmconvnavy-7.jpg

Which is different from the movie prop:
http://www.cimarron-firearms.com/media/catalog/product/cache/6/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/c/a/ca9081-manw-nonameconv-nosnake-7.jpg

The main reason I'm hung up on the 1851, is because I like the octagonal barrel. Only reason I want one is for plinking. .38 special is fine by me for this reason. Any serious use, I have another handgun for. Which would be this one:
http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/images/23508.jpg

Which in turn reminds me that I also want a 1911. :roll:

[Oberon]

The firearm in a few dollars more is nothing like a colt SSA though not sure why you think that it is.

Errr...

http://imageshack.us/a/img12/8826/ffdmbuntlinespecial19.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img22/980/ffdmbuntlinespecial12.jpg

Now I'm just relying on the Internet Movie Firearms Database here, but is that not a Colt Buntline Special? Which, if wikipedia is correct, is a modification of the Single Action Army?

Mancos main firearm in Few Dollars More is a Single Action Army as well, I believe:

http://imageshack.us/a/img221/2683/ffdmsaa11.jpg


Are you sure you're not getting For a Few Dollars More mixed up with The Good, The Bad and The Ugly?
Blondie (Eastwood) has a 1851 Conversion in that:

http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Good,_The_Bad,_and_The_Ugly,_The

[Stealhead]

Errr...

http://imageshack.us/a/img12/8826/ffdmbuntlinespecial19.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img22/980/ffdmbuntlinespecial12.jpg

Now I'm just relying on the Internet Movie Firearms Database here, but is that not a Colt Buntline Special? Which, if wikipedia is correct, is a modification of the Single Action Army?

Mancos main firearm in Few Dollars More is a Single Action Army as well, I believe:

http://imageshack.us/a/img221/2683/ffdmsaa11.jpg


Are you sure you're not getting For a Few Dollars More mixed up with The Good, The Bad and The Ugly?
Blondie (Eastwood) has a 1851 Conversion in that:

http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Good,_The_Bad,_and_The_Ugly,_The

Yeah sorry about that I was thinking of the other gun and also mixed up the films.Sorry I was doing all of this at @3 am.

@Ducimus I was trying to explain to Platapus why he might have read that the replica might not be 100% reliable.I was not trying to knock the gun more so to knock anyone who would expect it to be a reliable as a firearm designed more than just plinking around with which is what all of the complaints about the replica on forums i can find it seems that the complainer is miss using the gun.

[Oberon]

Yeah sorry about that I was thinking of the other gun and also mixed up the films.Sorry I was doing all of this at @3 am.

It's cool, been there, done that, many times. You made a good point on the Vaquero, after all the designs are similar with smaller changes over the years (which goes to show what a good design it was in the first place). :yep:

[Stealhead]

It's cool, been there, done that, many times. You made a good point on the Vaquero, after all the designs are similar with smaller changes over the years (which goes to show what a good design it was in the first place). :yep:


Yes sometimes the brain gets a few steps ahead of the mind.Or maybe its vice verse.:hmmm:

The only thing with the Vaquero is that they are not chambered for an inexpensive caliber making them cost prohibitive as a plinking gun.The primary reason they make the replicas in a smaller caliber is to make the weapon more budget friendly.

[soopaman2]

Kinda a thread killer, there fellas...

Well played.:yeah:

Maybe now the gun debate will fall into obscurity.


Debating guns is like debating religion, you are an ass if you are pro, and an ass if against. There is always vile examples of why something is bad, no matter what , I tried it before, I give up...


Pro-gun North-eastern Liberal., is that an oxy moron?

[August]

Pro-gun North-eastern Liberal., is that an oxy moron?

FWIW I wish there were more of you and i'm kinda surprised there aren't.

[August]

Well that's refreshing.

[Ducimus]

Just keeping it in the thread......

High Capacity Magazine PSA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7F1nPSNnaBo)

EDIT: Didn't mean to necro this thread off page 2, but the scenario portrayed in that video is one that makes my blood run cold, and because of that, I felt compelled to share it. However, id be an ass and a hypocrite if i started a new thread, so.... um yeah.

[Bilge_Rat]

Just keeping it in the thread......

High Capacity Magazine PSA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7F1nPSNnaBo)

I will call your hi capacity mag video and raise with:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/loudoun-teen-fatally-shot-by-homeowner-identified/2013/03/18/1e8611f8-8fe2-11e2-9cfd-36d6c9b5d7ad_story.html

[Ducimus]

I don't gamble. Go find someone else to play your game.

[Jimbuna]

Cool heads guys...just saying.

[August]

http://www.phillyburbs.com/my_town/willow_grove/montco-da-cheltenham-college-student-appears-justified-in-fatally-shooting/article_a0698cdc-651b-54f1-80cb-b4323a82f630.html

The fatal shooting of a home intruder last Friday in Cheltenham appears to have been justifiable, according to Montgomery County District Attorney Risa Vetri Ferman. The 20-year-old Lynnewood Gardens apartment resident, who used an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle to shoot the intruder, was in fear of his life and the lives of others in the apartment, said Ferman.

[Ducimus]

Ill be honest. That video DID get an emotional response from me. That is my, probably anyones, worst nightmare portrayed. Every aspect of that scenario is realistic. Especially if your a resident of New york with their new BS laws.

You can view that video or not. You can agree with it, or not. That is a personal choice. I am not here to nit pick, or play tit for tat. Which is more then what can be said for bilge rat. Apt name by the way.

[Bilge_Rat]

You can view that video or not. You can agree with it, or not. That is a personal choice. I am not here to nit pick, or play tit for tat. Which is more then what can be said for bilge rat. Apt name by the way.

you can be a real jerk when you want to be. :nope:

That video is a NRA propaganda tape of why every homeowner should own an assault rifle. Oddly enough, attacks by multiple drug crazed armed kamikaze intruders rarely seem to happen.

[Ducimus]

you can be a real jerk when you want to be. :nope:


I can be a jerk? Trying looking in the mirror pal. The very first thing you do, is dig at me, and play tit for tat. Screw that noise.


That video is a NRA propaganda

NRA didn't make it, and i'm sure EVERYTHING out there that you don't agree with, is propaganda to you. Plausible, or Factual, or not.


tape of why every homeowner should own an assault rifle.

I didn't see an assault rifle, I saw a 9MM handgun hamstrung with 7 rounds in the magazine.


Oddly enough, attacks by multiple drug crazed armed kamikaze intruders rarely seem to happen.

Your Canadian right? WTF would you know about about crime in the US. Not a god damn thing. Piss off.

EDIT:

BTW, congratulations, Your smartassery was the final log on a fire that has accomplished the impossible. I now dislike progressive liberals MORE then i dislike hardliner Republicans.

[Takeda Shingen]

Attacks by multiple drug crazed armed kamikaze intruders rarely seem to happen.

--US citizen :yep:

[August]

Attacks by multiple drug crazed armed kamikaze intruders rarely seem to happen.

--US citizen :yep:

But they do happen.

http://www.phillyburbs.com/my_town/willow_grove/montco-da-cheltenham-college-student-appears-justified-in-fatally-shooting/article_a0698cdc-651b-54f1-80cb-b4323a82f630.html

[Ducimus]

Attacks by multiple drug crazed armed kamikaze intruders rarely seem to happen.

--US citizen :yep:


That's still embelishment on the rat's part. First, one or two hits off a crack pipe does not make someone "drug crazed". Buzzed, sure, drug crazed phsyco? No. You don't have to be drug crazed to commit a violent act. All you need is the courage of conviction and the will to follow through on a made decision. Being buzzed just loosens inhibitions. There's also a big difference between an adrenaline fueled reaction, and a "Kamikaze". Second, there seems to be this big illusion that home invaders always operate alone, and unarmed. I will grant you that more often they'll wait until someone isn't home, but not always, and sometimes, they think no ones home when someone is.

You can dismiss the entire scenario as implausible if you want. That's your choice. But if the worst should ever happen, and not necessarily in the manner portrayed, you''ll have no one to blame but yourself. The safety of oneself and ones family is ultimately, a personal responsibility.

[Takeda Shingen]

But they do happen.

Caldara eruptions happen too. Should I live in fear?

[August]

Caldara eruptions happen too. Should I live in fear?

Don't you live in fear already?

[Takeda Shingen]

Don't you live in fear already?

No, I don't adhere to the politics of the right.

[Ducimus]

No, I don't adhere to the politics of the right.

As far as I'm concerned, it's the same politics of both the left and the right. Both of them will say something like , "I can make you safer".

[Takeda Shingen]

As far as I'm concerned, it's the same politics of both the left and the right. Both of them will say something like , "I can make you safer".

No, the politics of the left are envy-driven. The politics of the right, as evidenced by your own video, are fear-driven. The ends may be the same, but the method of motivation differs.

[Ducimus]

No, the politics of the left are envy-driven. The politics of the right, as evidenced by your own video, are fear-driven. The ends may be the same, but the method of motivation differs.

I disagree, mainly because of the rhetoric coming from the left during the whole gun control debate. The fear driven agenda, i thought, was patently obvious. (edit: They certainly are not envious of firearms. )

[Takeda Shingen]

I disagree, mainly because of the rhetoric coming from the left during the whole gun control debate. The fear driven agenda, i thought, was patently obvious.

You don't have to look any further than 6 months ago to see that fear vs. envy is the de facto state of American politics.

[Ducimus]

You don't have to look any further than 6 months ago to see that fear vs. envy is the de facto state of American politics.

Well, I have to be honest in that I will not shift my view, simply because I am sick and tired of both Team R, and Team D. They are both beyond redemption in my view. Simply put, I think they are both equally corrupt, and worthless.

As to the video I posted. Well, yeah it plays on fears. One of the worst. I think the difference to me is that I probably have a greater understanding of two things your average viewer may not: A.) How firearms work, and what you can expect out of a given firearm employed in a given situation. B.) A pretty damn good idea on how a person will react and handle themselves under stress, or mortal fear for life.

In other words, the scenario is a worst case scenario, however the reactions within that video, the performance of the handgun, and stopping power of the round used, are quite realistic in my view.

[Bilge_Rat]

http://www.phillyburbs.com/my_town/willow_grove/montco-da-cheltenham-college-student-appears-justified-in-fatally-shooting/article_a0698cdc-651b-54f1-80cb-b4323a82f630.html

not exactly the same thing as the video, he was not armed. No need of a high capacity magazine.

of course, if the "homeowner" in that "documentary" was a better shot, he would not need more than 7 rounds to shot 2 intruders. :ping:

[Onkel Neal]

I am not here to nit pick, or play tit for tat. Which is more then what can be said for bilge rat. Apt name by the way.

Your Canadian right? WTF would you know about about crime in the US. Not a god damn thing. Piss off.

Is that debating the topic? Or going after the other member? Come on, man, don't start that.

[Tribesman]

Is that debating the topic?
It is debating the topic, only americans know things and only amercans who have signed up for government service in the past really know things.
It is the art of debating topics where emotions take precedence to reason.

[Ducimus]

of course, if the "homeowner" in that "documentary" was a better shot, he would not need more than 7 rounds to shot 2 intruders. :ping:

Your displaying your lack of knowledge. One can practice all they want, but there is a big difference between shooting a stationary target while not under any stress at a firing range, and shooting at a moving target while under stress.

Also, bullets are not magic. One or two bullets will not necessarily bring down anyone.
Educate yourself:
Dr Andreas Grabinsky on Gunshot Wounds (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXwPtP-KDNk)

[Bilge_Rat]

Your displaying your lack of knowledge. One can practice all they want, but there is a big difference between shooting a stationary target while not under any stress at a firing range, and shooting at a moving target while under stress.

Also, bullets are not magic. One or two bullets will not necessarily bring down anyone.
Educate yourself:
Dr Andreas Grabinsky on Gunshot Wounds (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXwPtP-KDNk)

Piss off.

I have no interest in any further discussion with you.

[Jimbuna]

Okay, enough already...the owner of the forum has felt the need to intervene and still the insults go on.

No infraction because non was given previously but I am drawing a line.

Debate by all means but stop resorting to insults.

TIA

[Ducimus]

Piss off.

I have no interest in any further discussion with you.

Add me to your ignore list then Rat. I was about to do the same yesterday, but will definitely do so now. You started this tit for tat by being a smartass. Not me, I'm just i no mood to put up it.

