US Gun laws are "License to murder"

zyonchaos: when going back over my personal development in these 46 pages of discussion, I indeed turned from outright banning to stricter regulation. Thus acknowledging that it's not the gun but the guy who has it in possession.

From the sides of those arguing against a ban or further regulations there has been no development - a common denominator could not be found. From this side of the argument, a more thorogh background check, a longer waiting period, a more intense training and mandatory safety measures have been proposed. Further it has been asked why "ordinary" citizens need (so called) assault weapons...

Amongst others, I proposed that those who own guns merely for the use in clubs and shooting competitions could store their guns in those clubs only. It's been proposed to microstamp and limit ammunition... It's a weak argument saying that this would not be practicable and all that has been given in return was mockery and the dull repetition of antiquated arguments. (* in this context: it has been mutually agreed that if there is a madman with a knive vs. a law abiding citizen with a rifle - the madman wins. So please get over this rubbish.)

Laws for regulation already exist (for quite a long time) - it doesn't seem to change much and peoplle seem to have their fingers stuck into their ears quite deeply.

At the same time where a few like to get off on their guns (innocent and law abiding) people are getting killed.

However, this thread is primarily about the US gun laws, as in the EU we do have quite effective laws that get enforced - and in turn there are much less incidences where (a few) people shoot (many) people.

Those who are still not confident with their own government - IMO - in reality don't trust their fellow citizens. It has been proven that (in the long run) no government can successfully establish its power against the will of its people - no matter whether 'democracy', monarchy or dictatorship.

The only reason why there is no outright ban in effect in the US NOW is that there is a lobby and an industry who supports it with loeads of money connected to it...

How easy do you think it *is* to legally buy a gun?

In the US you have to be 21 to get a handgun, hell you have to be 21 just to buy the *ammunition* for the gun. 18 for a rifle or shotgun. Is that akin to your 'age of consent' reference? If you want to actually carry your gun you need a concealed permit, or license if you will... Some states make you get a purchase permit before you can even get the gun.. All the regulations you just stated that are 'reasonable' are ALREADY in place in relation to guns. Everything I've heard you (although also primarily Stone) talk about is working towards an outright ban, not. Gun owners are already bending over backwards to appease you guys and do things right and legal, because they *want* to be legal.

Do you really think people don't drive if they don't have a license? Will 'age of consent' laws stop underage sex, or even worse, abuse? Not at all.

Lurch, I have no problem with proper hunting and sporting rifles, and I have never suggested the out right ban on guns pre-se. I support the removal of assault weapons because there is no place for them in a civilized society, and I think carrying a concealed pistol is anti-social, to say the least. Bit of throwback to the cowboy days if you ask me.

As you know Clinton banned assault weapons, and the NRA lobbed Bush, and they were put back on the street. Since they were put back on the street they have caused carnage in the US, Canada and Mexico. I’d suggest that Clinton was correct in banning them because the public cannot be trusted with them. In many situations, laws are made because of the lowest common denominator in society. As a law enforcement officer you should know that.

It seem to me that in America laws are manipulate by powerful lobby groups like the NRA, and weapons that were banned for good reason are made legal again. Without any good reason.

not sure wich window the "age of consent" is flying through - if you're cross referencing over various threads, then maybe you don't rape my statement out of context... ermmm, rip that should read. You also want to tell me that you can't keep kids from bullying but you can trust them with guns?

Lurch - you seem to have short memory. As Stone, I have no probs with hunting rifles - 1 or 2 per properly licensed hunter is enough IMHO. Also ammunition - 1 or 200 per hunter should be enough IMHO. Also people in highly exposed positions, such as bodyguards, certain social workers - such as Pounce, guards of valuables, rangers and private investigators amongst them. Training should be mandatory too.

Certain guns don't belong in civilians hands, such as M16, UZI, H&K semi automatic machine guns, etc. We've been over this. A hundred times. 46 pages and you're still going off on what I/ we already agreed with. It's a bit... tiring.

If all the legislation necessary is already in place, as you say, why are second hand sales and gun fair sales still legal? Why are there MORE guns on your streets every day... yaddayaddayad... CC is not the answer to school shootings either. If you can't protect your children, then hire armed guards that protect them on campus. Least needed are students with firearms in the classrooms....

