Gun Ownership [Archive]

babomb

12-Jun-2012, 11:30 AM

The right to keep and bear arms is an essential right in our constitution. It not a coincidence that it's the 2nd amendment. 2nd only to free speech. It's about personal responsibility! Many of us Americans don't feel comfortable relying on the authorities to keep us safe. Because, well, they really can't keep us safe. They're never there when things go down, only after the fact. So it's on us as individuals to keep ourselves and our families safe.
And being a democracy, each state reserves the right to allow it's citizens the privilege to carry a firearm on their person if they meet the criteria needed in order to do so. We don't really have problems with guns in the hands of those who've obtained them legally. Our gun problems come from guns in the hands of those who've obtained them and carry them ILLEGALLY! And laws don't do anything about that because criminals don't follow laws, that's why they're criminals.
Most Americans that own guns have been around them their entire lives. I know that I don't personally feel uncomfortable around people who are carrying guns. Most states that allow conceal(or open) carry require the person applying for the permit to have completed a firearms safety course, not to mention an extensive background check and a letter of authorization from the state and country sheriff. So it's not really as easy as many people believe. It's just that when your exposure to firearms is extremely limited, and you listen to what the liberal media spouts about gun violence, all you end up with is fear regarding firearms.
What scares me is being around people who aren't very familiar with firearms and regard them with fear! That's a recipe for disaster!
I don't feel as if my personal freedoms are in any way limited by people walking around with guns. Those who have gone through the right channels and obtained a permit to carry a gun are very protective over their right to do so. And they understand that some sort of stupid incident involving someone with a CCW is the quickest way to have that right revoked.
IMO, it's much more likely for me to be hit by a car while crossing the street or driving, than to be shot down by a law abiding citizen with a CCW for no apparent reason. And they give 16 year old kids drivers licenses. But I'm an American who believes in freedom and exercises personal responsibility, so there will never come a time that i call on the federal government to pass legislature to make me feel safer. Because having the FED pass laws to keep me safe has the direct opposite effect on me.
And in all honesty, the FED itself is the biggest reason why the right to keep and bear arms is such an essential liberty. Our own government is the biggest threat to our liberties. And if the populace was unarmed, there would be nothing stopping them from becoming a tyranny of terrifying proportions!
Trading liberty for safety is JUST WRONG!!! And you never get those liberties back once you surrender them.

Thorn

12-Jun-2012, 12:55 PM

Every person, and every culture will have an opinion here. In the states it is a hot button topic than can often lead to a fiery exchange of opinions with people spitting out facts, half truths, or pseudo intellectual mumbo jumbo. The one reality is in our country at least we are allowed by our governing laws to own and use firearms (specific regulations cover many)

While I can not say it always allows you defend yourself, or that every legal gun is used the right way there are many times having guns around has made people feel more secure, and enabled them to in fact defend their home and their property.

babomb

12-Jun-2012, 02:45 PM

Yes, Thorn you're right on the money on all counts. Nobody can say that every legal firearm is used legally, or that a firearm will always allow you to defend yourself. And is is indeed a hot button topic that leads to some very emotional exchanges on both sides.
I seriously hope to avoid that. I've been involved with discussions like that before and it never does anything for anyone.
My stand on it has always been that firearms are just tools. Like hammers, knives, vehicles. And none of these things do anything when not in the hands of a human being. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
When a person decides to use a firearm in the commission of a crime, he doesn't spontaneously decide to do this because he picked up a gun. He picks up the gun as the tool to be used to commit the crime he already planned to commit.

Also, it's always seemed to me that those who take an anti-gun point of view are not at all familiar with them, and have not really been around them very much(most of the time not at all). Maybe the few times they've been around them were stressful because up until then they'd been taught to view them with fear, and they ARE much louder than they seem to be on TV.
It just depends on a persons disposition. Some people have a very fearful disposition toward everything. So they think things like fast cars, motorcycles and ATV's, guns, skateboards, contact sports are simply unnecessary and shouldn't be available to the general public. I know people like that.

krisvds

12-Jun-2012, 03:49 PM

Also, it's always seemed to me that those who take an anti-gun point of view are not at all familiar with them, and have not really been around them very much(most of the time not at all). Maybe the few times they've been around them were stressful because up until then they'd been taught to view them with fear, and they ARE much louder than they seem to be on TV.
It just depends on a persons disposition. Some people have a very fearful disposition toward everything. So they think things like fast cars, motorcycles and ATV's, guns, skateboards, contact sports are simply unnecessary and shouldn't be available to the general public. I know people like that.

That's true in my case, I grew up in Belgium where it's quite hard to obtain a weapon.
That being said I don't live in fear of may of the things you talk about. I do believe (firmly) in personal freedom and responsability. It's just that I don't believe all people to be just that: responsible. All I'm saying is that in a crowd of many you only need one nutcase to go haywire to do a lot of damage...

You say it's up to you to keep your family safe, not the authorities. Perhaps if there were less weapons in circulation there would be less need to defend them with lethal force?
Isn't it true that in a democracy we have police forces and courts working within the boundaries of well defined laws in order to prevent everyone becoming their own judge? I sometimes feel the personal liberty story is misused by people in order to defend a society where everyone upheld their own law and order. I'm glad that isn't the case. It is just that kind of society where an armed individual could excert his own form of justice that frightens me. I know some people in the city where I live have a very different perspective on certain morality issues than I do.
Only last week there was a big riot near a school where literally hundreds of hot-blooded youngsters where called to arms via facebook and other media because of a simple love story gone wrong. (basically a young girl had hooked up with a young boy who didn't have the correct religion, I kid you not, and her brother and his gang thought it wise to teach said boy a lesson by sending him to hospital) Things got out of hand. At times like these I'm glad it's harder to obtain a gun here. There was no reasoning with these guys. I'm also glad the police showed up to bring them to justice before things got really ugly.

I respect everyone's opinion on this matter, mind you, and your reasoning sounds, well reasonable. It's just that because you are against possession of firearms, that doesn't make you a scared bleeding heart liberal or whatever term you guys use. Just thes ame; I do realise that not everyone defending the right to carry firearms is a John Wayne style cowboy.The world just isn't as black or white as that. I sure didn't want to start a debate like that. This site of zombie lovers, of all places, tends to have discussions that are les internet-y in that respect ;)

Thorn

12-Jun-2012, 04:28 PM

Mike70

12-Jun-2012, 04:38 PM

i have guns and know how to use them because i believe in the govt's (or any other authorities) ability to protect me about as much as i believe in the tooth fairy. i'll take self reliance any day over waiting for some ass in suit to make a decision that concerns my well being.

as far as survival goes, there are a few basic skills that i think everyone and i mean everyone should learn:

how to swim
how to perform basic first aid - stop bleeding, CPR, heimlich maneuver, clean/dress basic wounds
how to start a fire from a number of sources
how to find water. in most places, it is right under your feet.

babomb

13-Jun-2012, 09:12 PM

That's true in my case, I grew up in Belgium where it's quite hard to obtain a weapon.
That being said I don't live in fear of may of the things you talk about. I do believe (firmly) in personal freedom and responsability. It's just that I don't believe all people to be just that: responsible. All I'm saying is that in a crowd of many you only need one nutcase to go haywire to do a lot of damage...
I agree that there are more irresponsible people than not, and that all it does take is 1 nutjob to do damage. But I don't think that the answer to irresponsibility or lone nutters is to revoke the rights and privilege of those who ARE responsible and have earned those rights and privileges. That just doesn't seem logical. In that sense, then the irresponsible and nutjobs are the ones who are setting the standard for everyone else. And that doesn't seem right to me at all. I'd rather see much stiffer penalties for those who use firearms to commit crimes.