Out of respect for Neal, I will refrain and stop this post now, because all i have to say at this point, is just how low my opinion is of you.

[August]

Gas station robbery thwarted by owner with AR-15 rifle (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/01/iraq-war-vet-armed-with-rifle-thwarts-gas-station-break-in-police-say/)

Just sayin...

[Tribesman]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2341601335001/victim-disarms-gunman-in-attempted-robbery/?intcmp=obnetwork
Just sayin......

[Tribesman]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2013/apr/27/shopkeeper-wooden-stool-fight-armed-robber-video
Just sayin....

[Tribesman]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/01/boy-5-fatally-shoots-sister-2-with-22-caliber-rifle-reportedly-got-as-gift/?test=latestnews
Now thats sayin.... or is that more telling

[mookiemookie]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/01/boy-5-fatally-shoots-sister-2-with-22-caliber-rifle-reportedly-got-as-gift/?test=latestnews
Now thats sayin.... or is that more telling

"Just one of those crazy accidents." Bull. A meteor crashing into your house is just one of those crazy accidents. A sinkhole swallowing your car is one of those crazy accidents. Failing to supervise a child that's just barely not a toddler with a loaded firearm is not a crazy accident.

[August]

Bull. A meteor crashing into your house is just one of those crazy accidents. A sinkhole swallowing your car is one of those crazy accidents. Failing to supervise a child that's just barely not a toddler with a loaded firearm is not a crazy accident.


Agree 100%. It's negligence pure and simple.

"Well Regulated" according to the meaning when it was written is "proficient". Part of being proficient with a firearm is keeping it under control at all times.

[Tribesman]

"Well Regulated" according to the meaning when it was written is "proficient". Part of being proficient with a firearm is keeping it under control at all times.
So you think proficiency tests should be mandatory in keeping with the 2nd.
Good idea August, maybe they could award nice little proficiency certificates to people who are proficient with firearms, maybe call them firearms certificates, though of course there would have to be some sort of registration for these awards to make sure people don't just make their own fake paperwork.

[AVGWarhawk]

If said person is not proficient do they take the firearm away? :hmmm:

[mookiemookie]

If said person is not proficient do they take the firearm away? :hmmm:

I imagine it would be something like the penalties for driving a car without a license.

[Ducimus]

The best form of gun control arrived at my house this Monday.

From my basement, to your browser:
http://www.ducimus.net/temp/gunsafe_001.JPG

The amount of money spent on this safe, I could have easily bought myself a nice rifle, or two handguns. Instead however, I spent that money on a safe.


Now in life, there are several things, that certain select individuals should not be allowed to own or do because their level of stupidity puts others in danger. Some individuals should not own dog, because they neglect them. Other individuals, should not be allowed to drive a car, because their a danger to everyone around them. And while everyone has the right, and that right I would fight vigorously for, some individuals should not be allowed to own guns - because their F'ing idiots or do not take the responsibility that comes with ownership seriously.

Give you an example:
This last Sunday, the wife and I were at our local range getting some practice with our handguns. I was at the stall, focusing on the target. My wife who had already gone through her ammo, was behind me picking up my brass since we reload them. There's another couple in there. Some middle aged folks. The husband was obviously getting his wife to try out various handguns to see which one she liked best. Now, I didn't see this, but my wife did. The husband asked something like "how do you like that one?" I'm guessing from excitement, she spins around, GUN IN HAND, muzzle sweeps my wife - with her finger STILL ON THE TRIGGER. and says, "Oh I like this one a lot more!".

After that, my wife was like "Hun, we should go, lets save the rest of the ammo for later". I didnt see any of this, so i was along the lines of "yeah sure, no harm in saving". we packed up and left. She explained this too me in the car, and I was pissed.

- I was pissed that stupid idiot muzzle swept my wife with what we can only assume was a loaded gun with her finger on the trigger.

- I was pissed at that jackass husband who CLEARLY did not properly put in the "classroom time" training his wife before ever stepping foot in a firing range.

- I was pissed that I didn't see this. Had i saw it, i probably would have ripped them a new one.

I don't blame the gun, I blame the individuals who were holding it. On the range, SAFETY IS EVERYONES RESPONSIBLITY, and when i was first teaching my wife, I made damn sure that my wife, knew exactly what she was doing, before we even set foot on a range. My inlaws, whom i've also schooled in all seriousness, refer to me as "Mr Safety" - a label I am quite proud of.

Now back to the best form of gun control: A safe. Why?
1.) Keeps kids grubby mitts off.
2.) One of the top 5 stolen items in home burglaries is.. you guessed it - GUNS! The likelyhood that one of our firearms will end up on the blackmarket and used in a crime is reduced considerably by storing them in a safe.


Personally, i recommend an electronic lock, so you can change the combination anytime you want. Both my wife and I, as kids, knew where our fathers kept the key to the gun safe or cabinet. Since the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, we've already solved that delimna.

Anyway, the second amendment reiterates our fundamental and natural rights to self defense. But with that right, comes responsibility , and it is incumbent upon every person who chooses to exercise that right and own a firearm to get the proper education and training. It is not only your responsibility, it us your duty as a citizen. If you cannot be responsible, and take it seriously, then you, as an individual, probably shouldn't own one.








And since I know someones going to ask, no there's not much in the safe at the moment.
http://www.ducimus.net/temp/gunsafe_002.JPG

[Oberon]

It's a good call, but in the event of a home break in, how do you work it? Do you have a pistol in a more easy to access location, or is it all in the safe?

No criticisms intended, just curious...and no, I'm not casing the house either. :03:

[Ducimus]

It's a good call, but in the event of a home break in, how do you work it? Do you have a pistol in a more easy to access location, or is it all in the safe?

No criticisms intended, just curious...and no, I'm not casing the house either. :03:

As a joke, Ill answer your question with this Glock Handgun commercial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXnMyKYkPZY), even though I own a Beretta and not a Glock.

[Sailor Steve]

R. Lee Ermy is always great. Here's an old one in a similar vein from our very own Utah.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3HlbgYQLE0

[Oberon]

As a joke, Ill answer your question with this Glock Handgun commercial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXnMyKYkPZY), even though I own a Beretta and not a Glock.

Aha, didn't realise they made them that small. Handy, literally.
And, of course, good old Hickok has a vid on it too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1lPReo50uY

Good to see that this has been thought of, tbh, things like this should be provided with firearms purchases although no amount of safety provided to people for free or otherwise is going to stop those who are determined to be dumb.

R. Lee Ermy is always great. Here's an old one in a similar vein from our very own Utah.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3HlbgYQLE0

Free rock with every purchase! :har:

[BossMark]

http://i1224.photobucket.com/albums/ee374/rothwellwhite1/10583_zpsa83fa745.jpg

[Cybermat47]

As a joke, Ill answer your question with this Glock Handgun commercial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXnMyKYkPZY), even though I own a Beretta and not a Glock.

Real men (http://jamesbond.wikia.com/wiki/James_Bond) use Walther PPKs :yep:

[Molon Labe]

This is how I gun control:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=poSyC-UcgZg

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/4638/idpascoresheet.jpg

(My first IDPA Classifier)

[Skybird]

Who is more infantile in that shooting incident with the 5 year old? The child - or the adults?

Anyhow, if adults are clever enough to give a 4 year old (he got the rifle one year before, I read in German articles) a functional rifle as a present, then they should also agree to now throw the full weight of the law onto the boy and lock him away for the coming decades. I mean if a 12 year old some years ago got lifelong for having stolen something to eat for the third time, then this 5 year old monster really should be made regretting what he did as well, don't you think?

Selling toy packages "My first rifle" for children rifles dedicated to kids. That is pathological, and mentally disturbed. :nope: :nope: :nope: Let them come of age, and then , when they are ripe by mind and character, train them with the real things, where one considers that to be necessary.

This story again illustrates this insane fetish that weapons serve as in American culture. Where the sober mindset that sees them as a tool designed for very specialized purposes exclusively is missing, selling weapons should be forbidden. Churches give bibles away for free or at very low subsidized prices over here. I would not be surprised if somebody some day tells me that the NRA also runs projects like that, and gives away firearms for kids for free, or at subsidized, very low prices.

"Takes more than combat gear to make a man,
takes more than a rifle or a gun..."

[Ducimus]

R. Lee Ermy is always great. Here's an old one in a similar vein from our very own Utah.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3HlbgYQLE0

I remembered seeing the beginning of that one before sometime in the past, but I didn't remember how it ended, and i wasn't expecting the ending. Thanks for a great laugh. That was hilarious.

Aha, didn't realise they made them that small. Handy, literally.

Yeah there's quite a few of those smaller hand safes on the market. Some work by scanning and remembering your fingerprint others by a combo.


And, of course, good old Hickok has a vid on it too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1lPReo50uY

Yeah Hickok makes some good videos. Of all the makers of gun vids on youtube, Hickok is the most down to earth. He used to be a sheriff's reserve deputy i believe.

Good to see that this has been thought of, tbh, things like this should be provided with firearms purchases although no amount of safety provided to people for free or otherwise is going to stop those who are determined to be dumb.

What is included in ALL firearm purchases is a California gun lock, regardless if the gun was purchased in California or not. Looks something like this:
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2007/06/lockdown-gunlocks-04.jpg

In long guns, it's used to lock the breech open so the firearm in question can't be cycled. They aren't meant as a safety device so much as a means of legal transport, the idea being to make it so the firearm cannot be readily used. These locks are cheap, and aren't really much more then an annoyance if you have to use them, although they will keep the firearm inert to small children, and i did lock up all my firearms with this lock for grins and giggles before getting a safe. But it won't stop any child old enough to know what a set of bolt cutters is for.


Real men (http://jamesbond.wikia.com/wiki/James_Bond) use Walther PPKs :yep:

Yeah, I've used one. Can't say I was impressed. They're really more of a concealed carry pistol. I went to the range with my brother in law, a die hard James bond fan, and we rented one. He kept calling it "The James bond gun", and was all too terribly excited to shoot it. Sad to say, he wasn't impressed either, actually, he was disappointed. After all the movie hype, he expected more.

This is how I gun control:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=poSyC-UcgZg

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/4638/idpascoresheet.jpg

(My first IDPA Classifier)


Nice!

EDIT:

As to the recent news of the 5 year old accidently shooting his 2 year old sister, I have to agree that the kid was ENTIRELY too young for a .22 rifle. My father started me out with a BB gun, at age 9 or so. I didn't even touch a .22 until after I had learned with a bb gun.

[Tribesman]

As to the recent news of the 5 year old accidently shooting his 2 year old sister, I have to agree that the kid was ENTIRELY too young for a .22 rifle.
So you are in favour of firearm regulation then:hmmm:

[Ducimus]

Found a couple vids i thought were hilarious.

This guy, really hate's glock's.
I Hate Glocks: Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTEswkc4lPs)
I Hate Glocks: Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NA8hK32JRRw)

[Molon Labe]

Found a couple vids i thought were hilarious.

This guy, really hate's glock's.
I Hate Glocks: Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTEswkc4lPs)
I Hate Glocks: Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NA8hK32JRRw)

http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/28600000/Haters-Gonna-Hate-my-little-pony-friendship-is-magic-28633465-600-800.gif

[Sailor Steve]

This guy, really hate's glock's.
And you, really hate's grammer's.

Sorry, couldn't resist that one. :O:

[MH]

Found a couple vids i thought were hilarious.

This guy, really hate's glock's.
I Hate Glocks: Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTEswkc4lPs)
I Hate Glocks: Part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NA8hK32JRRw)

The vid is rubish yet creative.:haha:

[Bilge_Rat]

A Michigan father filmed himself practicing his right to open carry a .45-caliber handgun into his daughter’s school.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/michigan-dad-brings-gun-daughters-school-exercise-his-rights-video

...just exercising his constitutional rights...:-?

[Dowly]

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/michigan-dad-brings-gun-daughters-school-exercise-his-rights-video

...just exercising his constitutional rights...:-?

These videos are so damn stupid..

[Platapus]

Real men (http://jamesbond.wikia.com/wiki/James_Bond) use Walther PPKs :yep:


I am more a Walther PP fan.

Eventually, I bought a PPK and like the others, was less impressed. The PP is, in my opinion, equally concealable, but more accurate and with a better grip for stability.