Tom,
We seem to be going down the same lines. The only people that need Automatic weapons (stray away from calling them assault as all weapons can be used for assault) are properly trained individuals, police (response units such as SWAT) and the various branches of the military.
However security guards (mall cops) and the general public should be limited to a handgun with 6 rounds and that is it.
If everyone was armed like that and they were really scared for their life they would make sure that they were trained to the point that every single shot would count.
Or failing that confiscate all the amunition, dont bother licensing guns (joke), sell all firearms for £5 only and then make each round of ammunition very, very expensive.

As for your comment about the government and "IMO - in reality don't trust their fellow citizens" unfortunately our politicians stopped being our fellow citizens a long time ago. Any body who wants to be a politician or lawyer should be banned from both professions, IMO lol

Thanks Zyon, "assault" is a term coined as to describe a certain type of weapon, namely semi/ automatics. True that all weapons can be used for assault, you're more comfortable with "semi/automatics"? Well, they can be used for hunting too ... part of this discussion went on over a few pages where it's been agreed that even a Bazooka (or "missile launcher" - or "Class III" weapon or even a Abrams tank) could be used for hunting.... why is it "okay" to BAN those from public use, but NOT to BAN a M16 or UZI (or any other weapon in this category).

It's just tiring having to write en detail which weapons are being talked about - especially when "the other end" pretty much knows what is being talked about.

But I understand that we're generally talking the same language...

As to politicians, personally I would not agree. Thing is that there are people out there, who would already claim that cops and mall guards stopped to be "fellow citizens" as they try to "serve and protect". It always depends on the "standards" you're willing to apply, your level of "goodwill", "compassion", "trust" and finally - whether you want to live in duality or not.

Some people have ideals - others are willing to compromise on them.

I didnt think you would agree about the politicians (noticed you didnt say anything about the lawyers though lol), I see your point it is a lot easier for people to identify with the word assault instead of semi/automatic because those are the lines that are used on a regular basis in the press to describe "these horrific weapons"

And ok the law of averages means that there has to be at least 1 decent politician some where, all we have to do is find that person and clone them. When I say politicians stop being fellow citizens it is because they have taken the next step up to being servants of citizens (I use the term loosely as a lot of politicians seem to be out to serve themselves IMHO), in my eyes the same applies to anybody that takes public service, police military, doctors, etc etc, we have stopped being fellow citizens, we are now protectors of citizens. It doesnt neccessarily make us better than everbody else it does however make us different, for example I mentioned earlier the training that the military undertake before using a rifle. For me it was a week in a classroom learning about how a weapon works, the individual parts of that weapon, how to strip it and clean it.

Then it was another 3 days in a classroom, with a live rifle, but no ammunition except for training rounds (cannot be fired in any shape form or way) learning stoppage drills, body position when firing, breathing techniques. By the time we got to the firing range, it was very difficult for us to make a mistake especially as we had 3 big blokes standing behind us screaming at us everytime we did something minutely wrong.

How many others that by law are allowed to walk around with weapons get even half that amount of training?

Ok, in most of this discussion, the definition of assault weapons refers to the weapons included in President Clinton’s weapons ban ie. “The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB). Which was a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law of the United States that included a prohibition on the sale to civilians of certain semi-automatic so called "assault weapons" including military-style semiautomatic rifles, derived from assault rifles but with lesser capabilities (see wiki for list).”

President Bush did not renew this law and that put assault weapons back on the street. One of the ironies of the Bush decision, was that many of the assault weapons used by Harris and Klebold in the Columbine High School massacre, that were illegal in 1999, are now legal.

Lurch suggests that people have to be over 18 years old in America to get a rifle or shotgun. Though, I’m not sure if that means own one or shoot one. Never mind, the point being while Americans have the erroneous view that “they have the God given right to bear arms” then there is no real commitment to restricting gun violence. How else could Harris and Klebold amassed such an arsenal of weapons.

Or to put it another way. Many of the gun laws in America seem to be there for appearance only, because no one seems too interested in enforcing them, not even LEO’s. As Lurch keep reminding us, his constitutional rights trump state and federal laws and that is the fact of the situation. So, until there is a real commitment to change, then gun violence will continue, if not increase given the current economic climate.

