[Crazy Canuck]

(IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rant2.gif) (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rant.gif)
and especially this model: http://www.cx4storm.com/

for those that wounder why:
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/features...ting/index.html

my wife works 1 street corner away, and sometimes goes for lunch there... that day, she didn't... Thank God !

[CJ-TA]

Although I agree with you about the guns (I really dislike them as well)... in this case, it was the person who went nuts, not necessarily the gun.

[AllZWay]

People that want to kill don't have to have a gun to accomplish their goal.

It easy to blame the gun, but the problem is the criminal holding it.

[BigEnos]

I could think of 5 or 6 things to say to support my point on this subject, but the reality is it won't change anyone's mind. It's horrible when someone steps far outside the boundaries of society and commits such horrible crimes.

So far so good, but I'm sure of this: A heated discussion about gun rights, religion, abortion, etc. just can't end well. This forum is for a group of individuals to discuss something we all enjoy. Lets keep the hot-button topic discussions and politics out of it, please.

Eugenio, I'm glad your wife is safe and was lucky enough to avoid this situation.

[firehawkclone]

I'm so glad your wife wasn't harmed in anyway Eugenio.

There is no easy or correct answer to gun control, or the type of people that go off and do horrible things like this.

[Crazy Canuck]

Although I agree with you about the guns (I really dislike them as well)... in this case, it was the person who went nuts, not necessarily the gun.

i know... still don't like guns.

People that want to kill don't have to have a gun to accomplish their goal.

It easy to blame the gun, but the problem is the criminal holding it.

people that kill others and then turn the gun on them should do the opposite... turn the gun on them, kill them and then kill the others... pretty simple and better for everyone.

i don't want to start a gun control political debate... just wanted to point out i don't feel confortable with guns and also share the crazy events that happened here. :S
1989 was really bad when a freak entered University of Montreal and kidnapped a whole class and killed all the woman, then himself.
1992 was a university teacher that was fired (freak) then went back and killed his ex-work colleagues.
now this (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rant.gif)
at least the police force acted fast and was able to control the situation quite fast with not too many deaths... it's sad, but it could have been much worse.
damm freaks

Also, thinking on those events, and events caused by terrorism, since 11-sept was so close... just makes me wounder how the canadian public view would have changed if it was a terrorist attack instead of a freak trying to kill students... just curious.

[bubba353z]

Eugenio - glad to hear your wife is OK.

Guns are a problem, but only because it is too easy and cheap for the wrong persons to get ahold of them. I grew up with guns, and I never killed anyone.

The real problem is the lack of respect for human life. These low life thugs think that if someone "disses" them, that gives them a right to shoot them. Or a robber figures that dead people can't testify against me, so they shoot a clerk or bank teller.

You can debate culture or socio-economics all you want - but the bottom line is that the gun is not the killer, the person pulling the trigger is.

[AllZWay]

people that kill others and then turn the gun on them should do the opposite... turn the gun on them, kill them and then kill the others... pretty simple and better for everyone.

I agree... I wish losers like this would simply kill themselves.

BTW.. I too am very glad your wife is fine.

[slowTA]

It is frightening to be near or affected by an event like this. However the same thing can be said for alcohol, lawn and garden equipment, power and hand tools, appliances, utensils, sporting goods, and of course... cars.

[v7guy]

it's really unfortunate, but as long as human beings exsist I suspect we will see them trying to kill each other, be it with bombs, guns, baseball bats, or the rock on the ground.

I'm glad to hear your wife is ok.

This post has been edited by v7guy: Sep 15 2006, 07:50 PM

[jensend]

While I don't own any guns, I have to say that the core issue in things such as this have little or nothing to do with guns. People in many societies seem to be finding it increasingly difficult to cope with the challenges, stresses, and disappointments that are a large part of the fabric of modern life. Just consider the number and widespread use of prescription drugs that are meant to address getting through daily life. As recently as 20 years ago, the notion that vast numbers of people would need sleep aids, anti-depressants, digestive aids, etc. would have been thought absurd. Today, drug companies are producing products that seem to treat people's inabilties to cope from childhood to the grave. I'm not criticising the people who need the help, or those who provide it, but it seems to me that this is a telling commentary on the extent to which people have been pushed to, and beyond their limits by daily living and its pressures. Someone once said, "Beyond one's limits is a place no one ever wants to be."

