Gun Ownership

[Neil]

Can you imagine how much bloodshed there would have been in last summers riots all over the UK if the majority of those rioters had been legally tooled up? Exactly! Or how many agrieve kids would end up back in their school shooting it up!

[shootemindehead]

Whats the minimum age for owning guns in the US? Not sure, but a colleague of mine who is emigrating to Austin was shocked to discover a children’s "Gun Camp"...from ages 8 upwards.

[babomb]

In Belgium you can be convicted for denying the shoah for instance, a political party was sentenced and disbanded a couple of years ago for being openly fascist and racist. (they just started anew under a different name and with less blatantly racist propaganda though, they are still here) These things would never occur in the States I believe. Being fascist and racist is frowned on, although racism is still a problem on both ends and is still a controversial issue. But as long as it's just talk and doesn't turn into an actual hate crime then there aren't any criminal statutes that have been broken and no charges can be filed. That's in criminal courts, civil courts are another matter. But still, no actual laws have been broken and no criminal charges can be filed for just talk, or print. Havent personal liberties been under a lot of stress these past eleven years, in your country as well after those dreadfull terrorist attacks? 9/11, the patriot act, Guantanamo and such. I think you and I agree on this: citizens have to be very careful with how our elected governments are treating our liberties. This also includes our right to safety, privacy, freedom of speech and religion. It is indeed a shame the media (and that goes for Europe as much as for the States I believe) are so intertwined with capitalist sensibilities that all journalistic integrity (being the watchhound of democracy and such) is going out the window in favour of 'sensationalism' and profits. Absolutely!! It's such a shame too! This was once a great nation. Now it's the laughing stock of the world, and epitomizes the age old saying:"There are none so enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free". Many people blame the government and politics for this. IMO, that's a copout. They do what they do. It's the people's duty to protect their liberties. The founding fathers of America were very clear about that in their writings. As it stands, the right blames the left and the left blames the right. People seem to want to find the easiest way to avoid the responsibility for this. The people are duped into voting for charismatic leaders who make infinite promises but never deliver. You'd think we would've learned by this point. But people are duped, again, by all the distractions. If my mother taught me anything it's this; you will never ever convince anyone of anything. They convince themselves or they don't. I agree with that completely. I've been involved in these same discussions that seem to inevitably devolve into madness. Personal attacks and a general unwillingness to see each others side of the argument. This gets nobody anywhere. I go to a few survival boards, and there's a couple of them that have members that are so quick to attack anyone who says anything even remotely related to limiting guns. I had an incident where a guy was saying how he wears his sidearm to take out garbage, in the bathroom, and when he gets home from work he "clears" his entire house in a tactical fashion to make sure there's no criminals there. I made a comment about how this may be a bit excessive. Other members came out of the woodwork to insult me. for everything. even saying my opinions aren't worth shit because I live in IL and it's a socialist state that limits guns. I'm pro gun, but needless to say I'm not one of those types. -- -------- Post added at 09:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:51 AM ---------- Not sure, but a colleague of mine who is emigrating to Austin was shocked to discover a children’s "Gun Camp"...from ages 8 upwards. While I see why some might be shocked by that, the real idea of it is to teach responsible gun handling. To minimize accidental shootings and reduce fears toward firearms. It's also a law in many states that in order to geta hunting license you need a FOID card. And for a minor to get a FOID card they have to complete a firearms training course. It's not a way to indoctrinate children into being pro-gun. It's similar to the way they teach sex-ed to children. To make them be responsible about it. I'm not saying it works for everyone though. -- -------- Post added at 09:38 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:00 AM ---------- That was 1 year Christopher. What's the bets it normalised again in 2010? Also, that article is highly politicised, clearly aimed at damning the outgoing Labour government by incoming Conservatives and by that yardstick alone, I would take it with a HUGE pinch of salt. The same can be said about statistics coming from the US. They're highly politicized because gun rights are a hot political topic. The right will try to minimize, and the left will try to maximize. So you have to be careful about the sources you base your opinions on regarding crime and guns. I'd also like to know what criteria were used to reach that conclusion and how the figures were massaged for political gain. Political parties will chew their own tongues off in order to gain points against their opponents. In the UK, having your handbag snatched is classed as a "violent" crime, even if the victim suffered no actual violence. That's very different to having one's face blown apart by an AK-47. Exactly. You really can't trust all these statistics. The massaging of statistics has alot to do with peoples ideas on guns in America. Especially people who aren't from America. Your views on it are based on data that comes from the media, and there is no unbiased media here in the US. And the media companies in America have alot of influence on foreign media and in many cases own affiliated media companies in other countries. I'm not saying the claims are totally unfounded and made up, just that if you are gonna base your ideas on statistics, you might want to do alot of research into the source of those statistics before you come to your conclusion and before you use that conclusion as the basis of your argument. i'm not debating statistics because I can't vouch for their reliability. Just making a point.