Lurch, given you official title of “peace officer” and the fact that it is relatively easy too get an assault weapon either legally or illegally in America. My previous question still stands. Do you agree that under the circumstances, President Obama would be doing the right thing for the community if decides to restrict the sale of semi-automatic assault weapons in the future?

just my two(or more) cents
a) i don't care what europe wants to do in regards to guns, but if one makes gun ownership criminal, only criminals will have guns (also disarming your police officers is just plain dumb)
b) "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." Just from the text of the Constitution, restriction of civilian possession of weaponry at the national level is unconstitutional. So President Clinton's law was fundamentally flawed.
c) the term "assault weapons" is vague and useless, and has no real meaning
d) automatic weapons are weapons that fire repeatedly when the trigger is held down
e) semiautomatic weapons are weapons that fire upon each trigger press without another action, such as cocking the gun
f) restriction or banning of automatic weapons can make sense
g) restrictions upon clip size are always arbitrary
h) "assault weapons" that are semi-automatic are not fundamentally more dangerous than another semi-automatic weapon

the crux of the issue is that big brother is not all-powerful (thank goodness) or all-wise. weapons in the hands of citizens do three things.
1) allow citizens to prevent murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping, etc as it is taking place. big brother is notably poor at doing so
2) limit the ability of armed agents of the government to abuse the populace with or without the government's permission.
3) revolt. it's a simple fact that disarmed citizens can't revolt well. think about it; disarming the population is one of the first steps an oppressive government newly arrived in power takes. if the founding fathers had no weapons, we would have had a poor time in the Revolution. and the duty of citizens to rebel against oppression is fairly well laid down in the declaration of independence. (and don't tell me citizens with weapons would have no hope against the army. it might be true, but taking the weapons from citizens makes it even worse, and i fail to see how that is an argument for gun control and not one against it)


so i don't care whether gun control laws increase or decrease crime. everyone in switzerland has a gun, and they have low crime. no one in england does, and they have higher crime. i don't see a correlation, but it doesn't matter. if europe wants to make all weapons illegal, feel free (though i'd never want to live there). i'd much rather live in a country where i can walk down the street with a handgun and a concealed carry permit than one where i get a year in jail if i'm caught with a switchblade

Thanks Xissix, we have heard all that NRA propaganda many times before, but the fact remains that America still has the highest rate of gun violence in the civilised world.

You gun-guys are big on you so-called “individual” rights. And as Lurch keep reminding us, his constitutional rights trump state and federal laws, and that is the fact of the situation. But hey when push-comes-to-shove, like the American instigated Global Financial Crisis, you are the first guys to ask "big-brother"for trillions of dollar financial rescue packages. Which is rather hypocritical in my book.

Everyone throws this line about when ever debating gun control in America and it makes me laugh, yes your constitution is a wonderful thing I wish we in the UK had something written down that we could turn to every five seconds and skew to fit our frame of mind. Reread the quote above paying particular attention to the bit in bold (if the bold dont work the first 4 words.)
A Well Regulated Militia.
Now dont get me wrong militias are great, but the only well regulated ones you have are the nutcases that hide themselves off in the wilderness. You have no regulated militia, no training and 1 in 3 of you think that you won WW2. My point is unless there is stricter gun control and regulation, the increase in violent crime will continue. And the fact that we cant carry guns in the UK has nothing to do with the high crime rate, its more to do with the fact the little scrotes will get let off with a soft punishment.

Hey Xissix, thanks for joining the thread - please don't take it hard when I tell you that many of the points you mention have been tackled before. If you refer to the Initial Post, you will find updated informations on the topic.

However, I feel you might not be open for a discussion - as you say "I don't care", still I'd like to comment your post.

Please don't get me wrong, I do respect you and your opinion.



a) Nobody is really speaking of disarming police officers in here.
b) Nobody is saying that gun ownership "en large" should be criminal.

Of those who criticise the present gun legislation in the US, most (if not all) speak of further regulation - or outright enforcement of current laws - and more training/ education.



As been said before: a well regulated militia cannot be found anywhere inside the US - guns given, guns taken.

The constitution of the US has been written long time ago. I would boldly say that those who participated and signed it (in best intent) would rather see it changed in quite a few aspects today. As "we" from the old world see it (boldly speaking me, that is), the US - with one leg - is stuck in past centuries. Systems and constitutions need to be revised and adjusted to changing circumstances.