You say it's up to you to keep your family safe, not the authorities. Perhaps if there were less weapons in circulation there would be less need to defend them with lethal force?
It's not really that simple though. That just means that there would be less firearms in the hands of the people who are responsible enough to handle them. Because there will still be firearms being produced for police and military, they will still be transported by standard means, and produced in factories by civilians. So there will still be ample opportunity for those firearms to make into the hands of criminals. It's a money game in that regard, there's money in black market weapons and where there's demand there's supply. This is a capitalism issue that goes beyond firearms. The black market for weapons has alot to do with rogue nations, the former soviet union, so it's not as simple as just taking more weapons out of circulation. If it were that would probably already be the case. There's other issues with what is classified as an actual firearm. People can buy kits that include only specific parts of a firearm that themselves aren't considered a firearm, then have the missing components machined privately. There will always be ways to circumvent the law, and the more laws the more creative the ways to get around them. next thing you know we're living in an all out totalitarian state where everything is illegal and regulated. So while I understand your sentiments on this, what you're saying is to enact more legislature to control firearms. Which has far worse implications than simply limiting the amount of weapons in circulation. It's basically giving more power to an already power hungry and out of control federal government, much of which would like to see private ownership of firearms completely done away with. And the way they acheive that is to chip away at the peoples rights little by little. So even what seems like a small thing to you, ultimately ends up part of a larger scheme that further erodes the liberties of the people.

Isn't it true that in a democracy we have police forces and courts working within the boundaries of well defined laws in order to prevent everyone becoming their own judge? I sometimes feel the personal liberty story is misused by people in order to defend a society where everyone upheld their own law and order. That's 2 different issues though. A person who feels so emotional about something that's been done to them that they feel vindicated in taking the law into their own hands isn't gonna be discouraged by a lack of a firearm. They're just gonna use some other means. So then what? Require permits to own knives? Limit non-professional ball players from owning anything but wiffle ball or T-ball bats? There's still hammers and wrenches, fire, running people down in vehicles, metal pipes. How would you prevent those from being used in a crime or as the tools of the vigilante?
My point is just that when you start regulating everything for the good of the people, where does it end? That kind of regulation has a habit of becoming oppressive, and being used for political and monetary gain. At least here in the US. Everything will eventually be exploited politically and monetarily. Everything is a business! Especially the creation of laws and what they allow and prohibit. Just look at the war on drugs. has that been successful? No. So why would a war on guns be any different?

Only last week there was a big riot near a school where literally hundreds of hot-blooded youngsters where called to arms via facebook and other media because of a simple love story gone wrong. (basically a young girl had hooked up with a young boy who didn't have the correct religion, I kid you not, and her brother and his gang thought it wise to teach said boy a lesson by sending him to hospital) Things got out of hand. At times like these I'm glad it's harder to obtain a gun here. There was no reasoning with these guys. I'm also glad the police showed up to bring them to justice before things got really ugly. That's a religious issue. religion has been killing folks since long before the invention of black powder. But these are still personal decisions that people make. And this says to me that things like this will happen even if people don't have access to firearms. I don't really think that incident would've resulted in a shooting anyway. Unless the victim were armed and defended himself against that group of thugs. And if that were the case, then that's the consequence of acting like a moronic thug and attacking someone for no real reason. That's exactly the type of situation that makes me glad that in America we have firearms to allow us to defend ourselves against those types of people. Had that victim been armed, the situation would've played out much differently. Had the thugs known the victim would've been armed, the whole thing would probably never had happened at all.

I respect everyone's opinion on this matter, mind you, and your reasoning sounds, well reasonable. It's just that because you are against possession of firearms, that doesn't make you a scared bleeding heart liberal or whatever term you guys use. Just thes ame; I do realise that not everyone defending the right to carry firearms is a John Wayne style cowboy. I wasn't calling you a bleeding heart liberal. Not sure if that would even apply to you as you're not an American. My comment was about the liberal media, and how they apply their own political spin to things and make it seem like it's the firearms that are killing people and not the people who are pulling the trigger. The liberal mindstate is the "nanny state", a feminized state of mind where security is more important than liberty, and everything needs to be regulated to prevent people from hurting themselves or other people. Where feelings are more important than facts and everybody is a winner, even when they lose.
I respect your opinion on this. I'm not trying to convert you to my way of thinking, just trying to point out why it is that I disagree with the premise of limiting the ownership of firearms.

krisvds

14-Jun-2012, 07:06 AM

I agree that there are more irresponsible people than not, and that all it does take is 1 nutjob to do damage. But I don't think that the answer to irresponsibility or lone nutters is to revoke the rights and privilege of those who ARE responsible and have earned those rights and privileges. That just doesn't seem logical. In that sense, then the irresponsible and nutjobs are the ones who are setting the standard for everyone else. And that doesn't seem right to me at all. I'd rather see much stiffer penalties for those who use firearms to commit crimes.

That is probably the most convincing argument against how I feel about this matter there is.
It's a delicate juggling act isn't it, on the one hand personal freedom, and on the other, well, safety.

It's basically giving more power to an already power hungry and out of control federal government, much of which would like to see private ownership of firearms completely done away with. And the way they acheive that is to chip away at the peoples rights little by little. So even what seems like a small thing to you, ultimately ends up part of a larger scheme that further erodes the liberties of the people.

True enough. But I don't feel the Belgian government (which has very strict regulations regarding possession of firearms and other weapons, you CAN obtain them but have to pass a test every few months to keep your license, you can't cary them on the streets, etc,...) is totalitarian in that way. I guess the common European view on the matter is just different. The same applies to freedom of speech; it's a bit more regulated here. 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.

I wasn't calling you a bleeding heart liberal. Not sure if that would even apply to you as you're not an American. My comment was about the liberal media, and how they apply their own political spin to things and make it seem like it's the firearms that are killing people and not the people who are pulling the trigger. The liberal mindstate is the "nanny state", a feminized state of mind where security is more important than liberty, and everything needs to be regulated to prevent people from hurting themselves or other people. Where feelings are more important than facts and everybody is a winner, even when they lose.
I respect your opinion on this. I'm not trying to convert you to my way of thinking, just trying to point out why it is that I disagree with the premise of limiting the ownership of firearms.

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.

If my mother taught me anything it's this; you will never ever convince anyone of anything. They convince themselves or they don't.

AcesandEights

14-Jun-2012, 01:21 PM

I can't even begin to express how enjoyable it is to see people on opposite ends of the spectrum have an actual give and take conversation on this topic and remain civil and genuine.

Hope I haven't shot this thread in the foot or tempted fate too much by saying so.

Neil

14-Jun-2012, 01:25 PM

This has been discussed so much over the years.

First, in the US, there are so many guns in the public domain, to try and back track would be a nigh on impossible task. Certainly it would take generation(s). And then there's the matter (as we can see above) it's a cultural expectation to own a gun.

Second, living in a country (UK) where gun ownship is not common, I must admit I prefer the idea of keeping it that way. I like the idea I know it's incredibly unlikely I will not meet a drug user with a gun, my children will not face an angry kid with a gun, my partner will not be confronted by a rapist with a gun etc etc... Yes I know other weapons can be used, but a gun is rather effective at what it's designed to do, "kill" - You don't hear about 50 people being stabbed to death for example by a lunatic... Also, I suspect I might be able to outrun a knife, but a bullet is a different matter.

