Gun Control thread (merged many)

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by August

Is that your professional opinion?

Just remember that this is a lever action that, judging by the tube length, holds maybe 15-20 rounds of 22LR and it can be adapted for a bunch of different calibers too. Then there's the .12ga shotgun as backup. It's a more capable weapon than it's looks may imply.

Well, I don't know about professional, but it's an opinion, I'll give it that.
It's a very adaptable weapon, the range of rounds it can fire is very impressive, but it looks like a single shot/reload function, although I might be wrong and you might be able to load multiple rounds.

Originally Posted by Aktungbby

Correct! and the proper technique as with my single shot Sharps or trapdoor Springfield is to hold two extra rounds between the last two fingers of the trigger hand...in anticipation of a quick reload. Robert Redford amply demonstrates the technique in Out of Africa in the lion hunt scene with his double barreled rifle. Saves fumbling around in a clutch. I wish I owned that double barreled rifle! $100K and up these days if it's a Purdy!

Sounds like a throw-back to the old bow and arrow technique, but in the post-Winchester era the speed difference between a single-shot and a repeating rifle is fairly big. I mean, even between lever action and automatic, if you look at the difference in the amount of rounds that a Garand and a Lee Enfield can put down field in the space of a few minutes.
Interesting form of weapon though, I honestly had never heard of a double-barreled rifle until now, must sacrifice a bit of long range accuracy but in the situation that Redford is in then it works well, much like the double barrel shotgun which is more lethal the closer to it you are.

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

I hope I put this in the right thread ... gun control is about guns too.

But this gun is very unique, even a blind man (pun) could use this gun.



all you need is a shooting vest with a pocket full bullets along with the optional adapter. Would this be legal to carry folded up in the trunk of the car?

There was a gun shop on TV out of Carlsbad, California (near Oceanside, California which is the US Marine base) that offers to sell you machine guns that are disassembled and it is legal.

Then they show you how to assemble the same gun they just sold you.

I think this thread was more about the contentious issue of gun control in the United States rather than an appreciation of firearms themselves. We have two other threads for that:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=205808

And

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=204019

Although the former is a bit more serious than the latter which was started as an expression of exasperation at the number of seperate gun threads which were started around that time.

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Thats why I prefer to keep a semi-auto handy in case the police cannot respond fast enough to an active shooter situation.

That's fair enough, and is your right as an American citizen. Although one does have to wonder that if you're pointing a gun and shooting when the police show up, which person do they shoot?

[Aktungbby]

if you look at the difference in the amount of rounds that a Garand and a Lee Enfield can put down field in the space of a few minutes.

AHHH you English and your 'Mad Minute"; 300 yards is about it actually.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_minute

[August]

Originally Posted by Oberon

It's a very adaptable weapon, the range of rounds it can fire is very impressive, but it looks like a single shot/reload function, although I might be wrong and you might be able to load multiple rounds.

I was thinking it was a tube fed given that it has a lever action. I guess it could be just for looks?

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by August

I was thinking it was a tube fed given that it has a lever action. I guess it could be just for looks?

I think so, according to the link antikristuseke posted it's a single shot system and the butt just acts as storage rather than a feeding device.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by August

I was thinking it was a tube fed given that it has a lever action. I guess it could be just for looks?

I gave a link to the manufacturers website with their information on the firearm. I hope they know what they manufacture and according to them it is not a lever action.

[Betonov]

The lever could be the release for the folding mechanism.

[Sailor Steve]

Continued from the 'Terrorist Attack In South Carolina' Thread:

Originally Posted by Oberon

I think this is where between America and the rest of the world there is the vital disconnect. There's not many other countries out there that have such a fear of government, bordering in some cases on paranoia.

We've already side-stepped from another tragedy to another gun control argument. I'd like to side-step a little further, into other reasons why the United States and other countries don't always understand each other. We are currently commemorating the 100th anniversary of the First World War, and a new thread has been started observing the 75th anniversary of the Battle Of Britain. One of the things I've encountered from various Europeans of my acquaintance over the years is a mild animosity towards the United States over our reluctance to get involved in either of those wars until rather late in the game. In one case it was more than mild, tending towards outright condemnation. I had to explain and remind that our Revolution was against British actions, yet we always faced the reminder that we were still British ourselves. This meant maintaining a hostility toward our closest relatives while holding court with our traditional enemies. The fact that the closest of those enemies (France) was also our greatest help during our break with Britain might have made a difference, but then we had to face a new France that had killed the royalty and nobility who had helped us and set up a new, supposedly democratic but in actuality truly tyrannical government, which was itself soon replaced by an outright dictatorship.