I love my 7.65 PP. That is a nice shooting gun. :up:

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4701057487471715&pid=15.1&H=120&W=160

[mookiemookie]

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/michigan-dad-brings-gun-daughters-school-exercise-his-rights-video

...just exercising his constitutional rights...:-?

This is where we get the phrase "just because you can, doesn't mean you should." What an embarrassing jackass.

[Jimbuna]

I certainly wouldn't feel too happy if I'd had a kid at that school....lawful or not.

[Gerald]

7.65 Walther PP was in the Swedish police late eighties, only to be replaced by SIG SAUER.

[Tribesman]

What an embarrassing jackass.
Reminds me of that dumb soccermom who became the darling of gun nut weekly for a while.
I hope he doesn't meet the same fate she did.

[Oberon]

I hope he doesn't meet the same fate she did.

Governor of Alaska?

[Tribesman]

Governor of Alaska?
Nice one:har:

But it was this one
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,562102,00.html

[Jimbuna]

LOL :hmmm:

[Nippelspanner]

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/3-different-cases-brothers-shooting-little-sisters-3-days

...would not have happened if the victims would have been armed too. Self protection and all that...

Well, I think we all here agree on one thing, no matter on what 'side' one is: Guns and kids don't match :down:

[August]

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/3-different-cases-brothers-shooting-little-sisters-3-days

...would not have happened if the victims would have been armed too. Self protection and all that...

Well, I think we all here agree on one thing, no matter on what 'side' one is: Guns and kids don't match :down:

That is too simplistic. I earned my Boy Scout Rifle Shooting merit badge at age 11 and I managed not to shoot anyone. Neither have millions of other Scouts before and since.

The real cause of those tragedies is unsupervised children left around unsupervised weapons that have not been made safe. A failure of the parents.

Failure to clear a firearm of ammo after leaving the range or the woods.
Failure to employ a device like a trigger lock or a chamber blocker.
Failure to secure the firearm where kids can't get at it .

With freedom comes responsibility and the adults who shirked their responsibility should be punished, more.

[Nippelspanner]

An object that can kill as easily as a gun does, does not belong in kids hands.

[August]

An object that can kill as easily as a gun does, does not belong in kids hands.

A perfectly fine attitude to take,... with your own kids.

Making such judgements for others however is another matter completely.

[Tribesman]

Failure to clear a firearm of ammo after leaving the range or the woods.
Failure to employ a device like a trigger lock or a chamber blocker.
Failure to secure the firearm where kids can't get at it .

But when you do all that you are defenceless when it comes to rapidly reacting to the ever lurking home invaders.

[Oberon]

But when you do all that you are defenceless when it comes to rapidly reacting to the ever lurking home invaders.

http://www.myfingerprintgunsafe.com/img/gun-safe.jpg

[Ducimus]

This is where we get the phrase "just because you can, doesn't mean you should." What an embarrassing jackass.

While I am a big proponent for our constitutional rights, I have never been a big fan of Open Carry, and you've pretty much taken the words right out of my mouth because that's how I feel about open carry. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. I understand what people who are open carrying are trying to achieve, because a person who is active in shooting sports, hunting, and firearms in general, yes, seeing someone carrying a firearm is quite normal. But for people not engaged in shooting sports, hunting, etc, it is anything but normal, if not alarming. So I don't think it's getting the results they think it does. I think the effect is quite the opposite by making gun owners look like fringe elements of society.


Still though, seeing someone carrying a firearm while in a department store or what not, is not normal regardless if your a gun owner or not. There is a place for open carry. Hiking perhaps, on a ranch, camping, outdoor recreational activities where your not near any major population center. Guns are often thought of as tools. As such, one does not go walking into a department store carrying a skillsaw, or wearing a tool belt and hard hat. You usually carry those things when your on a job site......





An object that can kill as easily as a gun does, does not belong in kids hands.

In my opinion, teaching your child about firearms is set in stages. The mistake I think some parents are making is they are going straight to the .22 long rifle, and skipping the BB or Pellet gun.

You start with an air rifle like a BB gun at say.... an age of 9 or 10 at the VERY earliest if not a few years or older (my opinion). They learn the basics and ingrain habits and such with that. When the child has shown maturity, and competency, THEN you progress to the .22 LR, or .410 shotgun.

There's probably far too many people out there who do not understand nor respect the .22LR It's the smallest and cheapest caliber of ammunition on the market. It looks weak, like something you'd see an an old time carnival shooting gallery. However the .22 in reality, is can be quite a deadly round, as it is my understanding that once it enters a body, it can bounce around, thereby causing more damage to internal organs. For a point of comparison, the bullets that come out of the much debated AR-15, are .22 caliber in diameter.

TLDR version: Parental responsibility. Start your kid with an F'ing BB gun. It's a matter of proper training. IMO parent's who's kids accidently shot someone is a reflection upon poor choices made by the parent, and the poor training they provided to their child.

[mookiemookie]

While I am a big proponent for our constitutional rights, I have never been a big fan of Open Carry, and you've pretty much taken the words right out of my mouth because that's how I feel about open carry. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. I understand what people who are open carrying are trying to achieve, because a person who is active in shooting sports, hunting, and firearms in general, yes, seeing someone carrying a firearm is quite normal. But for people not engaged in shooting sports, hunting, etc, it is anything but normal, if not alarming. So I don't think it's getting the results they think it does. I think the effect is quite the opposite by making gun owners look like fringe elements of society.


Still though, seeing someone carrying a firearm while in a department store or what not, is not normal regardless if your a gun owner or not. There is a place for open carry. Hiking perhaps, on a ranch, camping, outdoor recreational activities where your not near any major population center. Guns are often thought of as tools. As such, one does not go walking into a department store carrying a skillsaw, or wearing a tool belt and hard hat. You usually carry those things when your on a job site......


Good point. I'm not as anti-gun as some of my liberal bretheren, but doing something like this guy did just to be provocative and "in your face" is just hurting the cause. He does look like a loony and he's not accomplishing anything other than making all the other kids look at his kid and say "that's the one with the crazy dad." He clearly didn't consider that when he marched off on his stupid crusade. School is tough enough on kids. No need to make it harder.

[Stealhead]

There's probably far too many people out there who do not understand nor respect the .22LR It's the smallest and cheapest caliber of ammunition on the market. It looks weak, like something you'd see an an old time carnival shooting gallery. However the .22 in reality, is can be quite a deadly round, as it is my understanding that once it enters a body, it can bounce around, thereby causing more damage to internal organs. For a point of comparison, the bullets that come out of the much debated AR-15, are .22 caliber in diameter.



What makes .22 and similar size rounds so deadly is their combination of high velocity and small weight.When they hit soft tissue they tend to tumble because of the low mass of the bullet with a large amount of kinetic energy behind it.So they tend to tumble only due to the small mass they will "bounce" off of harder tissue and bone.

Your larger rounds like .223 and .214(5.56mm & 5.54mm) take the effect and multiply it several times only they dont bounce they either explode or ideally "key hole" and they have enough mass to rip a massive laceration into internal organs.Nasty stuff indeed back in 1980's in Afghanistan when Soviets forces started used the AK-74 in combat the Mujaheddin thought that the rounds it fired must have been poisoned because they did not appear to be causing very much damage externally but men where dying within a day or two before they could get professional medical aid.The reality was of course that the bullets had torn internal organs apart and it just took time to die.The excruciating pain that fighters hit by 5.45mm rounds displayed must have of course added to the belief that the bullets where some how poisoned.

The Soviet/Russian 5.45mm has a special air pocket in its tip to increase it chances of expansion and improve the key hole effect it actually takes advantage of a loophole in the Hauge convention that bans hollow point and expanding rounds but the 5.54mm (5N7) cheat it because they have a solid tip.I have actually seen guys laugh at how small 5.45x39mm is my neighbor laughed at my rounds then I showed him this and he stopped laughing (5.45x39mm is the top one notice that it caused a cavity twice this is a US Army wound chart for doctors)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/RussianWP.jpg



You forgot about the .17 round currently the smallest mass produced caliber.

[Bilge_Rat]

All bullets will tumble when entering the human body, although all at different rates, even different types of 7.62mm or 5.56 mm ammo will differ.

To simplify, a round which hits a body will generally do one of three things:

1. go straight through. This is called a through and through wound and usually causes the least damage, depending on where it hits;

2. tumble. This causes more damage; or

3. shatter. This usually causes the most damage.

Generally a softer bullet is more likely to shatter, but it generally does not carry as far and may have trouble penetrating protective clothing, so there is always a compromise involved.

Incidentally, that is the theory behind the "double-tap", namely if you fire two bullets, the odds are very high that at least one will tumble and cause a serious wound.

[Madox58]

This is called a through and through wound and usually causes the least damage, depending on where it hits;


That's about the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen posted about a T&T!

A T&T, depending on round fire, distance to impact, and round type, can be the most devastating hit one could ever take.

At close combat ranges the smaller rounds are used for the tumble effect.

At distance? You want a heavy round for the shear impact it puts on target.

A .22 round will hit target at great distances.
The .50 cal makes sure that target is blown nearly in half at the same distance.

Last time I fired a .50? It didn't tumble. It was T&T!

I forgot to ask him what he wanted to be hit with.

[Bilge_Rat]

I was not talking about all rounds, I was talking about military 7.62mm/5.56 mm.

a straight through shot will enter and leave the body leaving just a small hole, obviously if it hits a bone or major organ or shatters, that is a different story.

It is more of an issue with a new type of 5.56 mm ammo. There has been criticism that it is not as effective as the older round.


Combat operations the past few months have again highlighted terminal performance deficiencies with 5.56×45mm 62 gr. M855 FMJ. These problems have primarily been manifested as inadequate incapacitation of enemy forces despite them being hit multiple times by M855 bullets. These failures appear to be associated with the bullets exiting the body of the enemy soldier without yawing or fragmenting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO

some have theorized that this is caused by the fact that Taliban fighters are malnourished and very thin, so the 5.56 mm ammo tends to go through as a clean through and through.

most of the damage caused by 5.56 ammo comes from tumbling and/or shattering inside the body.


There has been much criticism of the allegedly poor performance of the bullet on target, especially the first-shot kill rate when the muzzle velocity of the firearms used and the downrange bullet deceleration do not achieve the minimally required terminal velocity at the target to cause fragmentation.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO#cite_note-woundinginfo-23) This wounding problem has been cited in incidents beginning in the Vietnam War, first Gulf War, Somalia, and in the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The change of the original 1 in 14 inch barrel twist rate of the AR15 to the 1 in 12 inch barrel twist rate in the M16 and XM16E1, resulted in greater long range accuracy and better bullet stability. However, it also resulted in making the bullet less likely to tumble on impact with soft tissue. Much of the spectacular wounding ability of the original AR15 in the Vietnam War was on account of the 1 in 14 twist and the bullets tendency to tumble and possibly also fragment after impact. In recent lab testing of M855, it has been shown that the bullets do not fragment reliably or consistently from round-to-round, displaying widely variable performance. In several cases, yawing did not begin until 7–10 in of penetration. This was with all rounds coming from the same manufacturer.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO#cite_note-woundinginfo-23) This lack of wounding capacity typically becomes an increasingly significant issue as range increases (e.g., ranges over 50 m when using an M4 or 200 m when using an M16) or when penetrating heavy clothing, but this problem is compounded in shorter-barreled weapons. The 14.5 inches (37 cm) barrel of the U.S. military's M4 carbine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_carbine) generates considerably less initial velocity than the longer 20" barrel found on the M16, and terminal performance can be a particular problem with the M4.


The original russian made 7.62x39mm rounds used in Vietnam in AK-47s were too stable, they tended to go straight through and through and cause only a small wound:

Although the new cartridge represented a great leap forward from previous designs, the initial bullet design was flawed. The complete solidity of the M43 projectile causes its only drawback—it is very stable, even while traversing tissue. It begins to yaw (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaw_angle) only after traversing nearly 26 cm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centimetre) (10 in (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inch)) of tissue.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62%C3%9739mm#cite_note-uthr.org-4) This greatly reduces the wounding effectiveness of the projectile against humans. These wounds were comparable to that of a small handgun round using non-expanding bullets. Unless the round struck something vital, the wound was usually non-fatal, small and quick to heal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62%C3%9739mm#Chinese_steel_core

[MH]

That's about the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen posted about a T&T!

Is he?
.... bringing in the 12.7 mm browning is a bit out of place here dont you think.:03:

[Madox58]

Reading stuff is totally different from actually seein what a round does to the human body.