Would I like to own a gun? Of course! Would it make me feel safer? Of course... But not at the expense of allowing every nutter in the country to also stand a far greater chance of owning one!

shootemindehead

14-Jun-2012, 02:14 PM

Americans are correct. Their governments cannot protect them and they have no intention of doing so either. They're happy to allow rampant gun ownership and are willing to put up with the most ridiculous rate of gun crime that the world has ever seen in any civilised country, rather than actually try and control the situation through legal means. U.S. governments are more happy to have the by-product of population control due to gun death, than limiting gun death by instituting gun control.

The "right to bear arms" and the other niceties that's usually raised by staunch proponents of gun ownership never take into account the actual type of guns that are available on the market these days. Some of which are truly frightening. That element of the constitution that's always dragged out, dusted off and presented was written by people who never conceived of Tec-9's, UZI's, SR-25's and what have you. The "right to bear arms" was written with muskets in mind, not assault rifles, with suppressors attached. Nor, was it written the fact in mind that the citizenry of the country would be offing themselves in record numbers.

I agree with Neil here. Gun ownership is not common in my country either and I'd like to keep it that way. Sure, those that may wish you harm can carry knives etc. But you have to get close with a knife and that's a whole different kettle of fish for the person wielding the weapon.

Any gobshite can pull a trigger and they don't even have to come near you.

Danny

14-Jun-2012, 03:30 PM

TL:DR american police carry guns so the people do in the event that the police ever become an instrument to remove peoples freedoms and human rights using them against them. some of those people are criminals, hence why the police have them anyway. Its a genie let out the bottle and cannot be undone.

In a perfect world nobody would have them, but in a country like america it is what it is.

That said there is a world of difference between a firearm or a hunting rifle and some of the modern "can kill 30 people in 5 seconds" automatic rifles that have no place outside of a battlefield in a war. Look at that dude in norway who just went up to a group of kids with a machine gun and decided to 'go scarface' on them. theres firearms, then there is FUKKEN GUNZ YEEHAW. Thats a world of difference that requires stringent control.

SymphonicX

14-Jun-2012, 04:35 PM

I think it's testament to the maturity of the members here that this thread didn't dissolve into madness at post 2.

To me, discussing this issue with Americans is like approaching Christians about abortion - it's a very personal issue that the individual will usually defend their view on to the end of the earth.

Personally I've made my feelings known for a while - I don't believe whatsoever in gun ownership yet I'm fully aware that for a culture such as the US, gun ownership is almost necessary for some people. It's too far gone for us in the UK and other non-gun-nutty countries to sit here in our armchairs professing we know better than those who live in America day to day. The perspective of someone living in around or near fear will be greatly different from someone sitting in merry little England where the worse they're likely to experience is getting a brick thrown through a train window or racially abused by kids in hoodies. It's a different kettle of fish altogether.

What really needs discussing is what Michael Moore talked about all those years ago in Bowling for Columbine - the notion that America lives in a greater degree of fear and terror than the rest of the world due to their media exposure and inherrently racist institutions.

LouCipherr

14-Jun-2012, 05:01 PM

The "right to bear arms" was written with muskets in mind, not assault rifles, with suppressors attached. Nor, was it written the fact in mind that the citizenry of the country would be offing themselves in record numbers.

Also, keep in mind that the "right to bear arms" was also instituted in the US as a precaution by the founding fathers against an out of control government. Part of the reason for those rights is so the citizens could "rise up" against the government (ie: revolution) if they get out of control. That's not the "only" purpose of these rights, but it was certainly a factor and is discussed elsewhere by the founding fathers themselves.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

TL:DR american police carry guns so the people do in the event that the police ever become an instrument to remove peoples freedoms and human rights using them against them. some of those people are criminals, hence why the police have them anyway. Its a genie let out the bottle and cannot be undone.

Very true, Danny.

In a perfect world nobody would have them, but in a country like america it is what it is.

Yup. The problem now, is, you take away the guns and only the criminals will have them which is exactly what you do not want. It's too late to go back and take them away.

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” - Thomas Jefferson

That said there is a world of difference between a firearm or a hunting rifle and some of the modern "can kill 30 people in 5 seconds" automatic rifles that have no place outside of a battlefield in a war..<snip> Thats a world of difference that requires stringent control.

Agreed - both you and shootem (and probably several others, but tl;dr) are dead-on. There's a huge difference between being "allowed to own a gun" and being allowed to own shit like automatic assault rifles and UZIs. :lol: Control is required, but complete restriction is out of the question at this point.

Mike70

14-Jun-2012, 05:12 PM

christ, are we going down this overly traveled road again? folks should get it through their heads once and for all: gun ownership in america is not going to change and the ability to own handguns is not going to be limited at any time in any of our lifetimes. federal courts and the supreme court have struck down a number of attempts at restricting gun ownership and a lot of states (my own included) have made it easier to carry guns in public.

i am against any and all restrictions and/or controls on gun ownership. if you have no felony convictions, there is no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to own and responsibly use whatever kind/style of gun you want. i'm not arguing about this or discussing it either. that is simply the way it is for me.

that's all i have. any further discussion of this is a complete and total waste of time. do yourself a favor and don't waste time responding to this post. because it is a waste of time. i've had my say and won't be back to this thread. i'm about as tired of gun control threads as i am "it's 2am, your mercedes is out of gas, you have two shotgun shells left and are surrounded by zombies- what do you do?" threads.

shootemindehead

14-Jun-2012, 05:39 PM

Also, keep in mind that the "right to bear arms" was also instituted in the US as a precaution by the founding fathers against an out of control government. Part of the reason for those rights is so the citizens could "rise up" against the government (ie: revolution) if they get out of control. That's not the "only" purpose of these rights, but it was certainly a factor and is discussed elsewhere by the founding fathers themselves.

Aye, I'm well aware of the "Armed Citizeny/militia" angle, which was in part brought into play becasue there was no proper standing regular army and the country was still operating the Continental Army at the time.

But the idea that the American public of today or the near future would rise up against their government is the realm of fantasy. The fact remains, however, that the only element of society that is suffering from America's crazy approach to guns are the citizens themselves.

Again, though, when the words of the amendment were being put to paper, there was no concept of the weaponry that's available over the counter today. To me, that's the main sticking point regarding the current state of affairs.

LouCipherr

14-Jun-2012, 05:57 PM

i am against any and all restrictions and/or controls on gun ownership. if you have no felony convictions, there is no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to own and responsibly use whatever kind/style of gun you want.

Let me ask you this: what if I had no felony convictions - but I have an IQ of 50? Should I be allowed to carry a gun? I would certainly hope your answer would be a resounding "NO!" :lol:

Just so you know, Mike - I'm all for allowing people to own and carry guns - what I'm not for is letting some incompetent shithead who might kill me or someone else accidently 'cause he doesn't know what he's doing carry or own a firearm.

Allow me to explain - as I've been thinking about this all morning. Here's the question that popped into my mind:

Many states in the US require a background check and a waiting period before you can own most guns. What I don't understand is why there isn't a competency test that goes along with it - y'know, to make sure you know what the f*ck you're doing with the thing before you bring it home?

We require tests for getting our drivers licenses - it's not just good enough that we say "I can handle this!" - we have to prove that we know the laws and prove we can operate that piece of machinery properly without harming killing others. Why isn't the same applied to guns/firearms?

I don't care that anyone, whoever it might be, owns guns. I would just rest a lot easier if I knew the people who did knew what the hell they were doing.

Aye, I'm well aware of the "Armed Citizeny/militia" angle, which was in part brought into play becasue there was no proper standing regular army and the country was still operating the Continental Army at the time.

Even if/when there is a proper army (like now), it's controlled and run by the government - which could be used as a tool by that government as a means of oppression. I'll put on my tinfoil hat if I must, but if the army is being run by the government, then we need protection from said army, too if and when it become out of control.