[Neil]

Not sure, but a colleague of mine who is emigrating to Austin was shocked to discover a children’s "Gun Camp"...from ages 8 upwards. No f***ing way!!!!??!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!!

[LouCipherr]

No f***ing way!!!!??!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!! Yup, and some of the parents will even give the kid a chance to shoot their submachine gun! http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?i...1#.T9tb_Rc7VXE Of course, it didn't end well for him, but that's a different story....

[Tricky]

Not sure, but a colleague of mine who is emigrating to Austin was shocked to discover a children’s "Gun Camp"...from ages 8 upwards. I actually don't see a problem with that, providing the kids have firearms safety and discipline drilled into them at the camp and are made fully aware that they arent toys and nor are they for settling scores etc, get that into them from an early age and the responsible kids will grow into responsible adults as far as firearms go (hopefully!). Most farmers sons in the UK are well versed with guns from a very early age and you dont hear of many problems with them, same applies to lads who join the army cadets at a young age, they learn to shoot, maintain & handle firearms properly & responsibly. The main issue is weeding out the hotheads and nasty pieces of work, and making sure they have zero access to firearms! surely denying that right to those kind of people isnt a bad thing, even in the US?

[babomb]

I absolutely agree with you. I don't think people should own fully automatic rifles, UZIs and the like. You wanna own a shotgun or a handgun? Fine. You're NOT getting an AK-47. In order to own a full auto firearm you need an FFL, which is very hard to get if you're not in law enforcement or active military(and not just any active military, mainly special forces and seals) or if you're a firearms dealer. The reason behind it is so that they know who to come to if a contraband firearm gets into the wrong hands. Private citizens can NOT own an imported Ak-47 even if it's semi-auto due to the assault weapons ban. So citizens with AK's are actually owners of replicas that have specific modifications done to them to stop people from using suppressors and modifying the receiver to make it full auto. So at this point, these people merely own a firearm capable of firing the same cartridge as an AK, the 7.62x39 cartridge, which happens to have furniture on it that makes it look like an AK. But it isn't an AK. But this is still an issue with alot of people. Regardless of the fact that you can buy a .308 rifle that shoots the same cartridge at most sporting goods stores. It just looks less "scary" than an AK replica. But people still focus on the AK as this uber deadly rifle, but it's no more deadly than any other semi-auto rifle that can shoot a .308 round. This perfectly illustrates my point on how the media shapes peoples views on firearms. People focus on guns like the AK because they see it in the media where it's portrayed in an evil way, so any firearm that even looks like the AK must obviously be made specifically to kill people, and therefore should just not be accessible to the average joe. But the way the firearm looks has no bearing on its lethality, that's all about the round it fires. But you don't really hear people say they should ban specific cartridges because most people don't know enough to say that. They only see an intimidating looking firearm and have a knee jerk reaction to it. It's easier to convert a Glock handgun to full auto than it is a legal AK replica, and the Benneli M4 is a semi-auto 12ga street sweeper. But in your post you say a shotgun or handgun is fine, just not an AK. This also illustrates my point about how nowadays feelings are more important than facts. People see a firearm like an AK and they immediately determine that this weapon should not be available to people, based on how they "feel" about that weapon. But the facts about that situation is that those weapons are no more lethal than a .308 winchester, or a 7mm Remington or a Benneli M3/4. But knowing these *facts* doesn't change the way they "feel" about that weapon. -- -------- Post added at 02:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:43 PM ---------- I actually don't see a problem with that, providing the kids have firearms safety and discipline drilled into them at the camp and are made fully aware that they arent toys and nor are they for settling scores etc, get that into them from an early age and the responsible kids will grow into responsible adults as far as firearms go (hopefully!). Most farmers sons in the UK are well versed with guns from a very early age and you dont hear of many problems with them, same applies to lads who join the army cadets at a young age, they learn to shoot, maintain & handle firearms properly & responsibly. The main issue is weeding out the hotheads and nasty pieces of work, and making sure they have zero access to firearms! surely denying that right to those kind of people isnt a bad thing, even in the US? Everything in your post was logical and well thought out. The only issue I have is with the ability to determine the hotheads and nasties. How do you do that? Wait til they commit a violent crime? That's already the way it is. Anything more invasive than that would be entering the realm of thought crime. You can't hold someone responsible in any way based on the idea that they *might* commit a serious crime in the future.