It's the main reason a .22 is used for close up wet work.
A behing the ear shot with a .22 at close range will allow that round to bounce off the skull and usually circle around and exit very near the entry point depending on the angle of the entry.

That destroys the brain sack.

In combat situations? The malnutrition is not a proven fact. I'd suspect many who died in Vietnam would even argue it if they could!
I'd even go so far to say BS on that type theory!

Now, given we're talking about Gun control? IF I used a .22 for home defense? I want as many rounds as I can pack into a weapon as at that range it would be a T&T for most hits.
So your theory works there.

[Madox58]

Is he?
.... bringing in the 12.7 mm browning is a bit out of place here dont you think.:03:

Well if one wants to talk misconceptions? How out of place is it really?
And as far as the thread topic? It's Gun Control.
That .50 cal may or may not be accessable to me at this time.
Should the unknowing have thier way? I may not have access to it unless I become a criminal.

[Bilge_Rat]

Reading stuff is totally different from actually seein what a round does to the human body.

It's the main reason a .22 is used for close up wet work.
A behing the ear shot with a .22 at close range will allow that round to bounce off the skull and usually circle around and exit very near the entry point depending on the angle of the entry.

That destroys the brain sack.

In combat situations? The malnutrition is not a proven fact. I'd suspect many who died in Vietnam would even argue it if they could!
I'd even go so far to say BS on that type theory!

Now, given we're talking about Gun control? IF I used a .22 for home defense? I want as many rounds as I can pack into a weapon as at that range it would be a T&T for most hits.
So your theory works there.

so you think you know more about wound ballistics than the U.S. military?

now that is ridiculous. :ping:

[Madox58]

The U.S. Military is known to use what is provided to them by decisions from above.
:haha:

The M-16 was a piece of junk at first introduction during Vietnam!
And has anyone counted with facts how many Troopers died because of that POS?
Wonder who made money on that deal!
:hmmm:

And YES! I have experience with all versions of the M-16 ever released to field troopers!

Military weapons, as issued, are not subject to newest attempts to limit Guns in the U.S.
The act of 1968 pretty much fixed that issue.

And as to my qualifications during service and the years since?
I can not disclose that type information.
I might be telling tall tales.
Then again?
I may be the boogie man.
:03:

I do travel alot.

[Bilge_Rat]

this on the malnutrition part:


Though early M855 experiments showed the round fragments well in the lab, more recent testing has been showing inconsistent fragmentation. Partially because of the complex construction of the round, M855 has widely-variable yaw performance, often not yawing at all through 7-8" or even 10" of tissue. Testing has shown large batch-to-batch differences in yaw performance even from the same manufacturer, and given the number of plants manufacturing SS-109-type bullets, fragmentation performance is very difficult to predict. This is complicated by the low velocity implicit in using M855 out of the short barreled M4 platform.


Interesting, few of these reports seem to be coming from troops 20" or SAW platforms. It would seem that the additional velocity from the longer barrel provides adequate usable fragmentation range for M855 in the majority of cases. From shorter barrels, such as the M4's 14.5" barrel, M855's fragmentation range varies from as much as 90m to as little as 10m, which frequently isn't enough range.

From Dr. Roberts:

"Combat operations the past few months have again highlighted terminal performance deficiencies with 5.56x45mm 62 gr. M855 FMJ. These problems have primarily been manifested as inadequate incapacitation of enemy forces despite their being hit multiple times by M855 bullets. These failures appear to be associated with the bullets exiting the body of the enemy soldier without yawing or fragmenting. This failure to yaw and fragment can be caused by reduced impact velocities as when fired from short barrel weapons or when the range increases. It can also occur when the bullets pass through only minimal tissue, such as a limb or the chest of a thin, malnourished individual, as the bullet may exit the body before it has a chance to yaw and fragment. In addition, bullets of the SS109/M855 type are manufactured by many countries in numerous production plants. Although all SS109/M855 types must be 62 gr. FMJ bullets constructed with a steel penetrator in the nose, the composition, thickness, and relative weights of the jackets, penetrators, and cores are quite variable, as are the types and position of the cannelures. Because of the significant differences in construction between bullets within the SS109/M855 category, terminal performance is quite variable—with differences noted in yaw, fragmentation, and penetration depths. Luke Haag’s papers in the AFTE Journal (33(1):11-28, Winter 2001) describe this problem."




http://www.ar15.com/ammo/project/term_m855yaw.html

[Madox58]

Doesn't matter what the report says.

Still useing that same M-16 since for ever.
And no concret plans to replace it service wide.

Engage at proper distance?
No one walks forwards after taking a round to the chest.

But it's like a torpedo. It don't arm till a certain distance is passed.

[Stealhead]

Doesn't matter what the report says.

Still useing that same M-16 since for ever.
And no concret plans to replace it service wide.

Engage at proper distance?
No one walks forwards after taking a round to the chest.

But it's like a torpedo. It don't arm till a certain distance is passed.


Indeed some rounds at certain ranges do not get the chance to tumble before they pass through and some rounds will not tumble ever.For example many pistol caliber rounds tend not to tumble.

At any rate I am sure the expert Bilgerat will prove you other wise it does not mean that he is correct.

If one searches they will find the reason that the M855 round (the US military version of the SS109) round has issues is because it was designed with a ceramic plate body armor wearing WARSAW Pact solider in mind.Against an unarmored target it maintains higher velocity and is not slown down enough to effectively tumble.Several ballistics experts ran test years ago when the SS109 was still in development and raised concerns.Fuuny that the Dr. that wrote that report said that Taliban fighters where malnourished most people I know that fought them said that they where pretty healthy well where pretty healthy prior to bullets such caused them to expire.

The US military now uses M855A1 rounds which do not rely on yaw to cause wounding which shatters your claim Bilgerat that every bullet tumbles (yaw) is 100% incorrect.

[Bilge_Rat]

The US military now uses M855A1 rounds which do not rely on yaw to cause wounding which shatters your claim Bilgerat that every bullet tumbles (yaw) is 100% incorrect.

No you are wrong, I was talking about the existing design, pay attention.

The M855A1 is designed specifically to engage targets at longer ranges like you find in Afghanistan. It is designed to have a flatter trajectory. Whether it will cause as much damage to humans is another story.

ammo design is a tradeoff, you can design for a long range or you can design for maximum damage, very hard to do both.

[mookiemookie]

Lovely conversation. How to maim and kill someone most efficiently with a given caliber of ammo.

[Jimbuna]

Lovely conversation. How to maim and kill someone most efficiently with a given caliber of ammo.

Agreed but not a problem as long as civility is maintained.

[Ducimus]

Hey, if you look at history, there is one thing man kind does REALLY well throughout the ages, and that's coming up with new and more efficient ways to kill each other. I wonder when we'll have "Phase plasma rifles in a 40 watt range." :O: Give it a 100 years or so, i'm sure someone will come up with it.

[Madox58]

Lovely conversation. How to maim and kill someone most efficiently with a given caliber of ammo.
Not pretty, I agree.
However, given that many reports issued by one side or another are slanted and based only on some study doesn't change the facts observed in the field by the people that depend on what they are given to defend themselves.

Given a home invasion HAS happened in my home?
And my step-son and a friend of his were transported to a distant hospital after that invasion?

I'm real interested in any attempts to change current Laws.
I'm also interested when information is posted as a fact that one has not observed up close and personnal.

Sure it may have been a 'study' by some group.
Most of those are under controlled situations so do not reflect 'real world' situations.

I tend to think that since the U.S. trooper is STILL issued a weapon from back in the Vietnam era using the same basic round?
It must do it's job pretty well.

Is it perfect? No way no how!
I'd not even consider it for home defense here as at that range a .22 is just as bad.
Unless I have a 30 round clip in it.
Spray and pray mind you!

[August]

More sign that the anti-gun hysteria is unfounded.

http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/05/07/poll-americans-incorrectly-believe-gun-crime-on-rise?s_cid=rss:poll-americans-incorrectly-believe-gun-crime-on-rise

Data released Tuesday by the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics showed that the raw number of gun murders decreased from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011, a 39 percent drop. Non-fatal gun crimes decreased from 1.5 million in 1993 to 467,300 in 2011, a 69 percent decline. A report accompanying Pew's poll notes the per capita incidence of gun crimes decreased even more dramatically than the raw numbers suggest because the U.S. population grew during the past 20 years.
Between 1993 and 2010 there was a 49 percent drop in the per capita gun-related homicide rate, according to Pew. From 1993 to 2011 there was a 75 percent drop in the rate of per capita victimization by violent crimes involving a firearm, Pew said.


"The gun homicide rate in 2010 was the lowest it had been since [the] CDC began publishing data in 1981," Pew notes. In 2010 there were 11,078 gun homicides in the U.S., while nearly two-thirds of the 31,672 recorded gun deaths - a total of 19,392 - were deemed suicides.
Pew's poll was conducted March 14-17 with 924 adult respondents. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.

[Ducimus]

More sign that the anti-gun hysteria is unfounded.

http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/articles/2013/05/07/poll-americans-incorrectly-believe-gun-crime-on-rise?s_cid=rss:poll-americans-incorrectly-believe-gun-crime-on-rise


A Pew Research Center poll released Tuesday shows that a majority of Americans believes gun crimes increased over the past 20 years, despite a sharp drop in both gun murders and non-fatal gun crimes since 1993.

You'd never know that reading the major news outlets. They hype up everything for the ratings or whatever agenda their owners want them to push. CNN is really bad at this. They gin up EVERY gun related story they can find.

[August]

You'd never know that reading the major news outlets. They hype up everything for the ratings or whatever agenda their owners want them to push. CNN is really bad at this. They gin up EVERY gun related story they can find.

Nope, doesn't fit the pravda. Falling crime rates don't support increasing gun control.

[Tribesman]

From 1993 to 2011
Doesn't that cover the years from 1994-2004?
I wonder what change in firearm legislation there was which covers the major portion of the time period in question?

Nope, doesn't fit the pravda. Falling crime rates don't support increasing gun control.
Compared to gun nut pravda which sells daily scare stories about all the armed criminals you have to live in perpetual fear of.
Come to think of isn't that the flavour of pravda that harps on about violent crime increasing since 1993 as part of their make sure you grab more guns and cling to them agenda.:yep:

[Ducimus]

Holy crap, I just found one of the most well referenced articles on gun control ever. I'd repost it here, but this guy has so many references it would be an injustice to do so.

Pro-gun folks, this will probably be every argument you'd ever make. Anyone anti-gun should read this, if only to have a complete understanding of the debate.

I'll post some of it. It's a long read, but well presented, and thoroughly referenced throughout.

Snell: Waking the dragon — How Feinstein fiddled while America burned (http://www.iowastatedaily.com/opinion/article_1c144792-b36d-11e2-8ac6-001a4bcf887a.html)

Along with bombs and bombers, guns seem to be all the media wants to talk about these days. Death is sexy to our miscreant media, especially when people are killed on purpose. And when that happens, it’s all the newspapers and news stations will print and broadcast, in turn making these events appear worse than they are in reality.

To understand this, one need only look at the difference in coverage between the Texas fertilizer plant explosion, which killed at least 14 confirmed people and injured 200 more at the time of writing this, versus the coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing, which only killed three and injured a hundred others. Texas was on TV for a day, tops, while we’re still hearing about Boston and will for many weeks to come.

Where the media really didn’t care too much about the Texas incident, once a kid was killed at a race, the Boston bombing is now a foil for everything from gun control to immigration in the wake of Sandy Hook, with both sides of the political spectrum using it against the other. What about Texas, you ask? Nothing but crickets chirping from the mainstream media at the moment. Recent studies have shown that people who consume large amounts of mass media often feel more insecure, are less informed, or can’t distinguish between news and what passes as news, what with all the opinion you’ll find in news today.

But when it comes to something as deadly serious as guns and crime, Americans can’t afford the media hyperbole, misinformation and disinformation.

We have a lot of liberal columnists working for the Daily. As a conservative, I’m fine with that; they’re the ones who apply for the job, and conservatives usually don’t. Free market, baby, deal with it. But many of our liberal columnists are my friends, with whom I have spent time outside of work, too. And they, along with everyone else it seems, have an opinion about guns, as you can see by glancing through the last few weeks of the Daily’s Opinion section.