Considering the countless number of overstyressed individuals we see all around us every day, it is, sadly, less than surprising that some individuals lose the ability to function rationally and responsibly. For these people, escape, or release, or random revenge is all that consumes them. The method they choose is just the means not the cause of their actions. Some use guns, some knives, others run down random pedestrians or drown their children. My point is, that we need to address the underlying and universal pressures in our approaches to living that put so many in such extremes. Considering the number of overstressed, jobless, homeless, individuals, we are fortunate that such horrors aren't more commonplace.

Lastly, I am happy to hear that Eugenio's wife is safe.

[Crazy Canuck]

Eugenio - glad to hear your wife is OK.

Guns are a problem, but only because it is too easy and cheap for the wrong persons to get ahold of them. I grew up with guns, and I never killed anyone.

The real problem is the lack of respect for human life. These low life thugs think that if someone "disses" them, that gives them a right to shoot them. Or a robber figures that dead people can't testify against me, so they shoot a clerk or bank teller.

You can debate culture or socio-economics all you want - but the bottom line is that the gun is not the killer, the person pulling the trigger is.

couldn't agree more... i still can't imagine how someone is able to pull a trigger on someone else, unless it's to save others lives, like a cop shooting that bastard, for example... even then, one is taking someone else's life away.
the lack of respect PERIOD is a big problem in our society, not only towards life, towards others and even property.

[Crazy Canuck]

btw, i really appreciate the good words on behalf of my wife being ok... appreciated.

[robz71lm7]

(IMG:http://www.a-human-right.com/somesee2_s.jpg)


They'd do it with pipe bombs, knives (there are many countries looking to ban steak knives), etc. Your reason for hating firearms is my reason for owning them. The right to self-defense is born within us regardless of whether or not a sheet of paper or judge says so. It's really not a liberal or conservative, majority or minority issue at all. I know white, black, conservative, liberal and gay people that carry. It's a basic human right.

In the USA DC has the highest murder rate yet guns are illegal to own there. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

couldn't agree more... i still can't imagine how someone is able to pull a trigger on someone else, unless it's to save others lives, like a cop shooting that bastard, for example... even then, one is taking someone else's life away.
the lack of respect PERIOD is a big problem in our society, not only towards life, towards others and even property.

You mention cops but it may interest you to know they often times have a higher percentage of negligent discharges than armed citizens here in the US.

I'll respectfully disagree with you when it comes to firearms. There are much bigger issues at work here. I carry a .45 every single day with me where ever I go (but NOT at work and school). It's because I have a great respect for life and would do anything to protect my family and loved ones. It along with training, practice, and just plain common sense gives me a fighting chance.

http://www.a-human-right.com/

[sgarnett]

A friend's nephew was the victim of a whacko who believed that "God told him to come to Lexington and kill someone". Luckily the nephew survived, though he was seriously injured. If the incident hadn't happened right in front of a fire station, he probably would not have lived.

There was another victim I know nothing about.

The whacko, a white guy from a small farming community several counties away, fled the scene and tried to hide in a poor urban black neighborhood. He was caught very quickly (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

He chose his victims randomly. He calmly set up the kill by feigning a mechanical car trouble and motioning them around him so he could get two with one shot. He waited until they had to stop for a traffic light.

Then he floored it from over a block away and rammed them. No guns were involved. The key ingrediant was the same as always: a homicidal whacko.

Nevertheless, Eugenio, you are just as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.

I have yet to find ANYthing that is truly black or white (and that includes the colors black and white). In fact, that is my yardstick for judging media coverage of anything, no matter how I feel about the topic. If they are not reporting contradictory information or pros and cons, it is a biased report.

[marka]

Howdy,

My primary issue with non-hunting weapons (which I define as any pistol, any gun that can carry more than three rounds, and (in some ways) any semi-auto) is that they easily enable the whacko guy to walk through a crowded place and take out a bunch of people.

Bombs (that work) aren't easy to make and their components are somewhat regulated. Vehicular homicide is difficult to pull off, particularly for more than one or two folks, someone with a knife is gonna have trouble killing more than one person (and that's harder than it is with a gun) before the other folks around are able to run away.