But the idea that the American public of today or the near future would rise up against their government is the realm of fantasy. The fact remains, however, that the only element of society that is suffering from America's crazy approach to guns are the citizens themselves.

Unlikely? Yeah, probably. Fantasy? I don't know, man. Look how quickly things are going downhill in this country. It may be closer than we think. I realize most of the bozos in the US are nothing more than sheep that go along with whatever their told, but there are plenty of us getting so sick of what's going on... you just never know when people are going to break and say "that's enough!" Look at other countries around the world - protests, marching in the streets, overthrowing their own governments.... People are getting sick of the stuff going on around them. I think it's just a matter of time and the right amount of pushing on the citizens. I could be wrong, but you just never know.

Push people hard enough when they don't have much (or anything) to live for and watch what happens...

Again, though, when the words of the amendment were being put to paper, there was no concept of the weaponry that's available over the counter today. To me, that's the main sticking point regarding the current state of affairs.

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. :lol:

Sammich

14-Jun-2012, 06:43 PM

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. :lol:

Can you name a NFA weapon owner who has comitted a crime with the firearm?

People shouldn't be allowed to own computers or digital recording devices. If you want to own a hand operated printing press or quill and paper then that is fine.

It is irrational to have a fear of inanimate objects and belief that inanimate objects have magical mind control over humans. If you take away firearms, then will it cause criminals to revert to productive members of society or the mentally ill to suddenly become sane?

I find it so ironic that some people still place all of their trust in government to be the sole possessors of coercive force, especially after the exposure of Operation Fast and Furious.

shootemindehead

14-Jun-2012, 07:13 PM

Even if/when there is a proper army (like now), it's controlled and run by the government - which could be used as a tool by that government as a means of oppression. I'll put on my tinfoil hat if I must, but if the army is being run by the government, then we need protection from said army, too if and when it become out of control.

I suspect that the powers who proposed the idea of "bearing arms" as a right for citizens, did so with the concept of part of the government becoming antagonistic toward the populace or the interests of the ruling party they are splitting from. I reckon the idea was to be able to raise a militia quickly to put down any resistance from the opposite faction(s) within an existing government. So, in other words, an (already) armed citizen militia would still be organised by elements of that government.

In any case, the idea that the citizens of the US could form an effective force capable of dealing with the US military is wholly redundant. Such a concept just isn't viable. So, again, I have to fall back on my previous point that the only element of society suffering from the current situation are the citizens themselves.

Unlikely? Yeah, probably. Fantasy? I don't know, man. Look how quickly things are going downhill in this country. It may be closer than we think. I realize most of the bozos in the US are nothing more than sheep that go along with whatever their told, but there are plenty of us getting so sick of what's going on... you just never know when people are going to break and say "that's enough!" Look at other countries around the world - protests, marching in the streets, overthrowing their own governments.... People are getting sick of the stuff going on around them. I think it's just a matter of time and the right amount of pushing on the citizens. I could be wrong, but you just never know.

There's times Lou, that I believe that America could do with another revolution. I despair sometimes at the direction that your rulers have taken you in and it's had terrible consequences for the rest of the world too. But, I simply cannot see the day when the population will ever rise up. But, even if it did happen (in the wildest of scenarios), it would be crushed with more ruthlessness than most people could imagine. It would make Assad's attempts at controlling Syria's dissenters look like a picnic.

LouCipherr

14-Jun-2012, 07:13 PM

Can you name a NFA weapon owner who has comitted a crime with the firearm?

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.

How about Edward Lutes, who killed 5 people with his MP-5?

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-505877.html

How about Dayton Ohio Police Officer Roger Waller used his MAC-11 machine gun during a crime:

http://www.examiner.com/article/incarcerated-dayton-cop-to-see-parole-board

So to answer your question? Yes. :D

This is just one example of I'm sure many that can be found - but regardless, I get your point - they're usually not used to commit crimes, but there's a simple answer to that: most of the criminals find it a LOT easier to get semi-automatic weapons then trying to procure an AK-47 or an UZI. ;)

People shouldn't be allowed to own computers or digital recording devices. If you want to own a hand operated printing press or quill and paper then that is fine.

Can you name a computer owner who has killed someone with said owned computer? :lol: :D

(couldn't resist)

shootem - I see what you're saying, and I never thought about that angle. I guess if the US citizens ever DID rise up, the gov't would just use it's own massive military force to crush us. Point well taken, and after reconsideration, I think you're probably right. We COULD use another uprising and a revolution to throw out the war criminal that's currently our POTUS and the evil pricks we currently call our government (save a small few that shouldn't be included in that category), but you're probably right. Slim to no chance.

Boy, that puts a gloomy black cloud over everything, doesn't it? Thanks alot! :lol: :lol:

Sammich

14-Jun-2012, 07:24 PM

The JPFO Genocide Chart (http://jpfo.org/pdf02/genocide-chart.pdf)

This is derived from the JPFO website page - as a more printer-friendly option. The complete web page is accompanied by a detailed promotion of the Death by “Gun Control” book, written by Aaron Zelman and Richard W.Stevens - and available from the JPFO store . It works on a level that nobody can dispute: documented world history.

Here's the Formula: Hatred + Government + Disarmed Civilians = Genocide

What makes the argument so powerful? Two factors. First, it makes common sense: unarmed defenseless people have no hope against armed aggressors. Second, it states the historical truth: evil governments did wipe out 170,000,000 innocent non-military lives in the 20th Century alone. See the film “Innocents Betrayed” for further chilling evidence, also available from the JPFO store.

When the gun prohibitionists quote a statistic about how many people are killed by firearms misuse, the discussion sometimes bogs down into whose crime statistics to believe and how to count crimes vs. the defensive firearm uses.

In the 20th Century:

• Governments murdered four times as many civilians as were killed in all the international and domestic wars combined.
• Governments murdered millions more people than were killed by common criminals.

How could governments kill so many people? The governments had the power - and the people, the victims, were unable to resist. The victims were unarmed.

Neil

14-Jun-2012, 09:24 PM

In the 20th Century:

• Governments murdered four times as many civilians as were killed in all the international and domestic wars combined.
• Governments murdered millions more people than were killed by common criminals.

How could governments kill so many people? The governments had the power - and the people, the victims, were unable to resist. The victims were unarmed.[/I]

Out of interest, how many of the governments in question (of killing huge numbers of civilians) were say western democratic governments, in say the past 50years? ie: Relevant to us?

To get to the point, are you suggesting without guns, the US government would start the mass killing of its own people? And if so, why has such an even occured in the UK which fairly similar to the US?

Or have I misunderstood your point? And you were just posting some interesting facts? Which indeed they are!?

Christopher Jon

14-Jun-2012, 09:29 PM

Honestly, most of you non-Americans have very screwed up and very inaccurate views of crime and and gun ownership in the United States.

Suck on this,

UK crime rate higher than United States (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html)

In a nutshell,

In the UK (2009), there are 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people, way ahead of second-placed Austria with a rate of 1,677. The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609. The US isn't even in the top 10 when compared with other European and western nation.

So while the overall homicide rate due to gun crimes is higher in the US (4.55 per 100,000) vs. the UK (1.45 per 100,000), violent crime is still higher in many European countries than it is in the US. And really, at least 3 of those 4.55 are gangbangers lighting each other up in South Central, not legal and law abiding gun owners. Gun laws aren't going to solve gang violence.

And really, like I couldn't stroll over to an eastern European country to pick up an AK? Point being, bad guys will get guns if they want them.