[LouCipherr]

It's easier to convert a Glock handgun to full auto than it is a legal AK replica, and the Benneli M4 is a semi-auto 12ga street sweeper. But in your post you say a shotgun or handgun is fine, just not an AK. How many people actually have the skills to convert any of those other weapons into fully automatic capabilities? I would say probably not many at all.

[Sammich]

How about David Koresh and the Branch Dividian debacle? http://usgovinfo.about.com/blwacoguns.htm Guns found in the compound: "The FBI determined that 46 semiautomatic firearms had been modified to fire in full automatic mode: 22 M-16 Type Rifles 20 AK-47 Type Rifles 2 Heckler and Koch SP-89 2 M-11/Nine The FBI also determined that two AR-15 lower receivers had been modified to fire in full automatic mode." They were modified to be fully auto, but the fact remains they were fully auto weapons. I said NFA weapons, as in select fire weapons owned by people that gone through all of the federal and state laws to procure them. Using the Davidian incident is a very very poor example. The raid in itself was just a dog and pony show gone very wrong by the ATF because the department was going to undergo severe funding cuts due to their lab being found to have falsified evidence. Also, the allegations of child abuse not only do not fall under the jurisdiction of the ATF, but was investigated twice by Texas state authorities. There is only the word of the FBI that the weapons were converted to select fire as they refused to allow the defense to xray the charred and melted remains of the firearms. There is much evidence that has come out in the years since the Waco raid that shows that the atrocities were done by the government, not the Davidians. As for the other 2 cases you found, did you notice what both cases had in common? Both were done by cops, i.e. agents of the government and the MP5 was most likely a department issue weapon. There is no mention of where the Mac 11 came from or if it even was select fire. Neither say anything about the cops being the legal owners of the weapons. -- -------- Post added at 08:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:54 PM ---------- How many people actually have the skills to convert any of those other weapons into fully automatic capabilities? I would say probably not many at all. Since you don't know much about firearms, how can you make that generalization? Patent searches and internet searches will bring back everything someone mechanically inclined would need to know to do a conversion.

[shakesignal]