Etc. etc.

I grew up with guns. I like them. I like knowing how to use guns. However, I have to question if "guns are a cool hobby" should outweigh the issues involved with giving whackos easy access to >10 shot weapons designed to kill people.

And I don't put much weight into the whole "right to bear arms" crap. #1, a hunting weapon like I define above is still an "arm". The constitution doesn't meantion the right to bear 10+ shot semi-automatic pistols or AR-15s.

#2, if that were really a good motivation someone would've shot Bush by now.

:-)

Mark

[Shortcutsleeping]

And I don't put much weight into the whole "right to bear arms" crap.

Err....can we just stop this thread before it turns into a huge GUNS KILL PEOPLE vs PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE debate which has no bearing on our little car forum?

I'd like to respond to the above comment, but really, I'm not going to change Mark's view and he isn't going to change mine....and I'd imagine that everyone here is kinda set in their ways. Maybe we all could go back to discussing cars.

Costas
cars and such...

and the 'such' includes projective weapons

[sgarnett]

btw, i really appreciate the good words on behalf of my wife being ok... appreciated.

It's always sobering to be that close to any disaster. I hope she isn't too rattled.

[sgarnett]

Err....can we just stop this thread before it turns into a huge GUNS KILL PEOPLE vs PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE debate which has no bearing on our little car forum?

I'd like to respond to the above comment, but really, I'm not going to change Mark's view and he isn't going to change mine....and I'd imagine that everyone here is kinda set in their ways. Maybe we all could go back to discussing cars.

Not that you don't have a point, but I doubt if anyone could stumble into this thread expecting anything BUT disagreement.

Maybe we need to start using a NSFBP tag in the title for subjects like this - Not Safe For Blood Pressure.

Like I said though, nothing is black and white. Personally, I find great value in reading the opinions of people I don't agree with. I learn very little if I only read things that echo my own own thoughts. There's another side to everything.

For example, while I have a closet full of evidence of my leanings, I know a woman who is dangerously schizophrenic. She's been in and out of mental institutions all of her life. She had no trouble passing the background check for a pistol. The reason? She had never been involuntarily committed. I find that deeply disturbing.

The flip side?

After he retired, my father worked for a while at a jewely repair business in a bad neighborhood. Every employee carried a pistol. One day, one of his coworkers was changing a flat tire in the parking lot, when a man approached, picked up the lug wrench, and asked what there was to stop him from smashing the guy's skull and then taking his wallet. The pistol pointed at his forehead answered the question neatly, and he left with no blood shed by anyone.

And so on. There are endless examples on both sides, and we all need to be reminded that nothing is as simple as we would like to think.

This post has been edited by sgarnett: Sep 16 2006, 06:12 PM

[BigEnos]

And I don't put much weight into the whole "right to bear arms" crap.

Err....can we just stop this thread before it turns into a huge GUNS KILL PEOPLE vs PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE debate which has no bearing on our little car forum?

I'd like to respond to the above comment, but really, I'm not going to change Mark's view and he isn't going to change mine....and I'd imagine that everyone here is kinda set in their ways. Maybe we all could go back to discussing cars.

Costas
cars and such...

and the 'such' includes projective weapons

I tried, in vain apparently.

Costas, you going to the Big Show?

[trackbird]

My personal views not withstanding, I agree that this thread is probably (eventually) going nowhere "good". I've learned that you can't really convince others to agree with you on many things, this is one of them. Short of an armed individual saving the life of someone who is against guns (and possibly not even then), not much is going to change anyones mind on the subject. And, equally, every "wacko" who does something bad with a firearm can be used as an example of the inherent evil of them and the reasons to regulate, ban, etc. So, it isn't likely that anyone is going to swith sides on this one.

I don't yet see any reason to lock it and therefore will leave it open and ask everyone to "play nice". It makes my life (and yours) much easier when I don't have to clean up messes spawned from arguements in threads. So, with that said, feel free to discuss (in a civil fashion) or ignore this thread all together.