Where all of this led was to our first president, after having allied himself with the British against the French, which cause trouble for the next two administrations, finished his second term with an admonishment that "... nothing is more essential than that permanent inveterate antipathies against particular Nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded; and that in place of them just & amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated."
-George Washington, Farewell Address, 1797

In fact after breaking the ties with France formed in 1778 the United States did not enter into another formal military alliance until the creation of NATO in 1949. Many of us consider the alliances that led to World War 1 to be the perfect justification for our reluctance to do the same.

This is often classified by Americans as blind obedience to governments, whereas others would classify it as a form of trust.

The basic concept in America is that the government has no rights. Any power granted to the government is done so by the people. If you trust the government so much that you give up your freedoms to them, what do you do in the case where the government does indeed turn tyrannical and decides to take the rest? No trust should ever be placed in the government. It should serve the people, and never the other way around.

I would ponder though, since 1787, how many times the US government has legitimately earned that distrust? Not just in a way that would upset those of a particular political leaning, but an active lurch into an area that the populace did not want it to go.

A good question. The answer would seem to be none, which could be said to imply that our distrust is wrong. On the other hand it could be said to imply that

A) The people in charge of the government are themselves distrustful, and are careful to keep it that way, or

B) The government is careful not to earn that distrust because they've see what happens when we don't like the way the government treats us.

Many times people in the US will state that gun control is the first step into a tyrannical, dictatorial government...

Possibly, possibly not, but without an armed citizenry what is to keep that from happening? As people have also stated in the US, the Second Amendment is what makes the First Amendment possible. Like the other, that is a trite homily, but there is also some truth behind it. If your leaders stated tomorrow that no books could be published without direct permission from Parliament, what could anyone do about it?

completely ignoring the relaxation of gun control in Nazi Germany.

I read that article, and it is more than a little biased. The author mentions the disarming of the Jews, but justifies it with the point that very few of them were armed anyway, and their handful of guns was of no help in Warsaw and they may have even made it worse. My objection to that is that the author implies that they shouldn't have tried at all. The gun-rights advocate would point out that if they had all been armed it might have been a different story. I will only point out that while it is true that the Nazis did relax gun control, they only did so for the "right" people. The also disarmed the populace of the countries they conquered and occupied.

Of course the author of the article is a gun-control advocate. The problem there is that every article arguing the other side is also a highly biased gun advocate site. There seems to be no one willing to look at both sides of the question and seek honest answers.

...and this is logical, but one could argue that there are plenty of other ways to curb a peoples freedom than removing firearms, and in that respects there are some nations that it could be argued have greater freedoms in areas than the US has but who practice firearm regulation in a stricter manner than the US.

It could also be argued that those greater freedoms are granted by the government, and are in place only so long as the government continues to grant them.

It's something that's going to come to a head there at some point in the future, and it could, legitimately, lead to civil strife.

One can only hope that some equitable solution is found before that happens.

And now I've stayed up way past my bedtime, and I have to go crash.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Continued from the 'Terrorist Attack In South Carolina' Thread:


We've already side-stepped from another tragedy to another gun control argument. I'd like to side-step a little further, into other reasons why the United States and other countries don't always understand each other.

Firstly, thank you for replying over here, I imagine you might need to prune and bring across other comments as time goes on because it's inevitable that this shooting has brought up the gun control question.

We are currently commemorating the 100th anniversary of the First World War, and a new thread has been started observing the 75th anniversary of the Battle Of Britain. One of the things I've encountered from various Europeans of my acquaintance over the years is a mild animosity towards the United States over our reluctance to get involved in either of those wars until rather late in the game. In one case it was more than mild, tending towards outright condemnation.

Secondly, an apology from me on behalf of Europe for the treatment you received in that regard. Whilst I believe that it can be used as a tool to rib America with, I certainly do not think that it's something that can be used as condemnation. America had her reasons for entering the wars when she did, and certainly in the case of the Second World War, Roosevelt did everything he could, short of actual declaration in order to help keep the Allies afloat before Germanys declaration of war on America.
I think people tend to forget the lend lease supplies, certainly in Western Europe, but I know that Russia has never forgotten, and it's a shame that there are such enmities between East and West again at the moment because there's a debt of gratitude there for both the lend-lease equipment and the men (such as Jimbunas father) who delivered it.

I had to explain and remind that our Revolution was against British actions, yet we always faced the reminder that we were still British ourselves. This meant maintaining a hostility toward our closest relatives while holding court with our traditional enemies. The fact that the closest of those enemies (France) was also our greatest help during our break with Britain might have made a difference, but then we had to face a new France that had killed the royalty and nobility who had helped us and set up a new, supposedly democratic but in actuality truly tyrannical government, which was itself soon replaced by an outright dictatorship.