It’s been an eye-opening experience for me. As assistant opinion editor and friend, my columnists are important to me both professionally and personally. It’s all the more clear to me now after doing this job that people often opine a whole lot about stuff they don’t have any personal experience with or expertise on. Like guns.

Every time a gun issue comes up in conversation around Daily people or during a Daily editorial board meeting, opinion editor Michael Belding almost always tells me, “you should write a column about that!” I hesitate in doing so and have so far resisted the urge mostly; I wrote three gun-related columns back in 2011 and early 2012, and that was enough to brand me the “gun guy” by some folks who use such terms as epithets.

The desire of others for me to write gun columns is reasonable, though, and I understand it. I’m as much of a “gun expert” as you’re likely to find around here, so having me write about guns in the paper is perfectly rational. I won’t bore you with my “gun resume,” but suffice it to say that prior to coming to Iowa State in 2011, I made a living with firearms in one way or another for several years of my life, and have a few pieces of paper laying around that say I know a bit about them, too.

Today, however, I’m going to break my silence on the gun issue and speak out once more — and for the last time. This is my final column for the Iowa State Daily.

[Tribesman]

Well you don't have to read far to see the bull.

To understand this, one need only look at the difference in coverage between the Texas fertilizer plant explosion, which killed at least 14 confirmed people and injured 200 more at the time of writing this, versus the coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing, which only killed three and injured a hundred others. Texas was on TV for a day, tops, while we’re still hearing about Boston and will for many weeks to come.

Latest couple on Texas...why were there a lack of inspections, how can a company operate with only $1 million in public liability insurance, how can the storage have been so excessive, who zoned the plant, how common is this throughout texas and why is there such a lack of regulation and enforcement , who is picking up the bill for reconstruction, what criminal charges are due, does bankrupcy give indemnity, how many are still missing....not of course that the fertiliser plant makes it in the news as clearly all these questions only came up on the one day tops it was news:doh:

[Platapus]

I don't know what media you use, but the ones I read/watch carried the Texas accident for many days.

But of course, the Boston MURDERS will have more coverage than a Texas ACCIDENT. Why would you think it would be otherwise?

Do you really think that an industrial accident would garner more national coverage than multiple murders and maiming committed using Improvised Explosive Devices involving a man-hunt where an entire city was essentially shut down?

That should take a backseat to an industrial accident that is still under investigation?

Not everything is a conspiracy. :nope:

[Ducimus]

Didn't ready past the part i quoted did you? Typical.


This paragraph towards the end of the article, might apply to you.

We want the crime and killings to stop as much as you do, so to my fellow citizens who are anti-gun I say: So long as you deny our humanity, so long as you malign our dignity, intelligence and wisdom, so long as you seek to shade us under a cloud of evil that we do not partake in or support, so long as you tell us that because we own guns we are terrible people, you will prove yourselves absolutely right in that we won’t come to the table to talk with you.

EDIT:
As an aside, I don't agree with everything in that article, but a good portion of it, I think he is spot on.

[Onkel Neal]

Scrap yard owner fatally shoots trespasser in northeast Houston (http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=9091664)

Thought this would fit in here. Not sure what this phrase means:
According to investigators, he is sensitive about trespassers having been a target in the past.

Do they mean, "he is sensitive about trespassers, him having been a target in the past. "

Or sensitive about the trespassers who have been a target in the past.?

Well, in any case, I think he means it when he says no trespassing.

[em2nought]

Scrap yard owner fatally shoots trespasser in northeast Houston (http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=9091664)

burglar tools = public service
McDonalds should contact this guy too, they might want to call him instead of just showing up though. :D

[Tribesman]

Didn't ready past the part i quoted did you? Typical.

Epic fail.:woot:
The piece continues with some meadering rants, some outright lies, lots of misrepresentation, some links which don't support what he claims they show, a bit of pathetic nonsense about swimming pools, piles of blanket statements, all the typical meaningless buzz words doing the rounds, an unhealthy dose of victim complex together with a couple of godwins...
In short it is a typical piece that is all too common in that it is largely full of crap, no doubt someone can find typical pieces from the opposite camp that are also full of crap, but all that shows is both sides have people who are full of crap.
So in summary. It is not a well presented thoroughly referenced piece containing every arguement and does not show complete understanding at all...which someone claimed it was:hmm2:

[Platapus]

Scrap yard owner fatally shoots trespasser in northeast Houston (http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=9091664)


In my opinion, trespassing is not justification for shooting. Using lethal force should be a last resort, when every other option has been considered, when there is a direct and imminent threat to life or serious injury.

[Cybermat47]

Oh what is it what is it? Oh no not the necromancy! Not the necromancy! ARRRGH ugh bleurgh.
.
.
:dead:

[August]

Looks like we got us a Bot!

[Jimbuna]

Not any longer.

EDIT: Kind thanks to the person who reported the Bot (I've just seen the post report)...you know who you are :up:

[August]

Colorado ousts two gun ban legislators in recall election.

http://www.npr.org/2013/09/11/221223093/colorado-politician-loses-job-in-recall-over-gun-votes

Good for Colorado! Hickenlooper is next I hope.

[Bubblehead1980]

Colorado ousts two gun ban legislators in recall election.

http://www.npr.org/2013/09/11/221223093/colorado-politician-loses-job-in-recall-over-gun-votes

Good for Colorado! Hickenlooper is next I hope.

Great news:arrgh!:

[Tchocky]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_DnPwaEn8aGE/TJf09U9y_zI/AAAAAAAAK0s/s4WUL61wdVI/s320/broadway9.png

Shhhhh.

[Ducimus]

Colorado ousts two gun ban legislators in recall election.

http://www.npr.org/2013/09/11/221223093/colorado-politician-loses-job-in-recall-over-gun-votes

Good for Colorado! Hickenlooper is next I hope.

Awesome.

Another link with the poll results for anyone interested.
http://live.denverpost.com/Event/Colorado_Recall_Election_2013


Meanwhile in California, SB 374 is on its way to the governors desk to be signed into law. It basically redfines "assault weapon" as ANY semiauto centerfire rifle that accepts a detachable "feeding device", and also i think any centerfire rifle that can hold more then 10 rounds internally. Originally RIMFIRE was on this bill too. I guess they thought that was over reach. :shifty: Seriously, boil it down, and their saying any semi-auto rifle that holds more then 10 rounds. This technology has been around for a century now, WTF?

On and lets not forget how existing "assault weapons" are already handled by the Peoples Republic. They are all registered. You cannot sell them, you cannot gift them, and you cannot pass them down to a family member when you die. After your death, they are confiscated by the state. So by reclassifying all semi-auto's that hold more then 10 rounds or use detachable magazines, what you have is the largest gun ban and confiscation scheme ever devised by way of attrition.

I thought this video was interesting:
SB 374 California Assault Weapons Ban predictions. Buy now! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nv_hGPkKzmA)
That video just goes to show, gun owners are not just angry white males and rednecks living in trailers as sterotyped by the media and liberal progressives. Side note, I'm half Chinese. Just throwing that out there since i've been on the pro-gun lobby since last December.

[Tribesman]

So a politician loses their job on a 15% turnout, the law people object to stays on the books.
So much for the awesome great and good.:hmmm:

Anyway wasn't it something like 90% of Americans that support backround checks on gun sales, I suppose the remaining 10% mainly would be made up of criminals and the insane who wouldn't pass any check.

[Oberon]

Brains

[Ducimus]

Brains

Yeah I know, don't look at me though, I'm not the necromancer.
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m227/r4qh/Thread_NecroRD_zps7294668e.jpg

Although, here's the thing, would you rather gun control threads keep popping up, or have it all contained in one thread? This topic will come up, again, and again and again, because the anti-gun gun people will never, ever give up. Seriously, do you realize that as the senate come back early from recess to debate syria, Senator Murphy (D, CT) , was still throwing gun control out on the senate floor? Seriously, they are there to debate a possible war, and the pundits are still on gun control. That should tell you something.

[Oberon]

Yeah, at least it's in one thread. Still, I can't see anything happening to take away US guns, it's just too engrained in the US culture to ever succeed. Not unless you have some sort of mass civilian uprising which kills thousands, or something like that. The odd school shooting, whilst tragic, is not enough to cause that kind of change, but you're right, that's not going to stop the age old battle.

[Ducimus]

Yeah, at least it's in one thread. Still, I can't see anything happening to take away US guns, it's just too engrained in the US culture to ever succeed. Not unless you have some sort of mass civilian uprising which kills thousands, or something like that. The odd school shooting, whilst tragic, is not enough to cause that kind of change, but you're right, that's not going to stop the age old battle.

Well, as for taking away guns, they are trying awfully damn hard. Take a look at what is heading to the governors desk in california.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB374

It's the death by a thousand cuts metaphor really. Much of the time, California is the petri dish for gun control. Now combine that with Obama's executive order banning the reimportation of "military style arms". Basically, M1 Garands, M1 carbines, 1903 springfields, etc. No crime that I'm aware of has ever been commited with these rifles. They are mainly collectors pieces, pieces of history, certainly not "assault weapons" but, they're after those too. They take what they can get, and constantly chip away at it.

How much firearms are part of American culture really depends a lot on where you go. The easiest example is California. You combine a democratic super majority, with large metro's and you end up with a population that has the preconception that only crazy people, and criminals own guns; "normal" people don't.

Contrast that to most any "fly over state", and guns are quite normal. Living in california, If i went over to a inlaw's house and said, "Hey man, I got a new rifle! ", they'd probably look at me funny, like i was crazy or something. Living where I do now, I did tell an inlaw exactly that, and the response I got was, "Well, where is it?! You mean you didn't bring it with you?" After that jovial tongue lashing, I ended up driving home (all but 5 mins), and retrieving said rifle so my inlaw could see it. :roll:

[soopaman2]

Obama will be gone soon, and no democrat has a chance...

So his empirical edicts will be null.

Take it from a pro gun liberal. (oxymoron, or just a moron?)

American elections always seem to swing from 8 years of one extreme, to 8 years of another.

Why are guns such a popular target to attack, and not addressing where the bulk of the gun deaths stem from. Gang violence, from illeagal arms.

Take everyones guns does nothing, to stop thugs and drug dealers from gaining guns, it puts the legal owner at a disadvantage.

I went through classes to carry, what did Tyrone, and Jose do to carry? Bought it out a car trunk.

But the media never adresses that.

[Oberon]

Well, as for taking away guns, they are trying awfully damn hard. Take a look at what is heading to the governors desk in california.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB374

It's the death by a thousand cuts metaphor really. Much of the time, California is the petri dish for gun control. Now combine that with Obama's executive order banning the reimportation of "military style arms". Basically, M1 Garands, M1 carbines, 1903 springfields, etc. No crime that I'm aware of has ever been commited with these rifles. They are mainly collectors pieces, pieces of history, certainly not "assault weapons" but, they're after those too. They take what they can get, and constantly chip away at it.

How much firearms are part of American culture really depends a lot on where you go. The easiest example is California. You combine a democratic super majority, with large metro's and you end up with a population that has the preconception that only crazy people, and criminals own guns; "normal" people don't.

Contrast that to most any "fly over state", and guns are quite normal. Living in california, If i went over to a inlaw's house and said, "Hey man, I got a new rifle! ", they'd probably look at me funny, like i was crazy or something. Living where I do now, I did tell an inlaw exactly that, and the response I got was, "Well, where is it?! You mean you didn't bring it with you?" After that jovial tongue lashing, I ended up driving home (all but 5 mins), and retrieving said rifle so my inlaw could see it. :roll:

Yeah, but what flies in California will never fly in the...errr...'Fly over state' (where does that term come from?), the culture between the coast and inland is so radically different, as you've pointed out, not just in firearms but in many things, trying to impose a nationwide ban would likely fail because half the nation wouldn't agree with the other half.

[Ducimus]

..errr...'Fly over state' (where does that term come from?),

I can't say authoritively, but from my experience living in California, it's pretty much the countries interior. Anything between the West and East coast. I think it's more of a derogatory term then anything else, as it implies there is nothing worth seeing or doing there. Just same vast interior where nothing important resides. Something you fly over on your way to where there is something important. It really is a bit of a snobbish term, derived from snobbish attitudes.

edit:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fly-over%20state

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyover_country

[Tribesman]

Basically, M1 Garands, M1 carbines, 1903 springfields, etc. No crime that I'm aware of has ever been commited with these rifles.
Yeah right, lets take a famous one from your neck of the woods that made really big news to make you aware.
What gun did little miss Stockholm syndrome rob the bank with?