here's my 2 cents: i'm a yank, i have fired many firearms, pistols, shotties, assault rifles, what have you. they ARE fun, at least in the vacuum of a firing range where safety is actually important. some places are just nutter havens, like in las vegas where you can fire a fuppin (father ted, yup) mini-gun. fun fun fun. i also have an uncle who had a permit to carry a sidearm. he was driving a cab in atlanta, got held up by a youngster with his lil pop gun. when the youngster saw his pistol in the shoulder holster, he shot him twice, once in the arm, and once in the leg. that psychically SHATTERED the man. and this youngster was smart enough to shoot him in parts of the body he wouldn't get a felony charge, but damned if my uncle isn't permanently damaged. my uncle, and i, are POSITIVE he got shot because he had a pistol visible. i've seen his quick draw, he's pretty good. yes, people will use whatever weapons they can, to commit crimes and, (less often than hysterical american gun nuts say) defend themselves against criminals. a gun might be an advantage if a punk with an ice pick, flick knife, whatever "death wish 3" bullshit said gun nuts might envision. but these scenarios rarely come into perfect alignment where you're the clear victim AND you can cap a crook and feel justified. even if you did meet that criteria, you're a human. guns do a HUGE amount of damage to a human body. it's not satisfying to hurt someone in most situations, much less with a gun. trust me. i've seen some shit, and it's not ideal to carry the guilt. no one in the NRA talks about the aftermath, it's all this immature hysterical bravado, couched in our right to bear. even the hard mothers who've seen combat are f-in haunted by the trauma and guilt. only armchair tough guys talk that shit, least most of the time. sociopaths might to, but NO ONE wants them to have a firearm. cept the military... to those ends, as far as tyrannical governments go, it's getting pretty bad here, so it would seem like having a "hunting rifle" would be the only line of defense against the theoretical military actions within the US borders. i'm NOT worried about terrorists, or inner city "urban" criminals, or any of the tacitly racist crap my media tells me to be. i live in LA, we're known for crazy gun stuff. i'm worried about the idiots we somehow allowed into power, forcing our men and women in uniform into abusing us to facilitate a state of weak-kneed compliance to our corporate exploiters. but guess what? even if you got a converted ar-15 with front handles, NV scope, with a 30 round mag, even if your jackass buddies do too, the military can probably handle you. a well-armed citizenry will NEVER be as effective against tyranny as even a few smart and well-organized people who aren't afraid to speak up and be strong enough to peacefully solve problems. little thing called the civil rights movement? fought with words, thoughts, powerful souls, and commitment to love and peace. effectively ended with two assholes with guns. but the guns didn't roll back the progress. hey look, there's amendments for that too! unfortunately guess how much they mean now? not much; you were polishing your guns and dreaming up fantasies where you can shoot crooks while Dubya and Obama rolled back our constitution and coerced the western world to join our gang. my point: talk all the smack you want, your guns are supposed to protect you from feeling fear and powerlessness. pretty sure you can't shoot fear. i checked. real tough guys (and gals, dames, whatever) are tough enough to care about each other, stand up to injustice without resorting to the base violence of their oppressors. as far as criminals are concerned, fine. a peaceful diatribe won't stop a dude from mugging or raping you. a gun might. i'm willing to bet my life that enough people worldwide, standing up to violence with peace and love, can stop a good deal of horror and bloodshed. as far as the "human nature is evil" argument, that only works when we allow each other and ourselves to be evil. all that being said, guns are pretty cool, and a nice old 7.62mm m14 would do me right against those bath salt-taking zombies.

[Neil]

I actually don't see a problem with that, providing the kids have firearms safety and discipline drilled into them at the camp and are made fully aware that they arent toys and nor are they for settling scores etc, get that into them from an early age and the responsible kids will grow into responsible adults as far as firearms go (hopefully!). But, EIGHT FRIKKIN YEARS OLD! That's bonkers... Maybe when they're in their teens? But EIGHT FRIKKIN YEARS OLD! It's absolutely needless! At that young an age a kid should be playing and imagining and dreaming... He (she) should be enjoying his (her) childhood. Not being needlessly exposed weapons? They're just too young to fully understand it... Why expose them to it, needlessly? -- -------- Post added at 10:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:27 PM ---------- Yup, and some of the parents will even give the kid a chance to shoot their submachine gun! http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?i...1#.T9tb_Rc7VXE Of course, it didn't end well for him, but that's a different story.... So so so sad! And utterly needless. I suspect this was more for the adults entertainment than actually aimed at benefitting the child

[babomb]

How many people actually have the skills to convert any of those other weapons into fully automatic capabilities? I would say probably not many at all. Anyone who can convert an AK or an AK replica can convert a Glock. You can't walk into a store somewhere and buy a kit that just pops into the firearm. The parts have to be machined.