"The right to bear arms" (for the average US citizen) is already restricted - (and even you will agree that) class III weaponry and (for example) nuclear or chemical/ biological weaponry does not belong in the hand of civilians. In "our" opinion also "automatic weapons" (generally coined "assault") do not belong in the hand of civilians.



can't side that. It's not about "clip size", as I see it, but about "the total amount of rounds in possession of a single individual". For "self defense" you just don't need 200 rounds. IMHO



That is true, which is why "only banning guns" won't do the deal. US crime rates are considerably high and a great deal of it because of the availability of guns. I dislike statistics, only these numbers also show that guns do not prevent crimes, they cause (many of) them.



This has been one of the main reasons why this is in the US constitution. Written at a time where your country was just popping into existence, facing possible threats from outside. Today is a different time. The world has moved on, maybe the US will catch up in recognizing that.

Now, we do understand why you don't trust your government. Europeans generally do have a lot of scepticism regarding their governments and you just surpassed 8 years of "Bushism".. but notably there has been no revolt against a government that dragged you into a number of international conflicts and that used outright lies to do so.



Please note that your forefathers didn't revolt against a democratically elected government, but against being a British colony (and some might say that you should again become one in order to come to terms ) At some stage in those past 8 years the US (as I recall it) had two cases of quite problematic elections... the general public was quite unhappy with Mr. Bush and his administration... but... no revolt.

You really believe that the US would at any stage in the future have to face an opressive government, which is ruling against the will of the majority of people and abandon democracy?

However... no, civilians wouldn't stand a chance against the military. So what's the point really?



Please note that Switzerland (and most other EU countries with lax gun legislation) decided to firm their laws because of increasing gun violence. But the statement that "everybody in Switzerland has a gun", is as erroneous as to say that "no one in England does"... That's just not according to the facts.



See, in case of a skilled switchblade vs. an unskilled gun - the switchblade looses (definitely <9ft distance that is) every time.

The american public seems to widely be conditioned by movies where
a) "the bad" never run out of ammunition and
b) "the good" hit their target with every single shot

3yo girl shoots 2yo brother dead, with a loaded handgun in their home in California, America




"It's so important that if you're going to have firearms in your possession you make sure they're stored safely." Well so much for the Heller ruling, encouraging on unsafe gun storage and possession. The question the rest of the world, keeps asking, and asking, and asking, is when is America actually going to do something about their gun violence problem?

Wow you guys are deeply confused by my posts apparently..

You've said you dont have a problem with 'hunting and sporting rifles' yet you agree with the Clinton "Assault" weapons ban, that just arbitrarily defines assault weapon, and blanket covers many weapons that could easily be considered a normal hunting or sport rifle. Where do you draw the line? because the Clinton AWB definition is terrible, as I've tried to explain multiple times, but you never seem to want to address that.

TRUE AW's, those capable of burst or full auto fire, are *heavily* regulated by the feds, and require a *lot* of hoop jumping to acquire.

FireTom, Sorry I guess I misunderstood, 'age of consent' usually refers to just that... what exactly were you trying to get at?

You seem to think I can walk into a store and buy an M16 or Uzi and walk out with a brand new fully automatic baby killing machine. That's not the case at all.


Why does a private citizen need special permission to sell private property to another citizen? Don't give me that 'because they're scary and dangerous' line. For once stop thinking of them as guns, and think of them as property like they are.



I've *never* condoned youth carrying weapons for protection. They aren't mature enough. CCW on campus is refering to *adults* carrying for their person reasons. Or are you saying if Pounce goes to class somewhere she should have to disarm simply because she's on campus?



The people who legally have Class III weapons (fully automatic) aren't just wandering down the street with them. They are collectors and enthusiasts who've put thousands of dollars into it to get the proper licenses and permits, and acquire the weapon itself. You're violating pretty serious federal laws if you have one illegally



Huh?! A: most security guards don't carry, armed security is an entirely different breed from unarmed. And where do you come up with the number 6?



The people that take the time and money carry concealed legally by in large spend more time with their guns, practicing, and maintaining their skills than a lot of military or police. They are quite serious about it, and don't think it's a joke by any means



By your definition, No. I've already said that Stone.