[August]

Yeah, at least it's in one thread. Still, I can't see anything happening to take away US guns, it's just too engrained in the US culture to ever succeed. Not unless you have some sort of mass civilian uprising which kills thousands, or something like that. The odd school shooting, whilst tragic, is not enough to cause that kind of change, but you're right, that's not going to stop the age old battle.

So you whine when there's a bunch of topics on the same subject and you whine when someone tries to keep it to one thread which BTW is already a several thread merge.

Apparently there's just no pleasing you foreigners.

[soopaman2]

So you whine when there's a bunch of topics on the same subject and you whine when someone tries to keep it to one thread which BTW is already a several thread merge.

Apparently there's just no pleasing you foreigners.

Ignore them August, as they have no bearing on what we want.

They cannot understand certain things, like our attachment to gun, due to the fact they lived all their lives thinking guns were bad.

I lived all my life shooting, and never thought once about turning my gun on a human unless it was in defense of my family. I never wanted to rob anyone, no impulses to murder, yet the legal gun owner is held in the same template as some gang member who buys out of a car trunk.

It is too hard to actually police criminals, they might have to give up the sitting in intersections with thier headlights off to catch speeder ticket revenue, than go after a gangbanger with a gun.

God forbid, they risk their lives, oath or no oath. It is all about the fat pension.

(edit: live one week where I live, I am sure most of you do not have to be careful on what color you wear when walking down the street)

[Oberon]

So you whine when there's a bunch of topics on the same subject and you whine when someone tries to keep it to one thread which BTW is already a several thread merge.

Apparently there's just no pleasing you foreigners.


Dang dem forners, gonna tek awae our goons :yep:

Yeah, at least it's in one thread. Still, I can't see anything happening to take away US guns, it's just too engrained in the US culture to ever succeed.

[soopaman2]

Dang dem forners, gonna tek awae our goons :yep:

What was the purpose of that?

Other than to mock August, and me, since I believe the same as him on this matter.

Your trollbait failed. You lack understanding on our culture, just as I lack understanding on your silly royal family.

I get killed for mocking your Princess on this board, yet you are allowed to smear our second amendment in the same way.

That's fine, I said that to make you realize we have cultural differences, and what you find rediculous, I can find as many things to find as silly, if not sillier.


No guns in your country, so the tabloids run wild with Duchess stories, and King willy feelgood crap, and how messesd up we are for not being complete tools to the government.

[August]

Dang dem forners, gonna tek awae our goons :yep:

No thank God that's not very likely to happen, apparently much to the chagrin of several foreign members of this forum. You will just have to deal with us talking about it incessantly. :salute:

[Tribesman]

Ignore them August, as they have no bearing on what we want.

You won't be saying that when the UN are walking down the streets grabbing the gunz.


They cannot understand certain things, like our attachment to gun, due to the fact they lived all their lives thinking guns were bad.


You should have quit while you were behind. You display that you have no clue what you are talking about again.:down:

No guns in your country
might I suggest you go to Bisley in his country to get some shooting?
Its rather popular old chap dontcha know.

[soopaman2]

might I suggest you go to Bisley in his country to get some shooting?
Its rather popular old chap dontcha know.


They won't let me bring my ar-15, and ak-47 on the plane, otherwise I would try.:D

No malice intended, just us Americans are hardheaded, you all know that. :)

We want our rights and have been watching things get yanked away from us, that is why we howl.

[Oberon]

No thank God that's not very likely to happen, apparently much to the chagrin of several foreign members of this forum. You will just have to deal with us talking about it incessantly. :salute:

You'll talk us all to death before we can take them. :O: :03:

[Ducimus]

They cannot understand certain things,

Mostly likely of course not. Different country, different cultural norms. But it doesn't help any of us to be antagonistic about it. (August.. just sayin' man) The best thing we can do is help them understand by laying out our case in a rational manner and not look like the stereotypes that are pushed by the anti-second amendment crowd.

[August]

But it doesn't help any of us to be antagonistic about it. (August.. just sayin' man)

I was just joking with Oberon which I am sure he knows.

[Oberon]

I was just joking with Oberon which I am sure he knows.

Took me a moment, but I got there. :03:

[August]

You'll talk us all to death before we can take them. :O: :03:

All part of the secret plan. :)

[soopaman2]

I was not being malicious I do not think, I pointed out cultural differences.

You find guns silly, I find royal family silly.

You can critisize me on my views, as much as I could yours, culture, which the other cannot understand.

No malice intended, just pointing out how culture and upbringing can change opinions, based on how it effects you personally.


Man if Brits were armed, I bet your government wouldn't try half the crap it did.

If Americans were unarmed they would have done twice the crap to us than they did.

[Tribesman]

You find guns silly
Way off the mark again Soopa.
I like guns, I like shooting, I just find gun nuts silly.
Big difference isn't it.

which the other cannot understand.

I am afraid you are making a huge leap of very faulty logic there.

[CaptainHaplo]

The best thing we can do is help them understand by laying out our case in a rational manner and not look like the stereotypes that are pushed by the anti-second amendment crowd.

Sadly Ducimus, neither foreigners nor the anti-second amendment crowd seem swayed by cold, hard facts. Let's look at our friends across the pond in Great Britain.

England basically "banned" the ownership of handguns in 1997. They made it excessively difficult to own one legally.

In 2001 - the BBC reported that in the following 2 years (all the data that was had at the time), the use of handguns during crimes INCREASED by 40%.

The largest increases - were in the areas where there were less legally owned guns. Those areas with the (still) highest legal gun ownership showed much less increase. In other words - criminals committed a lot more crimes where they knew that the victim was more likely to me unarmed...

Documented, cold, hard facts that gun control does not stop gun crime....
But that doesn't stop the anti-gun lobby.

Sources:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1334043/Gun-crimes-soaring-despite-ban-brought-in-following-Dunblane.html
and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm

[soopaman2]

Why bother explaining?

Same as them trying to explain Why Kate Middleton is a duchess, and us not laughing halfway through the sentence. While we love guns, while they fear them. I am sure you mock the Kardashians,

Culture.

We agree to find each other silly.

We are, different, despite the age of the internet.

No hatred intended, just understand culture when you make your gun judgements.

[Tchocky]

I'm not from the US and therefore my brain hurts looking at numbers.

Guess I'll go back to communism and enforced homosexuality.

:roll:

[Oberon]

Sadly Ducimus, neither foreigners nor the anti-second amendment crowd seem swayed by cold, hard facts. Let's look at our friends across the pond in Great Britain.

England basically "banned" the ownership of handguns in 1997. They made it excessively difficult to own one legally.

In 2001 - the BBC reported that in the following 2 years (all the data that was had at the time), the use of handguns during crimes INCREASED by 40%.

The largest increases - were in the areas where there were less legally owned guns. Those areas with the (still) highest legal gun ownership showed much less increase. In other words - criminals committed a lot more crimes where they knew that the victim was more likely to me unarmed...

Documented, cold, hard facts that gun control does not stop gun crime....
But that doesn't stop the anti-gun lobby.

Sources:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1334043/Gun-crimes-soaring-despite-ban-brought-in-following-Dunblane.html
and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm

Well do bear in mind that unlike the States, the hand-gun isn't a national symbol, or deeply imbedded in our culture, so naturally there's not much of an emphasis on repealing a ban. Shotguns would probably cause an uproar because of their use in the countryside area and on grouse shooting and such, so they'll never be banned. But a hand-gun has no real history or meaning for us, so after a primary school full of young kids got shot up there was little objection to banning them, and although it's done sod all to gun crime figures, we have so far not had another Dunblane. Whether that's to do with better mental health care than the US or the handgun ban, I couldn't say, but you're probably more likely to be stabbed than shot here. Guns for show, knives for a pro as the saying goes. :-?
But there's a big old thing in the US, at least from this perspective there is, about the gun, I mean you could say that the nation was pretty much founded on the gun, so it has a much bigger meaning than it does in the UK or much of Western Europe, or indeed much of the world for that matter.
It's a part of American social history, perhaps not so much on the coastal regions, but certainly in the central and central south.
So, yeah, it does confuse us Europeans a bit when this intense fear and terror of your own government radiates across the Atlantic, we might not trust our governments but we've found them so incompetent that there's little to fear from them, particularly when our armed forces have one tank per Corps, so there's not so much of that panic and fear, except perhaps in Germany. So, that confuses us, well, it confuses me anyway, and I find it a little sad that so many people seem to live their lives in fear of something that they have very little control over. :hmmm:

[razark]

Yeah right, lets take a famous one from your neck of the woods that made really big news to make you aware.
What gun did little miss Stockholm syndrome rob the bank with?
An Iver Johnson commemorative shotgun? (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2027448&postcount=110)

[soopaman2]

I'm not from the US and therefore my brain hurts looking at numbers.

Guess I'll go back to communism and enforced homosexuality.

:roll:


Uhh, you are more american than ya think if you like those things..:O:

[eddie]

Gun permits for Blind People!?! You got to be kidding me!!

What next, give them drivers license too! I'm not trying to pick on them because of their disability, just that this doesn't seem to have been thought through. I would not want to be around if someone who is blind starts shooting because they feel threatened!

http://news.msn.com/us/gun-permits-for-the-blind-create-divide-in-iowa

[August]

I'm not trying to pick on them because of their disability

Sounds to me like that's exactly what you're trying to do. You advocate denying people their constitutional rights solely because of a physical impairment. Pure discrimination.

[Ducimus]

Well do bear in mind that unlike the States, the hand-gun isn't a national symbol, or deeply imbedded in our culture, so naturally there's not much of an emphasis on repealing a ban.

I wouldn't say any handgun is a national symbol on our part. We do however have at least a couple iconic handguns that the argument could be made are cultural items. The colt single action army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Single_Action_Army) (aka "Colt Peacemaker" your classic cowboy gun), and the Colt 1911 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1911_pistol) (used in some form in every major conflict of the 20th century ) immediately come to mind.


But there's a big old thing in the US, at least from this perspective there is, about the gun, I mean you could say that the nation was pretty much founded on the gun, so it has a much bigger meaning than it does in the UK or much of Western Europe, or indeed much of the world for that matter.
It's a part of American social history, perhaps not so much on the coastal regions, but certainly in the central and central south.


I agree with you, but as you say, not everyone here does. One thing to keep in mind is our country is nowhere near as old as yours, and it's commonly accepted beginning or birth is with the American Revolutionary War. We have plenty of iconic imagery of the common man, rifled musket in hand, off to defend his farm, family, and his freedom. I think because our nation is still a young nation comparatively, the iconic imagery invoked from this period is still deeply etched into our culture. Some places more then others.

So, yeah, it does confuse us Europeans a bit when this intense fear and terror of your own government radiates across the Atlantic

I also think (and this is just my opinion mind you) its because our national roots start with a revolutionary war against a government thought tyrannical; , that Americans, generally speaking, have to some degree, an intrinsic distrust have government.

[nikimcbee]

Guess I'll go back to communism and enforced homosexuality.


In 'merika, we call this "kali-fornia."

[Tchocky]

I also think (and this is just my opinion mind you) its because our national roots start with a revolutionary war against a government thought tyrannical; , that Americans, generally speaking, have to some degree, an intrinsic distrust have government.

I understand this, I just find it strange that it hasn't really happened elsewhere to the same extent.

My own country fought a similar violent war fro independence. Less than a hundred years ago.

[Oberon]

I wouldn't say any handgun is a national symbol on our part. We do however have at least a couple iconic handguns that the argument could be made are cultural items. The colt single action army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Single_Action_Army) (aka "Colt Peacemaker" your classic cowboy gun), and the Colt 1911 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1911_pistol) (used in some form in every major conflict of the 20th century ) immediately come to mind.

The M1911 also comes to mind to me...I believe it was made the national symbol of Utah last year, if I remember correctly. Nothing wrong with that at all, only earlier myself and my mother were talking about firearms and the old Colts, they were very good weapons. :yep: I'd say though, out of all the firearms in American history, when people think of America, they think of the SAA because of the classic Western films. So it's a national identity I suppose, even if it's not seen that way internally.