[Crazy Canuck]

i guess i presented my frustration in a bad way... didn't mean to start a whole debate.
In the end, it's not the gun's fault, but the idiot that decided to do what he did... the same can be said about sports cars, bikes, snowmobiles, speedboats, etc.
having said that, i still feel unconfortable with guns @ proximity even if in good hands, but that's me... don't mind guns in video games... less dangerous.
I feel really bad for the young lady that lost her life, as well as her family (quite a tragedy) but in another way, I'm glad the situation didn't get worse than it did, and police was able to control the situation.
1 victim and several injuries on a situation like this... it could've been much worse... and that's pretty much the only thing i'm glad.
I don't know if anyone read his blogs, and posts from different sites... but he's f***ed up.

[robz71lm7]

i guess i presented my frustration in a bad way... didn't mean to start a whole debate.

It's hard not to when you're very upset. I can understand I feel the same way regarding sociopaths. This many years after Columbine and I don't feel we've really learned anything-and that is a tragedy.

This thread isn't that bad. In fact it is FAR more civil than the MANY shitstorms in the chassis/suspension tech section. Let's lock coilover, roll center, and torque arm threads as well. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Nobody in here is upset at least I'm not. I value other people's opinions.

As for sporting rifles...wasn't that what caused this:

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

15 dead.... 31 wounded

That's the next target after AR's and AK's. I look at a Remington 700 or Savage and I see a hunting rifle and others see a sniper's weapon.

don't mind guns in video games... less dangerous

I do. They portray guns as toys and devalue human life and I don't approve of the message, but it is freedom of speech. Now a child that actually has shot a firearm, perhaps hunting, is more ballanced in my opinion. I think a young man orn woman that's taken their first deer has a respect for life and the responsibile use of firearms.

Kentucky has had a CCW since 1996. In that time there has not been one incident involving a CCW holder here. You have to take an 8 hour class and pass a background check.

And I'll say that the bill of rights doesn't give us our rights.... it enumerates them. It could vanish tomorrow and they would still exist.

Outlawing guns will do nothing more than disarm law-abiding citizens like myself and give an advantage to criminals. The gov't can do that when they are willing to provide me with 24/7/365 protection. If a bank security guard can carry to protect a bank's money then so can I to protect my family. Please point to me our sucesses in fighting illegal drugs.

for those that want to diarm us please tell it to this woman first:

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?Stor...09-083559-5149r
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/09/wheelchai...r.ap/index.html

Or an acquaitance of mine that is wheelchair bound and has HAD to draw to protect himself recently. Running is difficult when you are paralyzed from the waist down. It's even more difficult if someone knocks you from your chair. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[marka]

Howdy,

Outlawing guns will do nothing more than disarm law-abiding citizens like myself and give an advantage to criminals. The gov't can do that when they are willing to provide me with 24/7/365 protection.

You hear this argument a lot, and it just doesn't hold water to me.

Let's say we stop the sale of everything except three shot non-semi automatic rifles and shotguns.

I agree that if you stop there, then you haven't really touched the problem. There are still gazillions of pistols & various other guns in circulation. Look at the assault weapons ban... All that did was drive up prices, not get rid of the targeted guns.

It needs to be coupled with rounding up the now-banned guns. Make owning them illegal.

Over time (certainly not overnight), the guns in question will disapear from the market. Now, does that mean that no criminal will be able to get a gun? Of course not. The criminal with good enough connections to import guns from outside the country will certainly be able to get them. But the average criminal won't be able to, and will be restricted to less lethal choices.

Or at least, that's what I think. How's it working in countrys that have done this?

If a bank security guard can carry to protect a bank's money then so can I to protect my family.

Um, why? Cops are allowed to speed too. Commercial pilots are allowed to fly jetliners. Civil/mechanical engineers are allowed to design bridges. There are _lots_ of things that other folks can do (with proper training and/or a position that requires it) that you can't do. What makes carrying a gun different?

I own guns. I even own guns that I wouldn't mind overmuch if they were banned. I know how to use them. For a time when I was younger, they were a significant hobby. I've been hunting plenty, and first shot a gun when I was <10 (single shot 22). Having done all that, I still don't support concealed carry permits for people, _particularly_ for people without any real training who just have nebulous "I need to protect myself" reasons (vs. being someone that regularly carries large amounts of cash or whatever for work).