Maybe this is part of the problem FireTom.. If you look at any military definition of an assault rifle, it's capable of burst or automatic fire. Clintons definition includes (and primarily effects) semi-auto rifles and handguns. You're misusing/confusing terms, and thats part of whats so frustrating for me trying to decode what you're talking about. Clintons AW definition does NOT equal automatic weapons. Burst and Full Auto guns are already regulated by the feds as Class III firearms



With how much the price of metals fluctuates, and the 'runs' of ammo changing, It's not unreasonable at all for an avid shooter to "stockpile" ammunition. The same way some spinners buy their fuels by more than the pint



How is concealed carry antisocial? It's *hidden* by definition, the general public shouldn't know you have a weapon. I may buy that statement if you were talking about open carry.

So Lurch,

Have you got any comments on my previous post and a lack of gun safety in America?

3yo girl shoots 2yo brother dead



As it says in the article "It's so important that if you're going to have firearms in your possession you make sure they're stored safely."

Well so much for the Heller ruling, that encourages unsafe gun storage and possession. The question the rest of the world, keeps asking, and asking, and asking, is when is America actually going to do something about their gun violence problem?


Just because you don’t personally agree with President Clinton banning assault weapons, doesn’t make the law bad. You only have to look at the carnage that has occurred since assault weapons were put back on the street to know that it is a necessary restriction.

Got to hit the same nail, Lurch.

Is that what it boils down to?

Confusion about what is coined assault weapons vs. class III, that those with class III weapons already are "enthusiasts" (as yourself), spreading the baseless myth that they are having more training than military or police (sounds a little nutty to me however), that people can sell their guns to anyone without background checks (even though they are dangerous and by that bypassing laws, that are pointless as nobody is really keen on enforcing them), CC on campus' for teachers, rather than employing professional, armed guards (sad enough you seem to need them as in opposition to the EU where we don't) and that civilians should continue to stockpile ammo legally?

Pounce going on campus... great example. What possible threat would she have to face from a class of students? You reckon she's that paranoid that she needs to have it on her *all* the time? Or would she become a sheep when she takes it off? I hope for the sake of sanity that you find moments where you take off your gun...

As I see it, if you can't defend yourself with 6 or 10 rounds in a handgun, you'll have to reload - and subsequently loose anyway. It's been yourself who backed that a handgun vs. a switchblade will always be in disadvantage on short range.

What I get from your posts, is that you're not willing to recognize the issue. It's not black and white - and I'm far from painting gun owners as "bad" or "evil" per se. I'm not judging - only wondering... have nothing against "recreational" shooting practice, would most likely score a 144 out of 150 myself - only when people die for nothing but the second ammendment, then there should be some action taken.

I'm still happy not to live in the US - and not having to travel there. It's sad, though, as you got amazing nature well worth a visit - and now your government changed...

You like to skew things and try and make me look bad don't you Stone. I've said over and over that education is the key, proper, secure, and safe storage is one of the primary elements that I fully endorse.

A child losing their life to an accident or negligence is definitely tragic, and a pointless death. But the solution is training/education not banning.

The Heller ruling didn't encourage unsafe gun storage at all. DC had said you can't have a pistol in the city unless it's registered, and they stopped registering handguns in 1976. Long arms had to be unloaded and dismantled. There are plenty of quick access gun safes that allow for secure storage and ready access, of both long arms and pistols, but you couldn't *have* a pistol, and the long arm had to be disassembled. Doesn't really allow for any sort of defense use now does it?

*Every* gun I've bought comes with a lock to secure it, and gun locks are freely distributed at multiple locations.



The definitions in the law are *terrible*, and it was largely counterproductive, and expensive. If you're trying to enact regulation about the danger of one type of weapon over another, it should be about the *function* of the weapon, not the cosmetics. A pistol grip on my shotgun does not make the slugs any more deadly.



Thats exactly the short sightedness that is frustrating. It's also the "sheep" mentality. Why would she expect being on campus to be any different than being anywhere else? For that matter, why should a parent have to disarm to pick their child up from school?

We have both quoted Grossman, and you may not buy into his Sheep/Sheepdog/Wolf analogy but I think there are still a few more points for him to make.. I will make them bold/italic instead of quotations to avoid confusion..

Some individuals would be horrified if they knew a police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out their airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguishers and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them. Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones were attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"

Wishful thinking is not a defense

If you are legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7 for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say to yourself... "Baa."

For the record, by in large I do *not* carry my gun everywhere, every day, but if I'm doing anything associated with law enforcement you best believe I'm armed. In fact most of the time it lives safely in a quick-access safe by my bed.