I agree with you, but as you say, not everyone here does. One thing to keep in mind is our country is nowhere near as old as yours, and it's commonly accepted beginning or birth is with the American Revolutionary War. We have plenty of iconic imagery of the common man, rifled musket in hand, off to defend his farm, family, and his freedom. I think because our nation is still a young nation comparatively, the iconic imagery invoked from this period is still deeply etched into our culture. Some places more then others.

In a way, in Europe, we have that imagery with the sword, I think if you were to put a new shiny long sword and a new SAA down together on a table and ask people to come in and take a look, I think many Europeans would probably examine the sword first. In fact, if you listen to the lyrics of this song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na0SyJScrQo
(Lyrics - http://mainlynorfolk.info/martin.carthy/songs/thedominionofthesword.html)
Then you notice that if you replace sword with gun then you have a lot of similarities with modern life, and this was a song first written in Europe in the 17th century during the English Civil War. Even now there's medieval and renaissance fairs, so I guess whilst America was founded on the gun, Europe was founded on the sword and arrow.
Obviously, being only a fragmentary part of Europe (the UKs status as a part of Europe varies on who you ask in Europe and the UK :haha:) I could very well be wrong, but certainly here in the UK it seems that way.

I also think (and this is just my opinion mind you) its because of our national roots start with a revolutionary war against a government thought tyrannical; , that Americans, generally speaking, have to some degree, an intrinsic distrust have government.

I would agree with you, from what I have seen at least, and you have to bear in mind that my understanding of America comes primarily from this site and the occasional BBC article. I haven't interacted with that many Americans since most of them left this area in the early 1990s.
It's a healthy thing to distrust a government, but the fear and in some cases almost a paranoia that can be seen, it is a tad worrying. I guess the internet probably hasn't helped things in that regard, for example, before the internet the conspiracy theories around 9/11 would most likely have been limited to books, the odd magazine and maybe a VHS, the audience level would have been quite small...but now on the internet thousands if not millions are exposed to every theory under the sun, backed up by videos, interactive graphics, pages and pages of text, and it's so readily available to us through search engines.
Either way, the tone of the world, it has changed so much since 2001, not just in America but the whole globe has gone from a sort of cheerfulness and hope for the new millenium, into bitterness, fear and despair. No longer are Utopian fiction popular but Dystopian, rather then good news, we are drip-fed bad news because that's what sells media. Is it little wonder that so many people who have time to think about the current world become depressed?


I'm sorry, that kind of fell off the topic a little there...just something I've had on my mind since re-watching footage of 9/11 today and reading the various threads in GT, and remembering life before the whole world knew the name Al'Qaeda.

[Tribesman]

Sadly Ducimus, neither foreigners nor the anti-second amendment crowd seem swayed by cold, hard facts. Let's look at our friends across the pond in Great Britain.

England basically "banned" the ownership of handguns in 1997. They made it excessively difficult to own one legally.

In 2001 - the BBC reported that in the following 2 years (all the data that was had at the time), the use of handguns during crimes INCREASED by 40%.

The largest increases - were in the areas where there were less legally owned guns. Those areas with the (still) highest legal gun ownership showed much less increase. In other words - criminals committed a lot more crimes where they knew that the victim was more likely to me unarmed...

Documented, cold, hard facts that gun control does not stop gun crime....
But that doesn't stop the anti-gun lobby.

Nothing like cold hard facts eh:haha: can you explain what the figures are for the following years?
Do they INCREASE or decrease?
If the CAPSLOCK delivers a fail then your point is invalid for what it is trying to claim.

Why bother explaining?

Same as them trying to explain Why Kate Middleton is a duchess, and us not laughing halfway through the sentence. While we love guns, while they fear them. I am sure you mock the Kardashians,

Culture.

We agree to find each other silly.

We are, different, despite the age of the internet.

No hatred intended, just understand culture when you make your gun judgements.
An explaination might be helpful.
But Soopa the reason you can't actually explain anything is because you don't understand your own or any other culture, you repeat the very same mistake in topic after topic.
You get very basic fundamentals completely wrong then build all your arguments on that flawed foundation.

@Razark No, because that isn't one of the firearms Ducimus said wasn't used by criminals.
Should be easy enough, after all it was a very big story with some big pictures of her robbing a bank with a gun that isn't used in crimes:03:

[soopaman2]

Nothing like cold hard facts eh:haha: can you explain what the figures are for the following years?
Do they INCREASE or decrease?
If the CAPSLOCK delivers a fail then your point is invalid for what it is trying to claim.


An explaination might be helpful.
But Soopa the reason you can't actually explain anything is because you don't understand your own or any other culture, you repeat the very same mistake in topic after topic.
You get very basic fundamentals completely wrong then build all your arguments on that flawed foundation.

@Razark No, because that isn't one of the firearms Ducimus said wasn't used by criminals.
Should be easy enough, after all it was a very big story with some big pictures of her robbing a bank with a gun that isn't used in crimes:03:

Oh but tribesman I explained very well, I can't explain? lols, no I did a fine job of explaining.

You failed in understanding.

You do not understand American reasoning, nor do I expect you to.

Reading the second amendment does not let you understand it, unless you lived it,.

I do not pretend to understand your take on royalty. Culturally we are different.

I do not understand my own culture? Maybe you are ignorant to ours to insult me so. I understand why Euros are turned off, as they have been banned since ww2 in most countries, but America lived by the gun, we got our independance from the gun.

I tried to be open minded, and nice....

You get the jerk from here on out on the gun topic. Take my guns if you can....

DON'T TREAD ON ME!

[Stealhead]

It was a sawn down M1 carbine with a 30 round magazine a favored weapon of the SLA and many street gangs at one time.

[RickC Sniper]

Gun permits for Blind People!?! You got to be kidding me!!

What next, give them drivers license too! I'm not trying to pick on them because of their disability, just that this doesn't seem to have been thought through. I would not want to be around if someone who is blind starts shooting because they feel threatened!

http://news.msn.com/us/gun-permits-for-the-blind-create-divide-in-iowa

If I were blind and lived alone, I'd want to own a handgun.

[Sailor Steve]

If I were blind and lived alone, I'd want to own a handgun.
"Dad! Don't shoot! It's your daughter!"

"Are you sure?"

[August]

There's a vast difference between "blind" and "vision impaired" like what the article is really about.

[CaptainHaplo]

Well do bear in mind that unlike the States, the hand-gun isn't a national symbol, or deeply imbedded in our culture, so naturally there's not much of an emphasis on repealing a ban.

I do understand. The US was founded on an armed rebellion by the populace against its government of the time. So yes, it is ingrained in our culture where it is not in others.

Shotguns would probably cause an uproar because of their use in the countryside area and on grouse shooting and such, so they'll never be banned.

Interesting point - especially because of the next sentence.

But a hand-gun has no real history or meaning for us, so after a primary school full of young kids got shot up there was little objection to banning them, and although it's done sod all to gun crime figures, we have so far not had another Dunblane.

If you mean another "mass school shooting" - then your right. If you meant another mass shooting regardless of location, then I would differ.
Specifically, the Cumbria shooting spree of June 2, 2010 in which 12 people were killed and 11 injured. 33 victims, over half of which died, definitely qualifies as a mass shooting. It is interesting to note that the perpetrator in that shooting used both a shotgun and a rifle - neither of which caused any push to ban them after the tragedy.

Guns for show, knives for a pro as the saying goes. :-?

And as we say in the US: "Never bring a knife to a gunfight." Definitely different perspectives.

But there's a big old thing in the US, at least from this perspective there is, about the gun, I mean you could say that the nation was pretty much founded on the gun, so it has a much bigger meaning than it does in the UK or much of Western Europe, or indeed much of the world for that matter.
Exactly right.

I find it a little sad that so many people seem to live their lives in fear of something that they have very little control over. :hmmm:

That is the thing - as long as so many of us make it a concern - there is a LOT of control that we do have over it. It is this fact that makes an armed citizenry a danger to an oppressive government - and why keeping our 2nd amendment rights are so important.

[Tribesman]

Oh but tribesman I explained very well, I can't explain? lols, no I did a fine job of explaining.


I am afraid you didn't


You failed in understanding.

I understand exactly what you are saying, what you are saying is completely flawed


I do not pretend to understand your take on royalty. Culturally we are different.

That's a good one. :haha:
What is my take on royalty?


Reading the second amendment does not let you understand it, unless you lived it,.

Absolute nonsense.



I do not understand my own culture? Maybe you are ignorant to ours to insult me so. I understand why Euros are turned off, as they have been banned since ww2 in most countries, but America lived by the gun, we got our independance from the gun.

Sorry, in that you just demonstrate how wrong you are several times and very obviously


I tried to be open minded, and nice....

You get the jerk from here on out on the gun topic. Take my guns if you can....

DON'T TREAD ON ME
Now you sound like a spoilt child taking his football home because the game wasn't going his way.

[Tribesman]

It was a sawn down M1 carbine with a 30 round magazine a favored weapon of the SLA and many street gangs at one time.
An easy example wasn't it Steelhead, it makes you wonder how someone could have made that claim in the first place.:up:

[Tribesman]

I do understand. The US was founded on an armed rebellion by the populace against its government of the time. So yes, it is ingrained in our culture where it is not in others.


Which others? armed rebellion isn't unique to the US.

If you mean another "mass school shooting" - then your right. If you meant another mass shooting regardless of location, then I would differ.
Specifically, the Cumbria shooting spree of June 2, 2010 in which 12 people were killed and 11 injured. 33 victims, over half of which died, definitely qualifies as a mass shooting. It is interesting to note that the perpetrator in that shooting used both a shotgun and a rifle - neither of which caused any push to ban them after the tragedy.

Yes, it instead called for stricter backround checks and tighter enforcement.
Same as the sensible call would have been after Dunblane and Hungerford.

[Aktungbby]

Which others? armed rebellion isn't unique to the US.


Yes, it instead called for stricter backround checks and tighter enforcement.
Same as the sensible call would have been after Dunblane and Hungerford.
Let's not forget Norway!

[Ducimus]

The M1911 also comes to mind to me...I believe it was made the national symbol of Utah last year, if I remember correctly.

State symbol, as opposed to a national symbol. Each of the states have their own symbology. State flower, state fish, what have you. Utah is probably one of the few (if not the only) states to adapt a handgun as a state symbol (it is however, not it's only state symbol). The designer, John Moses Browning was from Utah, which i think is seen as a point of pride, and the driving force behind adopting the 1911 as one of the states symbols.

Nothing wrong with that at all, only earlier myself and my mother were talking about firearms and the old Colts, they were very good weapons. :yep: I'd say though, out of all the firearms in American history, when people think of America, they think of the SAA because of the classic Western films. So it's a national identity I suppose, even if it's not seen that way internally.

Yeah, it is a classic. I know I wouldn't mind owning one.




In a way, in Europe, we have that imagery with the sword, I think if you were to put a new shiny long sword and a new SAA down together on a table and ask people to come in and take a look, I think many Europeans would probably examine the sword first. In fact, if you listen to the lyrics of this song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na0SyJScrQo
(Lyrics - http://mainlynorfolk.info/martin.carthy/songs/thedominionofthesword.html)
Then you notice that if you replace sword with gun then you have a lot of similarities with modern life, and this was a song first written in Europe in the 17th century during the English Civil War. Even now there's medieval and renaissance fairs, so I guess whilst America was founded on the gun, Europe was founded on the sword and arrow.
Obviously, being only a fragmentary part of Europe (the UKs status as a part of Europe varies on who you ask in Europe and the UK :haha:) I could very well be wrong, but certainly here in the UK it seems that way.

Yeah I remember you mentioning swords before. Front what i've seen in the media, it looks like "saumarui swords" and other long blades are banned in the UK, and I never really understood that. I mean, are people running down the street with swords skewering each other? Of course, here in the US we have all types, for good and bad. You might find this interesting, if not entertaining:

Man with samurai sword chases off alleged stalker who attacked woman (http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=24910973)

A sword? REALLY? That is so unusual for here, that its an oddity in the news.




I would agree with you, from what I have seen at least, and you have to bear in mind that my understanding of America comes primarily from this site and the occasional BBC article. I haven't interacted with that many Americans since most of them left this area in the early 1990s.