I think that the United States of America is possibly one of the few nations who has faced a revolution that did not involve major loss of life amongst its own people. Not immediately at least. France underwent the reign of terror, Russia had civil war and purges, it's one of the things that has always tempered my left leanings and made me cautious of the people that call for revolution. They're always rather vague about what will replace the status quo.

Where all of this led was to our first president, after having allied himself with the British against the French, which cause trouble for the next two administrations, finished his second term with an admonishment that "... nothing is more essential than that permanent inveterate antipathies against particular Nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded; and that in place of them just & amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated."
-George Washington, Farewell Address, 1797

It's a wise move, really, honestly a move of self-preservation, since Europe of that time, and the century before and after it, was a place of war and rival nations. It always bemuses me (if that's the right word) that we are now in the longest period of peace in Europe since the days of the Roman Empire.
Besides, America of the early 1800s was still focusing inward, expanding west, dealing with the Native American situation, straightening out borders with Mexico and British Canada. The last thing you'd want to do is to get involved in a European war. Of course, that didn't stop you from winding up in one in 1812, but that, really I think was a case of tying up matters left over from the War of Independence.

In fact after breaking the ties with France formed in 1778 the United States did not enter into another formal military alliance until the creation of NATO in 1949. Many of us consider the alliances that led to World War 1 to be the perfect justification for our reluctance to do the same.

Perfectly understandable, and, honestly, for a nation such as America, you have the luxury of being able to consider isolation as an option, even though it eventually does lead to not inconsiderable problems. We once, perhaps, could have felt the same back when we had our considerable colonial holdings, but as a small island nation now, we are sadly lost in reminiscing about our past with delusions of grandeur. It's one of the reasons I'm in support of the EU, the nations of Europe are insignificant on their own now, the people we once sneered at as 'backward' have overtaken us, it took them longer because they were geographically larger, but they did it, and now western Europe can only consider itself relevant as a unified force.

The basic concept in America is that the government has no rights. Any power granted to the government is done so by the people. If you trust the government so much that you give up your freedoms to them, what do you do in the case where the government does indeed turn tyrannical and decides to take the rest? No trust should ever be placed in the government. It should serve the people, and never the other way around.

Now this is the meat of the matter. Yet, I think that people will give up certain freedoms depending on how they are asked to do so. Now, something like the Second Amendment is too big a thing to tackle in any particular way, you can chip away at it, and slowly sleepwalk a country into it. Just as an act such as the PATRIOT act was passed through with begrudging acceptance as necessary because of 9/11 and the new threat of terror. Benjamin Franklin called it years ago, and I'm sure I don't need to repeat the quote.
Now, you make an important point in the last sentence of your paragraph there, A government should serve the people and never the other way around. I fully agree with this, completely. However, there are a lot of problems in how much a government can help and serve the people without in turn people serving the government. It is, I believe, a two-way street. In this particular example, surely it is the role of the government to help reduce domestic terrorist attacks on its people? However, the government would face a quandary, as indeed it does, in how to do such a thing while preserving the second amendment. Catch-22.
One day someone might come up with an answer to that question, and they'll probably be made President. I hope it isn't me that thinks of the answer.

A good question. The answer would seem to be none, which could be said to imply that our distrust is wrong. On the other hand it could be said to imply that

A) The people in charge of the government are themselves distrustful, and are careful to keep it that way, or

B) The government is careful not to earn that distrust because they've see what happens when we don't like the way the government treats us.

A sceptical mind in regards to government is a healthy thing, but I think that the US is fast approaching the point where technology is going to make that approach to keeping tyrannical government in check a thing of the past. Once it was safely assumed that if a government went tyrannical that the military would split and that the defenders would at least have the aid of some military force in the inevitable war.
However, as the military moves towards a robotic force requiring less manpower to operate a similar amount of destructive potential, then a tyrannical government would have little to fear of its people.
Earlier in this exact thread I posed the question of how much effectiveness an AR15 would pose against a Predator drone at 15,000 ft.
As technology goes on and machine replaces man in the military, small amounts of people are going to wield a lot of power, and it will only take the loyalty of these people in order to rob the public of a defensive army.
I dare say there would be compromises, it certainly wouldn't go all the governments way, but as Harvs pointed out, it has been a very long time since the Second Amendment was written, and I think that the part of it that retains to protecting the American people against a tyrannical government needs to be re-examined closely in light of new technology.

Possibly, possibly not, but without an armed citizenry what is to keep that from happening? As people have also stated in the US, the Second Amendment is what makes the First Amendment possible. Like the other, that is a trite homily, but there is also some truth behind it. If your leaders stated tomorrow that no books could be published without direct permission from Parliament, what could anyone do about it?