Heck, how many times have you heard about people who get a pistol for home protection? Just wanting to do that should be grounds for you being unable to.

I dunno. Its a big issue and no easy answers. My opinion has changed over time since I was in my teens to now (mid thirties). Its not a cut and dry thing, but for me, I think the benefits of much stricter gun controls would outweigh the drawbacks.

Mark

This post has been edited by marka: Sep 17 2006, 11:38 PM

[trackbird]

Over time (certainly not overnight), the guns in question will disapear from the market. Now, does that mean that no criminal will be able to get a gun? Of course not. The criminal with good enough connections to import guns from outside the country will certainly be able to get them. But the average criminal won't be able to, and will be restricted to less lethal choices.

.....I think the benefits of much stricter gun controls would outweigh the drawbacks.

......Or at least, that's what I think. How's it working in countrys that have done this?



Mark

Ask England, or even Washington D.C. how that's going for them. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

[rpoz-29]

Please define a "now banned gun". It's a damn broad definition. Let's try enforcing the laws currently on the books before we discuss the possibility of "rounding up now banned guns", and "make owning them illegal". By the Feds definition, a Ruger 10-22 is an "assault weapon". I too have a concealed weapon permit, and will put my capability in handgun handling/safety up against any law enforcement people I know. What ruffles my feathers in discussions such as these, are opinions voiced by people who may not have the same appreciation for guns/gun safety that some of us do, but are more than willing to see them taken away from those of us with a passion for them. My '02 Z will go a damn sight faster than any posted speed limit in this country......should it be banned, or simply governed to a maximum speed of 70mph? Okay, my rant is over...I feel better now.....time to watch Washington and Dallas.

Bill...who would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

This post has been edited by rpoz-29: Sep 18 2006, 01:06 AM

[marka]

Howdy,

Please define a "now banned gun". It's a damn broad definition. Let's try enforcing the laws currently on the books before we discuss the possibility of "rounding up now banned guns", and "make owning them illegal".

Um, I _did_ define it. It was hypothetically anything other than a three shot rifle or shotgun.

By the Feds definition, a Ruger 10-22 is an "assault weapon". I too have a concealed weapon permit, and will put my capability in handgun handling/safety up against any law enforcement people I know.

I'm not concerned about your ability to control your gun primarily as the mechanics are fairly simple, I'm concerned with your ability to judge when to deploy it and what to do when that happens (and tangentally how to prevent your attacker from getting your gun). You might be just great. Or you might be horrible. But chances are you've never been required to have training in that area even though you have a concealed permit.

What ruffles my feathers in discussions such as these, are opinions voiced by people who may not have the same appreciation for guns/gun safety that some of us do, but are more than willing to see them taken away from those of us with a passion for them.

? Did you read any of my posts? Certainly there are people that know plenty more about guns and related topics than I do, but I'm not someone that's never handled a gun, is afraid of guns, doesn't know anything about them, etc. I frankly enjoy shooting guns of all types and like to hunt occassionally. I just don't believe those hobbies should outweigh the issues related to non-hunting weapons.

My '02 Z will go a damn sight faster than any posted speed limit in this country......should it be banned, or simply governed to a maximum speed of 70mph? Okay, my rant is over...I feel better now.....time to watch Washington and Dallas.

Bill...who would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

When's the last time a z28 was used by a whacko to kill a group of people randomly? And, when you manage to find a situation that sorta resembles that, was the person intending that result or did they "just" lose control?

And frankly, your postscript there is the type of machismo that scares me about regular folks carrying guns in public. It indicates to me that you may very well not evaluate options other than deadly force when seriously confronted. That may well be wrong and you're talking tounge in cheek (and I very much hope that I'm reading more into the statement than is really there), but you hear it enough times and it starts to scare you.

Mark

[Mericet]

Over time (certainly not overnight), the guns in question will disapear from the market. Now, does that mean that no criminal will be able to get a gun? Of course not. The criminal with good enough connections to import guns from outside the country will certainly be able to get them. But the average criminal won't be able to, and will be restricted to less lethal choices.

.....I think the benefits of much stricter gun controls would outweigh the drawbacks.

......Or at least, that's what I think. How's it working in countrys that have done this?