I should clarify, a *holstered* handgun vs a knife will most likely lose at close range. If you are aware of your surroundings and the people around you you shouldn't be caught in that situation to begin with. Even a single stack 1911 carries 7+1 (that's 7 in the magazine and one chambered, total of 8).. A compact glock carries at least 12+1, and my duty weapon (a full size glock) is 15+1. Whenever I'm on duty I have 46 rounds *on* my person at all times. Reloading does not mean you lose by any means.

YES most shootings are over in less than six (I believe the average is 2.4? I may be wrong though). Most people don't carry a spare magazine if they're concealed carrying, although it *is* more common for low capacity weapons. But If you're seriously going to prepare yourself for a time you may have to use deadly force, do you really want to run out?

I also have to ask, when does this ammunition limitation that you're asking for about take effect? Are you not allowed to buy more than 10 rounds at a time? Can you not OWN more than 10 rounds at a time? Possess? I'm very confused.. If you want to enforce training, actually *shooting* the weapon is a very important part of that. I would be much more comfortable around someone I know has extensively shot their gun (meaning thousands of rounds) over someone who's never, or only shot a couple times. Doing training for law enforcement, 250 rounds in a single range session was normal. And that's about the same as a full day of shooting privately as well. If you limit ammunition, you limit training, which makes everyone less comfortable.

There is far more too this than just the principal of the matter, although that's an important part. And I agree, needless and accidental deaths are tragic, and I would be all for doing everything we can to quell them while maintaining my rights. The *right* to have a gun is not what causes these accidents, people abusing that right is.

I don't want to get into another numbers fight, but even pulling numbers from the brady campaign, number of households with guns vs accidental deaths comes out to ~.0028% of households with guns will have one. They are rare and tragic, and they are broadcast for everyone to hear so they make more of an impact than the defensive gun uses.

so you're getting down the same old roads, Lurch.

To begin with: limited possession of ammunition does not = less training. Go to a shooting range and stay there for a week if you wish. In a private home and for self defense not more than one magazine - at the most one spare - is needed.

So at times you're not carrying? Is that when you go "baaah"? What makes you think that the situation in which you're not carrying is any different?

IMHO there is a big difference between someone innocent dying because your "off" and someone innocent dying because your "on"... personally I prefer the former over the latter.

However fact of the matter is that people do die from accidental gun discharge. Listen, do you side or oppose the smoking ban in public places, bars and restaurants? Would you say that education on the hazards of smoking has been effective... ? It might not be such a good example and I'm not talking about an outright "ban" anyway... What to do with a population that is not listening, that is not following the existing rules?

"Bob, please stop playing out there - come inside it's getting dark"... "Okay mom".................. "Booob, I told you to come inside." "Okay mom".................. "BOB, come inside NOW!" "Okay mom".................... "BOB, if you don't come inside NOW, I'm going to....." "Okay mom".................... "BOB...." "Okay mom"..........................

What are laws or rules worth if they don't get enforced?

What do laws matter, when people can buy second hand?

IMHO the guy who left his gun under the bed for his daughter to shoot her kid brother, should receive a hefty penalty. Such as never having the right to own a gun anymore and on... but who is getting penalized? The guy, the mom or the little girl - who from that day on has to live with the consciousness "I shot my brother dead..."! It's not just a tragedy, Lurch. It's criminal.

Yes at some stage I would love to see a human race that does not need (hand)guns and still lives in peace - for the time being I would love to see people work into this direction (LESS guns - not MORE)...

Whenever this arguement comes up the US Constitution is cited constantly. And the excuse of people revolting against a government and needing to defend themselves against the military.

All of a sudden the military are mean and nasty and not part of the human race, trust me when I say if there was revolt planned a lot of the British forces would be in line to help out lol.

The reason I said 6 rounds is that most standard revolvers take 6 rounds. Why would anybody need anything else for self defence?
Now give me the answer to that question without citing anybody else, any constitution or any law.

What is your own personal reason for carrying more than that(personal not work based)?

Ja !!

We agreed on a definition of an "assault weapon" yonks ago. They're the scary looking semi automatics that are specifically designed to kill a lot of people ( or make sure one person is really, dead ) without dropping the weapon from your eye to chamber another round. They're the guns people buy to make the statement "don't mess with me" and they give you a raging hard on to flash and fire in front of your friends or strangers.