One would hope that such a leader would be swiftly removed by parliament, or indeed by Her Majesty herself. There are some checks and balances in our political system in order to prevent the rise of tyranny, however the disconnect between the elite in Westminster and the general public as well as the complete mess that is the 'First Past the Post' voting system does show that it's not perfect and I think that in the next century or two there's going to be problems from that.

Ultimately, in both our nations, power lies in the military rather than in the people. They are the ones that, whilst not controlling all the guns, do control the big guns, the tanks, the jets, the helicopters and the drones.
When the people rose up in Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood was elected into power, it was the military that removed them and put into power a government of their own, and it's the military that has spent its time since then systematically rounding up and arresting as many Muslim Brotherhood and former Mubarak ministers as it can.

I read that article, and it is more than a little biased. The author mentions the disarming of the Jews, but justifies it with the point that very few of them were armed anyway, and their handful of guns was of no help in Warsaw and they may have even made it worse. My objection to that is that the author implies that they shouldn't have tried at all. The gun-rights advocate would point out that if they had all been armed it might have been a different story. I will only point out that while it is true that the Nazis did relax gun control, they only did so for the "right" people. The also disarmed the populace of the countries they conquered and occupied.

Yeah, I do apologise for the bias, it was the first article I came across whilst googling for that particular situation. I do see where you're coming from in regards to the Jewish resistance, and indeed you can see that the French did put up a good resistance of their own. Ultimately though, it needed the backing of the Allied army to achieve its goal of a free France.

Of course the author of the article is a gun-control advocate. The problem there is that every article arguing the other side is also a highly biased gun advocate site. There seems to be no one willing to look at both sides of the question and seek honest answers.

That is the sad truth there. Too many people shout at each other rather than listen.

It could also be argued that those greater freedoms are granted by the government, and are in place only so long as the government continues to grant them.

It can be truthfully argued indeed.

One can only hope that some equitable solution is found before that happens.

Likewise, it would be a very sad day for the world if America were to undergo a Second civil war.

And now I've stayed up way past my bedtime, and I have to go crash.

And I, almost time for me to crash into bed too. It's always a pleasure to discuss these things with you, and a learning experience too.

[Von Tonner]

I have to say, given how extremely strict it is to buy and own a gun in SA - one could almost say the opposite in extreme to USA where one can buy a gun through the mail - we still land up second to the USA in gun related deaths.

http://businesstech.co.za/news/gover...-in-the-world/

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Secondly, an apology from me on behalf of Europe for the treatment you received in that regard.

If you're talking about my personal experiences, don't worry about it. I've always found it odd that some people can carry hostility over events that took place before they were even born. I'm talking about a couple of odd individuals who have their own skewed visions of history. I doubt either of them ever bothered to pick up a book, let alone a dozen, and explore what really happened and why.

...it's one of the things that has always tempered my left leanings and made me cautious of the people that call for revolution. They're always rather vague about what will replace the status quo.

Very true. I try to remind people that while, as John Adams said later, "The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people..."
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/l...ms-to-h-niles/

In fact the shooting only started with that whole Lexington/Concord thing. Even that has its debating points, as the colonials perceived the move to be an infringement of their rights while the Governor saw himself as trying to curtail a dangerous threat. Did he see himself as a tyrannical dictator? I would say almost certainly not.

Of course, that didn't stop you from winding up in one in 1812, but that, really I think was a case of tying up matters left over from the War of Independence.

That is a great example of what can happen when hotheads collide. As usual the British had already apologized for the impressments, and always returned the American sailors when it was proven that they were indeed from our side of the pond. It was the Americans this time who made a mistake, and we're lucky we came out of it the way we did.

A government should serve the people and never the other way around. I fully agree with this, completely. However, there are a lot of problems in how much a government can help and serve the people without in turn people serving the government. It is, I believe, a two-way street. In this particular example, surely it is the role of the government to help reduce domestic terrorist attacks on its people? However, the government would face a quandary, as indeed it does, in how to do such a thing while preserving the second amendment. Catch-22.

I agree. What seems obvious to one side is obviously wrong to the other. If we can't look into the private lives of our citizens it's impossible to tell if they are potential terrorists. On the other hand the government looking into our private lives is the biggest thing we don't want.

In the gun control debate both sides have good and valid points. Neither side wants to admit that the other may have something worthwhile to say. It's true that if all guns are removed from society it becomes impossible for mass shootings to take place. Well, almost impossible. A soldier or policeman with problems can still pull it off. Recent events on the other side of the spectrum bring to light what a retired cop I once knew like to say: "If guns are outlawed only the police will have guns. Do you feel safer now?"

I don't have any answers, but there is one thing I'm sure of. This debate will never come to a conclusion until both sides stop seeing only their own truths and open themselves to the truth of what the other side is saying and start working together to find a real solution. "I'm right and you're stupid" never solved anything.