[Sammich]

Do you seriously believe that a gun, an inanimate object, possesses some type of horrific mind altering property that causes anyone that touches it to become a raving lunatic? Do you seriously believe that removing guns from the public also removes criminal behavior? If yes, then can you explain why in prisons, where guns are completely prohibited, why there are still murders and other criminal acts? 18 is the minimum age required to BUY rifles and shotguns. 21 is the minimum age required to BUY handguns. In rural areas, many kids are taught at a young age how to use safely firearms and regularly go out to shoot with their families. This takes the video game and movie mystique and curiosity out of guns and turns them into tools. When I worked at a gun range the local Boy Scouts troops would regularly come in for their Rifle Shooting merit badges, an award that has been given since 1911. "Unless a rifle is handled incorrectly or recklessly, it is not dangerous. A rifle, like any other precision instrument, is manufactured to perform a specific task and can do so at no risk to the user or others. By earning this badge, Scouts can develop their shooting skills while learning safe practices." None of the kids that went through our gun safety and Rifle Shooting merit badge program transformed into school shooting mass murders. -- -------- Post added at 10:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:10 PM ---------- Anyone who can convert an AK or an AK replica can convert a Glock. You can't walk into a store somewhere and buy a kit that just pops into the firearm. The parts have to be machined. If one had the correct knowledge, a trip to the hardware store would provide the commonly available items needed to make a device that would kill many more people than a gun could. Because these items aren't protrayed as horrific components of destruction in the movies or video games there isn't a hysterical call to ban them.

[babomb]

But, EIGHT FRIKKIN YEARS OLD! That's bonkers... Maybe when they're in their teens? But EIGHT FRIKKIN YEARS OLD! It's absolutely needless! At that young an age a kid should be playing and imagining and dreaming... He (she) should be enjoying his (her) childhood. Not being needlessly exposed weapons? They're just too young to fully understand it... Why expose them to it, needlessly? I had my own gun at 8 years old. A .410 pump. It wasn't available to me anytime I wanted to shoot it, but it was still my gun. I still have it. I was still dreaming and imagining and doing what every other kid does. It had no ill effects on me. Unless you consider the ability to hunt, shoot, and properly handle a firearm ill effects. I think I was 10 when I completed the firearm course and got my FOID card. I come from a rural area, and this was very common here in those days. Most of my friends also had their own guns. And there was not a single incident of anyone getting shot or shooting someone else or using a weapon in a crime. My dad and my grandpa were exposed to weapons at young ages, and like me, were responsible enough to handle it. Back in the old days there weren't all these laws on firearms, everyone had guns, and there weren't school shootings and workplace shootings. So what's that say? To me it says that the guns themselves aren't the problem, and it isn't the availability of guns, or children being exposed to guns. Children have been being exposed to weapons for generations, but this violent aggression seen in school shootings and workplace shootings is a new phenomenon. So what is it that changed? IMO, it's personal responsibility. Parents used to teach that to their kids, then their kids passed it on to their kids. It's not like that anymore. Nowadays it's easier to blame everyone and everything else. People want an easy fix for everything. So it's easier to blame the guns, and wage war on inanimate objects than it is to raise your kids to be responsible adults. And teach them ways to handle conflict that doesn't involve violence. Parents need to stop using the TV as the babysitter, and stop giving their kids everything they want, make them work for it so they can appreciate it. So then when the kid grows up he goes into a bank and asks for a job instead of pointing a gun at the teller and demanding the money. As it is today you have parents that themselves are unable to be responsible for themselves let lone their kids. Kids today are raised under the belief that they're special just because they're alive. So they think they deserve to have all their dreams come true simply because that's what they want. They see people like Paris Hilton or the Kardashians on TV, or MTV's "Sweet Sixteen" where these kids get $60,000 cars and throw fits because the focus shifted from them at some point, they hear music with lyrics like "I wanna be a millionaire so fuckin bad" and watch videos where they throw money and jewels at the camera for 5 minutes straight. And while the parents should be there showing and explaining to them that that isn't how the real world works, they themselves are out shopping or getting manicures or pedicures, or working day and night to pay for all the shit they buy. No offense to anyone intended, but when someone says that it's guns that's causing the violence in todays society, that's such complete BS! That's just another way to avoid the responsibility, and that's exactly the root of the problem, NOT THE SOLUTION! I hate using this comparison but it does fit: Saying guns cause people to commit crimes is the same as saying spoons cause people to become obese.

[Christopher Jon]

+1 to Sammich and Babomb. Guns don't kill people, people do.