Sure, you can envision scenarios where you may need one of these things, like an unruly army of groundhogs bolting across no mans land with eyes on decimating your cornfield where you might need to put a large amount of rounds downrange in a hurry in order to preserve your livelihood.



Yes, this is pretty much the crux of it. It's not about dong what's "right", but more about doing what's allowed.



Not just the military, but those citizens who support whatever the government is doing that causes the revolters to revolt in the first place.

It's as funny a justification as the keeping a well regulated militia. Who's going to invade? Canada? Mexico? China? The Duchy of Grand Fenwick? Repelling invasions is what you pay your military for. it's their job. You don't after all, see citizens stockpiling concrete "just in case" they need to fix some potholes in the freeway.

Lurch, they are your words. I think you need to decide who is running your Country; the NRA or the “elected” government? As far as education goes, I’m sure you do a good job teaching people that guns are dangerous, and the appropriate safety procedures for handling dangerous weapons. But the safety message does not seem to be working. Perhaps you could give Dick Cheney a hunting safety lesson.

It’s interesting that when the Virginia Tech shooting happened all the gun types proclaimed “if I’d been there I would have save those kids”. What’s the difference this time? No glory!



Lurch, you tend to say all laws you disagree with are terrible. It’s not the law that was bad, just some definitions. The law worked because it kept people from being killed. When it was reprieved, violence broke out in three countries. Though, I agree about the function. Military style weapons like AR15 should be banned. As they say “The second amendment ain’t about duck hunting or target shooting.”



Seem to recall that it was a sheep dog carrying a gun to church. Sheep dogs/police officers hmm? However, it’s simple. If you carry a gun to church you should not be in there, it sacrilege. It distracts from the sacred space and trust, and it is just plain inappropriate. You wouldn’t wear you spurs to bed, would you? And you wonder why I keep asking why are you guys so paranoid?



As I’ve said before laws are made to the lowest common denominator. In a civilized society people, some people have to forgo some of their rights for the community.




*cough*cough* perhaps you should look at some Emergency room stats, becfore you start blaming the media again. Eight children are shot to death every day.

... and just now a Kansas abortion doc got shot dead in a church where he served as an Usher... would this have been prevented if anybody else would have 'carried' there?

I doubt it - strongly. I doubt that one 'carrying' would have jumped up and screamed "down, down!" pulled out his gun and shot the approaching killer.

These are just cows-poo scenarios... At best he would have shot him after.



PS: It's not that I don't like you, Lurch - it's just that I consider your arguments weak and without reason... I have nothing against you carrying when "on duty" - I stated that long time ago, with the exceptioned professions. But ideally this gun would be stored in the police station... all doomsday hollywood scenarios set aside.

So you want to limit the amount of ammunition that can be kept in a home? What about people with hundreds of acres of land where they have their own area to shoot? Yes that's perfectly legal. There are 'ranges' on state land that are not manned with a Range Officer, private citizens show up and shoot their own ammunition. What about people who reload their own ammunition?

Realistically, ammo that isn't already loaded into a magazine does you no good in a fight or defensive situation, so I don't know why you're so intent on limiting it, or what you think that will solve.



Yeah actually, I do. That said unless I'm going somewhere specific where I *can't* I will always have at least a knife on me. Mainly for utility purposes, but there is always a defensive element to it. And no I've never had to use it defensively, or even come close to having to use it. I tend to do my best to stay out of situations where I may have to use deadly force. If I'm acting in a law enforcement capacity I don't have the luxury of simply walking away. And there are people out there with severe grudges against police.



I'm a little confused about what you're actually trying to get at there.. Someone innocent dying is *never* acceptable, and if my weapon is the cause than I am completely responsible, and I accept that. If the weapon under the bed was a regular CCW gun, and the owner decided they didn't want to carry that day, than the kid died because the owner took the day off, and didn't fulfill their responsibilities. The safest place for my gun is on my hip.



You're right that's not the best example. I don't think the feds, or the state should be controlling and regulating smoking in terms of privately owned business on private property. That should be up to the owner. Public land, and public buildings are different.

You're right though, what do we do with the population that doesn't listen? Cause we already have the laws, we already have the regulations. The people *you* have a problem with are the the people who aren't following those regulations. What makes you think they'll follow the new ones?

---------

Sorry I had a long 3 day weekend of SAR training... on with the reply!