While there are federal laws, states here have their own laws regarding firearms, ownership and carrying in public. In many states, a permit is required to carry a weapon in public, to get that permit a background and criminal record check is required plus firearms training and qualification. A person can't just stroll down to Guns R' Us, pick up an uzi, then go for a walk through the mall with it. The US isn't still the wild wild west. You can't even kill Indians anymore. Really!

Only around 50% of Americans legally own guns and very very few actually openly carry a weapon. I can't remember the last time I saw somebody packing heat here in Nevada, the land of sin :)

BTW, I do not own any firearms.

shootemindehead

15-Jun-2012, 01:43 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.

I've also seen this article wheeled out by pro-gun US Republicans and gobshites like that Texan loudmouth, Alex Jones as some sort of justification for America's current gun situation and still as unconvincing now as it was then.

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.

Core

15-Jun-2012, 05:59 AM

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

I am sure all of you know this documentry movie but if not ; i suggest you to watch it.

Neil

15-Jun-2012, 08:58 AM

Tricky

15-Jun-2012, 12:05 PM

Whats the minimum age for owning guns in the US? Growing up on a farm in the UK I was surrounded by guns as a kid, my dad has several shotguns which I had access to from being about 13 as well as the air rifles and pistols I owned myself, I was always taught proper firearm discipline and was very safe with them. The problems arose when kids from school would come round. Knowing I had guns they would nag at me to have a go with them, then as soon as they got their hands on them they'd start messing around, pointing them loaded at me or others, and firing them in dangerous directions or at neighbourhood cats etc. Based on my experiences I wouldnt want anyone under 21 being allowed to own a gun of any kind unless they had done a firearms safety course and could prove that they were responsible people

Neil

15-Jun-2012, 12:35 PM

Tricky

15-Jun-2012, 12:58 PM

^WTF!

Maybe this accounts for the high 'accidental death' figures in the US surrounding guns.

It was exactly the same with motorbikes or anything else you should be responsible with, teenagers will prat around with them, they are aware of how dangerous they are but think its ok because "they're only kidding around".

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?

Neil

15-Jun-2012, 01:07 PM

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

15-Jun-2012, 01:35 PM

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

15-Jun-2012, 02:38 PM

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

15-Jun-2012, 03:26 PM

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

15-Jun-2012, 03:58 PM

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?id=6121915&page=1#.T9tb_Rc7VXE

Of course, it didn't end well for him, but that's a different story....

Tricky

15-Jun-2012, 04:21 PM

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

15-Jun-2012, 07:05 PM

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. :lol: 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

15-Jun-2012, 07:27 PM

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

15-Jun-2012, 08:00 PM

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

15-Jun-2012, 09:18 PM

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

15-Jun-2012, 09:34 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!).

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?id=6121915&page=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

15-Jun-2012, 10:01 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. 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

15-Jun-2012, 10:15 PM

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

15-Jun-2012, 11:19 PM

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

16-Jun-2012, 12:07 AM

+1 to Sammich and Babomb.

Guns don't kill people, people do. :)

babomb

16-Jun-2012, 02:17 AM

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. I'm worried about that too. I think that disarming the populace is a major goal to that end.

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. That's where you use the lessons learned from others. Our military seemed to have a difficult time handling the well armed folks in southeast Asia, and the less well armed folks in Iraq and Afghanistan. This country found it's independence through an armed populace. Fought off 2 organized and equipped standing armies in order to do so. Using the same unconventional warfare that was eventually used against us in the most recent conflicts. It works! It's costly and gritty and it sucks, but it does work.

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 While I'm all for peaceful resolution, I have to respectfully disagree with you there. Not because I'm a gun nut, not because I'm an armchair toughguy or a sociopath or anything like that. Just because I watch, and I see how things like that are dealt with. And I'm not the only one. Right now we're about 1 step away from tyranny. You can't help but notice how the OWS thing played out. It started out strong, everyone was standing their ground, but look where it is now. It's done. Nothing was achieved.
Just to be clear, the scenario we're discussing, having to take up arms against a tyrannical GOV, is utterly horrifying. I'm not one of those people who wants that to happen. I'm in no hurry to be killed and/or watch my loved ones be killed. Which is most likely what the result of this scenario would be. I have no fantasies or delusions about this. but I also have no fantasies or delusions that the state of affairs in this country can be solved by the 2nd coming of Martin Luther King. Our corporate exploiters are much smarter than we even know or give them credit for. They have peaceful tactics too. Like propaganda, disinformation, debt-lock, surveillance, political lobbyists, and they have the $$ to keep it up for as long as they need to. They've learned from the past, unlike the majority of the citizens. They know how to prevent people from having the support of the populace. They're experts at turning people against people.
I totally respect the fact that you're a non-violent person. I'm not a violent person either. I don't advocate or wish for violence in any form.
But I don't think they're gonna give up the power they have, and the power they wish to have without violent intervention.

shootemindehead

16-Jun-2012, 02:21 AM

...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...

Ya know, Trick...there's a whole world of difference with farmers teaching their kids about the kitchen shotgun and using it to scare the crap out of crows that are chewing on the tillage and some 8 year old kid lining his glock up on a man shaped target at "gun camp".

It's not even in the same universe.

Christopher Jon

16-Jun-2012, 02:55 AM

Ya know, Trick...there's a whole world of difference with farmers teaching their kids about the kitchen shotgun and using it to scare the crap out of crows that are chewing on the tillage and some 8 year old kid lining his glock up on a man shaped target at "gun camp".
So you've been to one of these gun camps?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Just makin shit up, you are.

slickwilly13

16-Jun-2012, 05:36 AM

rightwing401

16-Jun-2012, 06:32 AM

While this does seem to be on its way towards a heated thread, I find the differing points of view interesting. What I've seemed to have noticed (at least my personal observation) is that members from the UK and other European countries are very much against the kind of massive ownership of private firearms for individuals here in the states, whereas myself and the other Americans are primarily for extensive ownership of firearms for individuals.

I personally think a lot of this boils down to personal psyche, if I may say so. For our friends across the pond, unless I'm mistaken, you all have lived and grown up in predominately free gun societies, so your arguments against readily available possession of firearms makes sense to me. Now does the lack of private ownership of guns make your countries safer? I don't know, I've never been to the UK, or any other European country, much less lived there. Only you guys can answer that question.

On the other side of the pond, we americans (most of us anyway) have lived in a very gun accessable society, and even one that in ways encourages the private ownership of guns. Most people I know have been raised around guns from when we were old enough to stand, taught how to shoot, how not to aim a weapon at anyone unless we intend to kill them. Now does the massive availability of weapons in our country make it safer or more dangerous? Who's to say. There's more than enough cherry picked facts to support both arguments.

I tend to believe that this is more of a personal issue, in adherance to age old american individualism. If one believes that large numbers of guns available all around them makes life more dangerous, then it's their choice not to have the weapons around them. On the flip side, if they believe that ownership of guns makes them safer, then it's their choice to possess as many legally accessable firearms as they feel they need.

Myself, I personally trust myself to defend my own life from potential danger rather than relying on others to keep me alive. Now will this view on life actually keep me alive at some point or end up killing me, I have no way of knowing. But I accept that responsibility and accept any consequences that come from that decision.

botc

17-Jun-2012, 07:01 PM

Correction you do not have to have a federal firearms license to own automatic firearms. The proper paper work and a horridly heavy tax stamp at a class 3 ffl dealer can land you a 40mm machine gun if you want. And imported aks come over as parts kits you poopyheads. I happen to love guns and don't knock till you try it. And quit shootin your mouth off till you have actually shot a gun. Bunch of cry baby women's genitalia if you ask me.