Another thing that just occurred to me on our cultural engrain with firearms, is not just the revolutionary period, but the westward expansion. We do have this sordid tale of our Indian wars/uprisings, manifest destiny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny), frontier pioneers, and all that sort of thing, and is probably very unique to America. While this portion of our history is not really just about guns, guns do play their part, it's a portion of our history that I think has left an enduring mark in our national culture. If your at all curious, i highly recommend watching this series:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_West_%28documentary%29

It's not a flowery exposition of red white and blue BS. It really shows it for how it was. At least where our treatment of the indians is concerned. My wife and I both learned quite a bit watching it.


No longer are Utopian fiction popular but Dystopian, rather then good news, we are drip-fed bad news because that's what sells media. Is it little wonder that so many people who have time to think about the current world become depressed?

We do seem to have a hardon for the end of the world don't we?

[Oberon]

State symbol, as opposed to a national symbol. Each of the states have their own symbology. State flower, state fish, what have you. Utah is probably one of the few (if not the only) states to adapt a handgun as a state symbol (it is however, not it's only state symbol). The designer, John Moses Browning was from Utah, which i think is seen as a point of pride, and the driving force behind adopting the 1911 as one of the states symbols.

Oh yeah, it is state rather than national, I mean if I had to pick a national symbol for the US it would probably be the Eagle, certainly that's the one that is used the most in the US, but the gun is also pretty far up there, as a national object.


Yeah I remember you mentioning swords before. Front what i've seen in the media, it looks like "saumarui swords" and other long blades are banned in the UK, and I never really understood that. I mean, are people running down the street with swords skewering each other? Of course, here in the US we have all types, for good and bad. You might find this interesting, if not entertaining:

Man with samurai sword chases off alleged stalker who attacked woman (http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=24910973)

A sword? REALLY? That is so unusual for here, that its an oddity in the news.
Made the news here too! :yep: Good on him, I say.

We have had a few sword stabbings here, like I say, you're more likely to be stabbed than shot in the UK.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/dec/24/man-arrested-attacking-samurai-sword

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/two-men-held-over-city-sword-attack-29562852.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9831819/Sword-gang-were-like-a-pack-of-dogs-as-they-stabbed-16-year-old-to-death-in-central-London.html

Knife amnesties work from time to time, the hauls they get from knife bins can be quite impressive, but considering that, unlike guns, knives are kitchen utensils as well as a weapon, there can never be a full ban. Police officers wear stab vests now, which helps, but it's still risky stuff.

That's not to say that gun crime isn't an issue, but it probably takes second place behind knife crime.

Katanas and their life (Samurai swords as they're often called) are probably the most popular because a) they're cool looking and seen in films like Kill Bill, and b) they're a bit easier to use than a long sword and do more damage. Gunny did a good comparison once:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDkoj932YFo

(and a rebuttal has been posted in reply to that clip here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZNoBTDR9kY )

Personally, my taste runs towards European swords, but that's probably to do with my location rather than any form of practicality.

There's archery too, which is some pretty awesome stuff, but that's another subject entirely, and I must admit, archery based crime is not exactly a subject in the UK, probably something to do with it being a bit hard to hide a bow. :haha:

Another thing that just occurred to me on our cultural engrain with firearms, is not just the revolutionary period, but the westward expansion. We do have this sordid tale of our Indian wars/uprisings, manifest destiny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny), frontier pioneers, and all that sort of thing, and is probably very unique to America. While this portion of our history is not really just about guns, guns do play their part, it's a portion of our history that I think has left an enduring mark in our national culture. If your at all curious, i highly recommend watching this series:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_West_%28documentary%29

It's not a flowery exposition of red white and blue BS. It really shows it for how it was. At least where our treatment of the indians is concerned. My wife and I both learned quite a bit watching it. I will have to check that out one day, I remember doing that time period in GCSE history, there was a large relief map of the US in the classroom, I remember looking over it and marvelling at just how many places called 'Greenville' you have in America. :haha:
But yes, it was a dark time and yet a time of brave and hardy people, and to be honest, if the expansion hadn't taken place as the United States of America, it most likely would have taken place in the name of the Thirteen Colonies or by the Crown. Once the technology was available to support it, expansion would have been inevitable. Just as it happened with the Spanish in South America.

We do seem to have a hardon for the end of the world don't we?Don't we just? Funnily enough I attended a panel with novellists who had written apocalypitic novels and it asked the question why 'End of the world' stories had become so popular, and there was an American author there too, really nice chap, Peter V. Brett his name was, and he spoke about how life had changed since 9/11, and how things had gotten darker in literature, film and television, but also about how there's so many parts of the "SHTF" scenario that appeals to people, especially those who are stuck in the machine like embrace of modern living. It's a bit like the Artilleryman in H.G. Wells's classic novel 'The War of the Worlds', they see the end of the world as not a tragedy but as an opportunity to change their lifestyle and shape a future of their making.
Of course, if the S really did HTF, most of the people who feel that way would probably find themselves the first to get screwed. :dead:

[Sailor Steve]

Just an addition to the "State symbol" discussion: The M1911 is Utah's official State Firearm. John Moses Browning was born in Ogden, Utah and was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS, aka Mormon). He not only designed the M1911 pistol, but also the .50 caliber machine gun and the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) of WW2 fame. So yeah, he's a local hero. :sunny:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Browning

[Ducimus]

Just an addition to the "State symbol" discussion: The M1911 is Utah's official State Firearm. John Moses Browning was born in Ogden, Utah and was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS, aka Mormon). He not only designed the M1911 pistol, but also the .50 caliber machine gun and the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) of WW2 fame. So yeah, he's a local hero. :sunny:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Browning


Yup. I just assumed everyone knew what enduring firearms Browning made so I didn't bother to go into it. Browning is practically synonmous with those firearms, not to mention the HiPower. I'd love to own a HiPower, its funny how they are not as popular, yet was a design improvement over the 1911.

EDIT:
@ oberon, interesting video's thanks. I had no idea there was a civilian (and i'm assuming a military, havent watched all of the second vid yet) version of the longsword. That first video by The Gunny must have really ruffled some feathers over there.

[Oberon]

EDIT:
@ oberon, interesting video's thanks. I had no idea there was a civilian (and i'm assuming a military, havent watched all of the second vid yet) version of the longsword. That first video by The Gunny must have really ruffled some feathers over there.

The old European swords vs Katanas debate has been going on for years I think, probably as long as the swords have been around! :haha: I think both weapons have their merits and problems, and both are quite obviously the result of a completely different historical and religious situation, between Christianity in Europe and Buddhism in Japan, which lead to chivalry and bushido respectively. Certainly the lifestyles of the Samurai in Japan and Knights in Europe were quite different, however whereas the knights of Europe died out with the era of gunpowder, that era didn't reach Japan until Perry and his 'black ships' which completely knocked Japan sideways. This perhaps may go to explain the brutality of Japanese soldiers in the Pacific war as they fought in a style that most other civilized nations had stopped doing so some three to four hundred years earlier.
Just goes to show that isolationism - not always a good thing. :03:

[Ducimus]

Back on topic:


Colorado Recall: Abuse Of The Democratic Process (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H8yofV86Is) (youtube, 6:08 mins)

[Dread Knot]

This perhaps may go to explain the brutality of Japanese soldiers in the Pacific war as they fought in a style that most other civilized nations had stopped doing so some three to four hundred years earlier.
Just goes to show that isolationism - not always a good thing. :03:


Under traditional Japanese bushido, captives were to be treated with mercy. Surrender was common during the 1868-1869 Boshin Civil War that established the modern Japanese Empire. Japanese conduct during the Russo-Japanese War of 1905 and the First World War was also fairly honorable and professional.

It was not until after the First World War that the Japanese Army started to twist Bushido into a more brutal code. Apparently, seeing itself as disrespected by the Allied Powers in terms of territory awarded, and in the post-war naval disarmament treaties it was thought that more martial spiritual values would be needed to make up for material deficiencies. However, it was the often guerilla like nature of the endless war in China that really starting warping Japanese sensibilities. Often heavily outnumbered, the Japanese turned to ever higher levels of brutality to win territory and keep it won.

[Oberon]

Under traditional Japanese bushido, captives were to be treated with mercy. Surrender was common during the 1868-1869 Boshin Civil War that established the modern Japanese Empire. Japanese conduct during the Russo-Japanese War of 1905 and the First World War was also fairly honorable and professional.

It was not until after the First World War that the Japanese Army started to twist Bushido into a more brutal code. Apparently, seeing itself as disrespected by the Allied Powers in terms of territory awarded, and in the post-war naval disarmament treaties it was thought that more martial spiritual values would be needed to make up for material deficiencies. However, it was the often guerilla like nature of the endless war in China that really starting warping Japanese sensibilities. Often heavily outnumbered, the Japanese turned to ever higher levels of brutality to win territory and keep it won.

Aaah, thanks for clearing that up, I did wonder how Bushido went from the chivalry of its day to the horrific thing that occurred in WWII.

[Takeda Shingen]

Under traditional Japanese bushido, captives were to be treated with mercy. Surrender was common during the 1868-1869 Boshin Civil War that established the modern Japanese Empire. Japanese conduct during the Russo-Japanese War of 1905 and the First World War was also fairly honorable and professional.

It was not until after the First World War that the Japanese Army started to twist Bushido into a more brutal code. Apparently, seeing itself as disrespected by the Allied Powers in terms of territory awarded, and in the post-war naval disarmament treaties it was thought that more martial spiritual values would be needed to make up for material deficiencies. However, it was the often guerilla like nature of the endless war in China that really starting warping Japanese sensibilities. Often heavily outnumbered, the Japanese turned to ever higher levels of brutality to win territory and keep it won.

Absolutely right. The irony is that traditional bushido placed great importance on the arts, literature and general learning, as well as codified rules of conduct and martial action. The goal was to gentrify the warrior class. The reality of politics in feudal Japan necessitated keeping relatively large numbers of armed men around. However, there would be major problems in having a bunch of swordsmen running around your city drinking and getting into all sorts of trouble. Bushido was used to turn their 'off-time' efforts to painting, music, reading and writing, as well as give them codified rules for martial practice and resolving of disputes.

The 'neo-bushido' of the Japanese militarists in the 1880's was about the opposite. The concept of death for the emperor, never surrendering and whatnot were designed to increase ferocity in battle. It was a decidedly Shinto approach, opposed to the Confucian and Buddhist overtones of traditional bushido.

EDIT: And, as Oberon noted, this was precisely the same problem that feudal European rulers faced. This lead to the occasionally-followed codes of chivalry in their effort to stem the problems of armed men with too much time on their hands.

[soopaman2]

Couldn't a samurai behead a commoner for not bowing to them under Bushido code? Or even on a whim?

I do not think the brutality was new.

(defeated enemies also killed themselves if left to live, in shame, in that culture.)

Enemies were commoners to them, to step on as they please.

Kinda makes a case for the nuke, no matter how much they try to guilt trip us today.

[Stealhead]

Couldn't a samurai behead a commoner for not bowing to them under Bushido code? Or even on a whim?

Negative ghost rider.If you kill the guy that grows your rice then you have no rice and with no rice you have nothing.Farmers where the highest of the peasant class but they would not have gone around cutting of any peasant noggins.

[Takeda Shingen]

Couldn't a samurai behead a commoner for not bowing to them under Bushido code? Or even on a whim?

No. Samurai were not permitted to murder people for disrespect or no reason at all. Kind of bad for a lord trying to keep order. You may have seen too many movies.

[soopaman2]

Thanks guys, I stand corrected.

*bows*

[Oberon]

Contemporary, pre-emptive bump.

[eddie]

Contemporary, pre-emptive bump.

Trying to prepare us for the onslaught Oberon?:D (look at that, I spelled your name right this time,lol)

[Oberon]

Think of me as the man who puts up the railings for the queues at large events. :03: Not that I personally imagine this particular incident will cause much in the way of backlash, dead adults are harder to sell than children, although the repetition about a woman being 'shot in the face' was a good attempt. Also, like Hood, it's a military facility, guns are to be expected, even if legislation was brought in, so outside of Jones and company, I can't see this one gaining any traction. But, that's not going to stop the usual suspects from the usual back and forth, so I figured I'd might as well sweep the floor and tidy up the cushions a bit in case we need to use this thread in the coming days. :03:

[Ducimus]

Ok Oberon, here ya go:

(CNN) Opinion: Gun control is not the answer (http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/17/opinion/granderson-gun-control-fail/index.html)

I am surprised to see a thoughtful article out of that particular news source on this particular subject. Usually it's just more rehetoric. Some people over there might actually be starting to wise up.