---------




I'd like to think the *people* are running the country, and right now I would have to say the NRA is reflecting the mentality of more of the country than the "elected officials," but that's just an opinion.



What are you trying to compare here? The intentional killing spree of a disturbed individual and an accidental/negligent death of a child? There's no glory in either



The US AWB repeal caused violence in other countries now? Well I appologize I didn't realize our bullets fly that far The law isn't terrible because of what it did. The law is terrible because of how they went about it. Shoddy law making is a bad precident to set, and the way the AWB was written should *never* have been passed. The hype and fear mongering that was passed on along with it made politicians buy into it to further their career.



Police officers are sheepdogs by their nature. I guess you didn't bother to read my post and realize that was a quote from a book? Or maybe you did you just wanted to bait me anyways. Either way, I guess I should have provided more context for it, so I guess I'll post the preceding paragraph.

I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a police officer he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas, in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down 14 people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait for him to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"



This isn't about playing your music too loud late at night Stone. This is about personal safety and your responsibility to protect *yourself*. If the world were truly as civilized as you would like it to be there wouldn't be criminals, there wouldn't be police, there wouldn't be wars. But that's not the world we live in, even you guys across the ocean(s). In a 'civilized' society when people begin to lay down their arms, there are others that will begin picking them up to pray on those that are in denial.



It's not that I don't like you either FT, but I think you're a wee bit misguided, and blind to the real world. I sincerely hope you never have to see the reality you've avoided thus far.

Just curious though.. Why are you okay with me carrying openly while I'm on duty, but squeamish about me carrying concealed when the badge comes off? Am I less responsible? If the weapon is properly concealed it doesn't effect anyone around me unless it's needed since they wont even know it's there.

That’s close to treason. What, you would prefer Ted “the motor town madman” Nugent and the NRA running the country?

Federal agency warns of radicals on right

“The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in "rightwing extremist activity," saying the economic recession, the election of America's first black president and the return of a few disgruntled war veterans could swell the ranks of white-power militias. “




The assault weapon ban prevented much carnage, just as Class 111 still does. How about you give us your ideas on what should be in the semi-automatic assault weapon ban.



What I’m saying is that when the Virginia Tech shooting happened all the gun types proclaimed “if I’d been there I would have save those kids”. But I don’t hear all these wannabe heroes coming forth and saying they could have perevented a death when there are no opportunites for herocis and glory, as in the California incident. No just another accident.




I thought the bit in the book was about sheep dogs not police officer. I don’t remember the bit where he said “Police officers are sheepdogs by their nature.” I could be wrong on that.



A story about a story. After all the other stories, like the little qirl with the shotgun that proved to be proved to be false. I'd need more proof on that one. Anyhow, it could have resulted in more people being killed. And in you terms it's just another unfortunate accident. Though, I'd suggest that preventing that guy for getting his hands on an assault weapon would have been the best solution. But hey, that’s too sensible!



You guys like living in a violent society, so you create that society with you guns. It would be miraculous, but one day people will “wake-up” and see that all this violence is just stupid. Growing men chasing each other around with guns because they live in fear and have lost the ability to communicate.

You want to stockpile ammo? Store them in the shooting range.
Private ranges? Sorry, but no. Stockpile at home? Doesn't serve a defensive purpose, sorry but "no" also.

Why you think there are such harsh weapon procedures in a highly skilled/trained environment, like the military? Why not having the same, if not heavier regulations outside?

After duty you put your gun into the police station. Inside a safe... that's all you really need for duty.

What would you feel being appropriate for that CCW holder, who left his gun under the bed for his daughter to shoot her little brother? A pat on the shoulder along with "No worries, mate - tragedy - but you can still make another one..."

It happens too often, Lurch...

oh you guys just like to use inflammatory words to make your point.

I would respond but I think it would just be redundant and fall on deaf ears. It's good to see new blood in here

Lurch in case you are wondering, the Thich Nhat Hanh quote is for you and Lt Col David Grossmans WSG to think about

In the states you all have a right to bear arms. Major spelling error that the proofreaders missed, It was meant to say
The right to bare arms.

Stone that is only a slightly different scenario than the one Jainas use to describe the madness of man...

Faith... what was first, chicken or egg?
Am trying to keep it cool and find the deaf ears (to reason) at least on both ends of the table - if not in the audience as well