-- -------- Post added at 03:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:48 PM ----------

And to add no automatic or otherwise noted types of firearms made after 1968 domestic or imported can be owned. So that means anything pre 68 is fair game

Moderator Note: Edited pejorative. Please post civilly.

babomb

17-Jun-2012, 08:03 PM

C'mon now. I like firearms as much as the next guy, but there's no reason to be insulting people. Everyone is entitled to their own views, and whether you agree with those views or not, doesn't give anyone the right to be disrespectful to other members.
Conveying your points in a logical and respectful manner does WAY more to validate your own view on anything. Insulting people and being generally disrespectful only solidifies other peoples opposition to your own point of view.

Sammich

17-Jun-2012, 09:47 PM

I knew a guy in Arizona that owned machineguns. The Tax Stamp isn't "horridly heavy". It is only $200. The privately transferrable guns themselves, due to their limited availability are very, very expensive. For example, MAC 11's run around $4,000 and MP5s in the $20,000 range. I remember years ago seeing GE Miniguns being sold in Shotgun News for something like $50,000. Getting approval through the feds and state or local agencies can take 1 month to a year. IIRC he said it took about 3 months to get approval.

Machineguns made before May of 1986 are transferrable to private owners, not 1968. Anything after that date can be bought as "dealer sample" only if you have the proper licensing.

botc

18-Jun-2012, 07:27 AM

After some research you are correct with that statement about 86. Damn shop commandos. I wasn't insulting anyone per say if that's how you spell it... I just can't stand when people speak garbage about something they know nothing about. Until you have shot a firearm don't say shit about it. If you don't like guns then say it and leave it where it is. Where I come from we have two sayings in regards to this... It is what it is and opinions are like assholes everyone has one and they all stink. Only mine smells like roses... Jk

Neil

18-Jun-2012, 09:07 AM

This will shock you even more. I learned to fire a handgun and rifle at age 4. I may have mentioned it in another gun thread.

I'd not give a knife to a 4yr old... Let alone a gun...

LouCipherr

18-Jun-2012, 04:40 PM

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.

Ummm, I did provide you with examples with auto weapons being obtained legally. The Dividians were just another example of automatic weapons being used in a crime. No, those in particular were not NFA, the other examples were.

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.

That's not what we're discussing here. We're discussing automatic weapons used in crimes, not conspiracy theories. Are you saying the Dividians never used their automatic weapons?

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

"Department issue" is the same as obtaining legally, right? If it's not, are you saying the cops or the government issue automatic weapons illegally to their officers?

Wait, wait, I know.. you're going to say the weapons were obtained legally initially, but somehow, by some weird conspiracy, that these two cops managed to get them from the true legal owners to commit the crime?

-sigh-

Doesn't matter if it's cops or people or government agents, and it doesn't matter if they're procured illegally or not, automatic weapons have been used in crimes. The "NFA" is just a technicality that you're going to continue to use so you can say "well, if they're legally procured, they're not used in crimes" which, as we all know, is false. I provided examples. I don't have the time nor the incllination to satisfy your curiosity as to "where the Mac 11 came from" - who cares? It was an automatic weapon, in the hands of a police officer, used to commit a crime. If that's not good enough for you, that's not my problem.

I already stated the reason why most crimes aren't committed with automatic weapons: It's a lot easier for a criminal to get a semi-auto weapon than a fully automatic.

Occam's Razor.

Since you don't know much about firearms, how can you make that generalization?

Sammich, c'mon man, I don't have to be a technical expert to know the average joe gun owner isn't smart or stupid enough (depending on your viewpoint) to convert their weapon to fully automatic. If it was "that easy" every gun owner and their mom would be doing it and would probably have at least one automatic weapon if not more. I know MANY gun owners, not a single one of them have - or even want - an automatic weapon.

Give to me a large break.

Patent searches and internet searches will bring back everything someone mechanically inclined would need to know to do a conversion.

"mechanically inclined" - How many gun owners are "mechanically inclined" Sammich? You don't need to be to fire a gun, you just have to know how to put the bullets in the gun and how to make it fire (which I wouldn't consider as "mechanically inclined" as being able to convert a firearm from semi-auto to fully auto). How can you make such a generalization that just "anyone" with a little skills and the internet could do this?

So, the bottom line is this (whether anyone wants to accept it or not): automatic weapons have indeed been used to commit crimes. Whether legally or illegally obtained. There are many more examples of this out there on the web, but you'll have to go look them up yourself.

As for me, this is my last word on this topic. This kind of subject is worse than discussion about religion. And I'm one of the idiots FOR gun ownership! :lol:

AcesandEights

18-Jun-2012, 06:03 PM

Please keep it civil. If you can't keep it civil, rethink whether you should be posting.

LouCipherr

18-Jun-2012, 06:49 PM

Please keep it civil. If you can't keep it civil, rethink whether you should be posting.

Was I not being civil?

AcesandEights

18-Jun-2012, 07:22 PM

Was I not being civil?

If you have to ask, you probably weren't, but I was not referring to you directly, Lou.

babomb

18-Jun-2012, 07:44 PM

"mechanically inclined" - How many gun owners are "mechanically inclined" Sammich? You don't need to be to fire a gun, you just have to know how to put the bullets in the gun and how to make it fire (which I wouldn't consider as "mechanically inclined" as being able to convert a firearm from semi-auto to fully auto). How can you make such a generalization that just "anyone" with a little skills and the internet could do this? Many gun owners are mechanically inclined. They want to know everything there is to know about their firearms. How to break them down, clean them, install replacement parts. Many gun owners also take pride in their knowledge about firearms in general, and are also working class men and women who often have jobs that make them mechanically inclined. Taking this into consideration it's not a huge leap in knowledge from breaking down and repairing a firearm to being able to machine parts for it. Even more likely that a person would know someone with the ability to machine the part. You don't have to know how to convert a firearm to full auto in order to know how to machine the parts needed to do it either. Any experienced CNC machine operator could make the parts.

botc

18-Jun-2012, 07:46 PM

He was talking to me. If you thought that was uncivil you should see me on a bad day.

Sammich

18-Jun-2012, 08:17 PM

That's not what we're discussing here. We're discussing automatic weapons used in crimes, not conspiracy theories. Are you saying the Dividians never used their automatic weapons?

Davy Aguilera was an undecover ATF officer at the Davidian church and warned the ATF not to conduct the raid because the Koresh knew they were coming. If the Davidians had the alleged automatic weapons and allegedly fired first as the government claims, they would have killed ALL of the agents as they were being driven up in an unprotected cattle car. There wasn't any evidence that they had any machineguns before the raid and the Justice Dept refused to allow Failure Analysis Associates, Inc at the request of the Republicans to x-ray the remains of the guns for evidence of conversions.

-- -------- Post added at 08:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:51 PM ----------

Sammich, c'mon man, I don't have to be a technical expert to know the average joe gun owner isn't smart or stupid enough (depending on your viewpoint) to convert their weapon to fully automatic. If it was "that easy" every gun owner and their mom would be doing it and would probably have at least one automatic weapon if not more. I know MANY gun owners, not a single one of them have - or even want - an automatic weapon.

Give to me a large break.

Yes, give me a break.

Here is one example:

SWD Lightning Link (http://www.quarterbore.com/nfa/lightninglink.html)

It is something that can be made from a piece of sheet metal and a dremel and yes the dimensions are easily available from the internet.

Yet, you continue to trying to misdirect to arguments about "many gun owners" you "know" and other tangents.

-- -------- Post added at 08:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:15 PM ----------

As for me, this is my last word on this topic. This kind of subject is worse than discussion about religion. And I'm one of the idiots FOR gun ownership! :lol:

No, you are for what is known as Goldilocks gun control.

botc

19-Jun-2012, 12:29 AM

Or you can just buy the slide fire stock which bump fires either an ak or ar15 and mimics full auto fire. Yet its still semi auto.. One shot per trigger pull. The slide fire stock uses recoil to bounce your finger on the trigger and said device is BATFE approved. Just buy one, install, and go to town. No need for an illegal conversion just buy one online or at your local shop. You boys and possibly girls can gripe all you want about gun control and which one of the politicians should jerk each other with this issue but... You ain't gotta nuff money, time, or resources to even fool with it. Nothing is gonna change period. And in closing its better to have one and not need it to not having it and being screwed.

SymphonicX

19-Jun-2012, 11:31 AM

People shouldn't be allowed to own computers or digital recording devices. If you want to own a hand operated printing press or quill and paper then that is fine.

I absolutely detest that argument for gun ownership. It's almost the lowest form of argument for this subject - right next to "guns don't kill people, people kill people..."

Ugh. Can't you come up with anything better? Even the basic arguments for gun ownership are stronger than the default response of "let's ban kitchen knives then".

I mean not only is it irrational as an argument, immature and ill-thought out - it really makes no sense whatsoever, and devalues the argument for pro-gun ownership completely - and makes whoever uses this argument either akin to some rifle-brandishing redneck, or a "Hitler did that so it must be bad" internet debater.

Sammich

19-Jun-2012, 07:00 PM

I absolutely detest that argument for gun ownership. It's almost the lowest form of argument for this subject - right next to "guns don't kill people, people kill people..."

Then you agree that those who call for gun control can only supply the "lowest form of argument" because this is an analogy to their claim that the Founders only meant the 2nd amendment to apply to firearms available when the Bill of Rights was written. Using their "logic" the qualification should apply to all 10 amendments.

Ugh. Can't you come up with anything better? Even the basic arguments for gun ownership are stronger than the default response of "let's ban kitchen knives then".

I mean not only is it irrational as an argument, immature and ill-thought out - it really makes no sense whatsoever, and devalues the argument for pro-gun ownership completely - and makes whoever uses this argument either akin to some rifle-brandishing redneck, or a "Hitler did that so it must be bad" internet debater.

Once again, these are examples of turning the gun control supporters arguments right back at them. They only can supply their "feelings", personal fear and ignorance as excuses to ban guns that they think are too small, too big, look too scary or shoot too fast.

You obviously have not seen the research done by Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership in government imposed gun control leading to genocide and it is not just limited to Hitler. Your ignorance and refusual to recognize past history is irrational, immature and ill thought out.

Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership (http://jpfo.org/)

Gun Control -- The KEY to GENOCIDE! "Gun Control is a Prelude to Totalitarian rule..." (http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/genocide.htm)

Raging Against Self Defense: A psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality (http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm)

Mr. Clean

19-Jun-2012, 07:05 PM

I am sure all of you know this documentry movie but if not ; i suggest you to watch it.

Tell me your not trying to bring Micheal Moore into this arguement....:duh:

Sammich

19-Jun-2012, 07:58 PM

After some research you are correct with that statement about 86. Damn shop commandos.

One thing I learned from years in the firearms industry is to take what you hear at gun stores and gun shows with a huge grain of salt, especially from the people behind the counter trying to sell you something. It is very rare nowdays to find gun stores with employees that actually know about guns as they have been replaced with minimum wage video game warriors who would be at home selling used cars. The other ones to watch out for are the gun store groupies. These are the guys that just hang out and compete with the employees at who can come up with the biggest b.s.

I've come across countless Walter Mitty types claiming they were SEALs, snipers, special forces, etc. Claims of M14s being used regularly to snipe at 1300 yards. AKs can't hit anything past 75 yards. .45 acp hit on a pinky will tear an entire arm off. Bullet impacts throw people through the air. AKs can be filled with concrete and never jam. M16s will jam from a single speck of dirt. And it goes on and on.

Mr. Clean

20-Jun-2012, 09:09 AM

One thing I learned from years in the firearms industry is to take what you hear at gun stores and gun shows with a huge grain of salt, especially from the people behind the counter trying to sell you something. It is very rare nowdays to find gun stores with employees that actually know about guns as they have been replaced with minimum wage video game warriors who would be at home selling used cars. The other ones to watch out for are the gun store groupies. These are the guys that just hang out and compete with the employees at who can come up with the biggest b.s.

I've come across countless Walter Mitty types claiming they were SEALs, snipers, special forces, etc. Claims of M14s being used regularly to snipe at 1300 yards. AKs can't hit anything past 75 yards. .45 acp hit on a pinky will tear an entire arm off. Bullet impacts throw people through the air. AKs can be filled with concrete and never jam. M16s will jam from a single speck of dirt. And it goes on and on.

I use to work with a guy who said he only buys new guns and "breaks" them in by shooting one round, then spending 30 mins cleaning the gun. Repeat, this step 5x....next shoot 5 rounds...clean for 30 mins....repeat 10x.....all the way to 20-30 rounds....then cleaning....I always rolled my eyes at this story....every single time he told it(heard it more times than I can count)....He always claimed it made the guns sooooo much more accurate. Well, I was getting my tires rotated last summer and picked up a hunting magazine and no shit was there a article about this "breaking in" process. The article explained the process much better than he ever did but I still can't swallow that it makes a rifle any more accurate than maybe 3% more than a rifle not "broke in".

So I agree with you...but add magazines to that list :D

Purge

20-Jun-2012, 02:37 PM

Proud member of the Constitution Party here. The right to bear arms is absolutely essential.

Sammich

20-Jun-2012, 08:01 PM

I use to work with a guy who said he only buys new guns and "breaks" them in by shooting one round, then spending 30 mins cleaning the gun. Repeat, this step 5x....next shoot 5 rounds...clean for 30 mins....repeat 10x.....all the way to 20-30 rounds....then cleaning....I always rolled my eyes at this story....every single time he told it(heard it more times than I can count)....He always claimed it made the guns sooooo much more accurate. Well, I was getting my tires rotated last summer and picked up a hunting magazine and no shit was there a article about this "breaking in" process. The article explained the process much better than he ever did but I still can't swallow that it makes a rifle any more accurate than maybe 3% more than a rifle not "broke in".

So I agree with you...but add magazines to that list :D

The first thing that should be done with ANY firearm is to clean and lubricate it before it is fired the first time. It serves the purpose of familiarizing the owner with disassembly/reassembly and factory maintenance recommendations. I can't count the number of times someone with a brand out of the box gun was complaining about malfunctions, but had a blank stare when asked if he cleaned and oiled the gun. Guns from the factory are covered with what is essentially just a rust preventative (surplus gun buyers just love cosmoline) that does not work as lubrication. More often than not the internal parts will also be dry. Dry metal on dry metal do not get along well with each other, especially stainless steel.

The whole rifle "barrel break-in" thing was created by a barrel maker so that he could sell more barrels as this procedure could actually cause harm. The other issue is that many people do not know the correct cleaning process. Using only one piece cleaning rods. Using a bore guide. Wet patching the barrel and letting it sit before using brushes. Pushing brushes from the chamber first. Patches only passed through once. If someone doesn't do these basic things the barrel will get damaged.

The only break-in that occurs in firearms are the metal against metal moving parts- fire control parts, bolts, slides, rails, etc. During this time rough surfaces and excess finish are burnished away.

Here is an article with Gale McMillan's views on barrel break-in that your friend might like to read. He is very well respected manufacturer of target rifles.

How to Break-in a Barrel-- A Dissenting Point of View (http://www.6mmbr.com/gailmcmbreakin.html)

Barrel Break-In (http://www.snipercountry.com/Articles/Barrel_BreakIn.asp)

SymphonicX

22-Jun-2012, 09:04 AM

Then you agree that those who call for gun control can only supply the "lowest form of argument" because this is an analogy to their claim that the Founders only meant the 2nd amendment to apply to firearms available when the Bill of Rights was written. Using their "logic" the qualification should apply to all 10 amendments.
Once again, these are examples of turning the gun control supporters arguments right back at them. They only can supply their "feelings", personal fear and ignorance as excuses to ban guns that they think are too small, too big, look too scary or shoot too fast.
You obviously have not seen the research done by Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership in government imposed gun control leading to genocide and it is not just limited to Hitler. Your ignorance and refusual to recognize past history is irrational, immature and ill thought out.
Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership (http://jpfo.org/)

Gun Control -- The KEY to GENOCIDE! "Gun Control is a Prelude to Totalitarian rule..." (http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/genocide.htm)

Raging Against Self Defense: A psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality (http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm)

dafuq did I just read?
That seriously made no sense.

Anyway isn't a gun that's twice the size of a helicopter, shoots 3000 rounds per second, and comes with a grenade attachment subject to more stringent control, in your eyes, to a 9mm handgun? Or are you saying that people against gun ownership cannot see the difference between a (John Travolta voice:) "Goddamn hand cannon" and a pissy potato gun?

I'll get back to this later - there's a litany of madness here that needs addressing towards the end of the day rather than the start.

AcesandEights

22-Jun-2012, 01:50 PM

Anyway isn't a gun that's twice the size of a helicopter, shoots 3000 rounds per second, and comes with a grenade attachment subject to more stringent control, in your eyes, to a 9mm handgun? Or are you saying that people against gun ownership cannot see the difference between a (John Travolta voice:) "Goddamn hand cannon" and a pissy potato gun?

I agree. I think straw has hit an all time low on the commodities exchange for people to be buying it in so much bulk.

It sounded as though if you're against private ownership of assault rifles or belt fed machine guns then you might as well want to outlaw butter knives and multistory buildings (stairs kill, after all!).

It's not anything that's meant to be substantive or rational and the excuse is that so many people who are for gun control aren't rational themselves and are simply reacting out of fear, which is definitely a position that has some merit to it. However, fear and irrationality are present in spades on both sides of the debate and empty talking points aren't really going to ever move a dialogue on the topic forward.

Sammich

23-Jun-2012, 02:41 AM

dafuq did I just read?
That seriously made no sense.

Anyway isn't a gun that's twice the size of a helicopter, shoots 3000 rounds per second, and comes with a grenade attachment subject to more stringent control, in your eyes, to a 9mm handgun? Or are you saying that people against gun ownership cannot see the difference between a (John Travolta voice:) "Goddamn hand cannon" and a pissy potato gun?

I'll get back to this later - there's a litany of madness here that needs addressing towards the end of the day rather than the start.

All I see above is a diarrheal flood of arrogant ignorance.

What part of "those who call for gun control can only supply the "lowest form of argument" because this is an analogy to their claim that the Founders only meant the 2nd amendment to apply to firearms available when the Bill of Rights was written. Using their "logic" the qualification should apply to all 10 amendments." do you not understand? I would like to see proof from any of the Founders that supports the notion that certain parts of the Bill of Rights were time sensitive and others aren't.

It is amusing that someone in the UK is trying to base their interpretation of 2nd Amendment by using wild exaggerations and movie quotes to support the tired old "goldilocks" gun control argument. Maybe I should argue about the absurdity of a country that worships and funds a monarchy that is as worthless as the Kardashians.

I have been part of the "gun culture" for almost as long as you have been alive and have heard just about every excuse and argument against the 2nd Amendment from people around the world. None have ever shown any merit against "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."

And yes, the firearms knowledge of people who support gun control is usually comprised solely of what they have seen in movies and video games. Everything with a pistol grip is an AK or M16. Every big handgun is an UZI or MAC 10.

qyoLuTjguJA

Penn and Teller Bullshit: Gun Control

Part 1
SCXtfR0_roE

Part 2
MtqufzEFCzw

Part 3
YoIKlO20RqM
joBMq6b4MmE

SymphonicX

23-Jun-2012, 12:49 PM

This is clearly getting out of hand....and I'm not sure you got my original post in the first place?

I've got to walk through what you're saying carefully - cos really, let's not go on about it like nutters ok?

I never brought up the Bill of Rights - I'm not even attesting to have even given it a glance...But you seem to be saying that the BoR isn't time specific and that's not a good argument to use for gun control....

Which means you're assuming that I side with the people who said that the BoR is time specific and not relevant in today's world...that is wrong entirely!

You are forcing those words into my mouth by saying "then you agree that xxxxx" - opinions and viewpoints don't work on a default "if this is good, then this is bad" mentality - I mean....wtf?

As I said, I never even glanced at the BoR - why would I? As you say, over here we have an "absurd monarchy" - again feel free to argue a point on that one.....

because as with the first point you made, you'll be arguing about it alone! Again, I never brought up the monarchy, it's something I don't particularly give a shit about anyway. Why is this coming up?

Look, I'm sorry if I caused offence - perhaps I should rephrase it.

I believe that the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument is weak.
I also believe that the sort of moral para-phrasing such as "well we have to ban (insert dangerous object here) because they also have the ability to kill people" is also VERY VERY weak.

You used printing presses as an argument if I can remember - all I'm saying, Sammich, is that that's not a very strong or convincing argument. In fact it demonstrates the very "fear" that you so patronisingly accused me of...(which is absurd...I live in the UK, why do I give a shit if you own a gun?)

You may have posted some links or videos that DO provide better arguments - but it's gone way too far off track for me to bother with anything you've posted here - it's getting to "'merica" territory.

In short....(this is what I'm trying to say)

What I do think pro and anti gun people need to be talking about though, is the culture of fear that permeates your media, with the threat of institutional racism, and separatism in your fragmented societies. Perhaps if you all reached some theories and conclusions about why your shit is so fucked up, you'd be more like Canada - gun friendly yet not torn apart by this argument.

Finally, I can't resist a point about this one - perhaps the BoR being out-dated is a weak argument - you may indeed be correct. But if you believe it to hold complete relevance in this aspect, then why hasn't America already risen up against it's government countless times already? You've had many, many times to rise up and take back your country - but instead you just vote in another doucebag and demand it goes from bad to perfect in less than four years - and there you are, sending more 18 year old boys to get shot, spending millions to rape Central Africa and the Middle East of it's resources, and playing your own society off at a self destructive capitalist human pyramid which has already started to tumble....in a world where you're being sold 74 ounce cups of super-sized soda because they are telling you that you save money by eating yourselves to death and buying into every brand, shitty idea and panic story that they feed you on a daily basis? Why haven't you stormed the news buildings, and demanded they actually report the truth? Why haven't you separated the mad religious right from your government and said "wait a minute, this is completely fucking irrational and NOT representative of what our consitution is about"? I can't think of anything more unconsitutional, than the American government - so forgive me if I am sceptical that ANY of America has the balls to rise up to their government - they've been fucking you all for years.

Apply all that to the UK, and you also have relevant points - so just in case you throw that whole paragraph back at me - be aware that I've also considered how that applies to us as well....it's just that the UK isn't going around with this sad pretence that we are somehow going to overthrow our government as soon as they piss us off enough - we'll probably break some shop windows, but that's about it!

As for the rest about differing gun sizes and their availbility to people - I think Aces has said it perfectly.