Mark

Ask England, or even Washington D.C. how that's going for them. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

Let's not forget South Africa (where 80% of firearm dealers are now bankrupt due to the governments draconian Firearms Control Act) and Australia.

[marka]

Howdy,

Let's not forget South Africa (where 80% of firearm dealers are now bankrupt due to the governments draconian Firearms Control Act) and Australia.

I don't know that we're using the same criteria to judge "success" here...

:-)

Have the places with very strict gun ownership laws (and some reasonable way to enforce them, which would seem to eliminate any place with open borders) for say ten years or more found a reduction in firearm usage for crime? A reduction in fatalities associated with crime?

That's not a rhetorical question... I don't know the answer.

Mark

[trackbird]

Howdy,

Have the places with very strict gun ownership laws (and some reasonable way to enforce them, which would seem to eliminate any place with open borders) for say ten years or more found a reduction in firearm usage for crime? A reduction in fatalities associated with crime?

That's not a rhetorical question... I don't know the answer.

Mark

Here's two articles from British news sources (I tried to avoid any NRA or CCW bases stuff that might be biased or seem so and pick basic news sources from that country). Warning, one is from 2001 and one is from 2003, but they seem relavant based on what I've seen lately and Washington DC has a serious problem on their hands right now with murder as well.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...1/05/do0502.xml
and
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm

(I quoted the articles below in order)

This is what happens when governments try to ban guns
By Mark Steyn


(Filed: 05/01/2003)



You would think if "gun control" was going to work anywhere it would be on a small island. Particularly a small island at whose ports of entry the zealots of HM Customs like nothing better than performing intimate cavity searches on the off-chance you've got an extra bottle of duty-free Beaujolais tucked away up there. Surely, if you also had a Walther PPK parked out of sight, these exhaustive inspectors would be the first to notice.

But apparently not. Since the Government's "total ban" five years ago, there are more and more guns being used by more and more criminals in more and more crimes. Now, in the wake of Birmingham's New Year bloodbath, there are calls for the total ban to be made even more total: if the gangs refuse to obey the existing laws, we'll just pass more laws for them not to obey. According to a UN survey from last month, England and Wales now have the highest crime rate of the world's 20 leading nations. One can query the methodology of the survey while still recognising the peculiar genius by which British crime policy has wound up with every indicator going haywire - draconian gun control plus vastly increased gun violence plus stratospheric property crime.

What happened at that party in Aston? I don't mean "what happened?" in the sense of the piercing analysis of Chief Superintendent Dave Shaw, who concluded: "There has clearly been some sort of dispute which has resulted in people coming to the premises with guns, discharging their weapons and causing this incident." You can't put anything over on these coppers, can you? But my question is directed at the broader meaning of the event. Chief Supt Shaw went on: "We have never had to deal with anything like this. In terms of the nature of the incident, it's almost unprecedented in Birmingham." He didn't quite say Birmingham is one of those bucolic tightly-knit communities where everyone in the village knows everyone else and no one locks their doors, but you get the drift: this is some sort of bizarre aberration.

advertisement
I think not. When those young men decided to open fire in Birchfield Road, they were making an entirely rational decision. One reason why Chief Supt Shaw has "never had to deal with anything like this" is because Aston was long ago ceded to the gangs. And, if you can deal drugs with impunity and burgle with impunity and assault with impunity and use guns with impunity, who's to say you can't murder with impunity? The West Midlands Police have offered a reward of £1,000 for information leading to the arrest of those involved. Think about that: would you name a known gang member for a thousand quid? Once the funerals have been held and the media's moved on, the constabulary will go back to forgetting about Aston. But you'll still have to live there.

When Dunblane occurred, all of us - even, if they're honest with themselves, the shrieking hysterics baying for pointless legislation - understood it was a freak event: a nut went nuts. It happens, and, when it does, the event has no broader implications. But what happened in Birchfield Road is of wider relevance: it's a glimpse of the day after tomorrow - not just in Aston, but in Edgbaston and Solihull and Leamington Spa.

After Dunblane, the police and politicians lapsed into their default position: it's your fault. We couldn't do anything about him, so we'll do something about you. You had your mobile nicked? You must be mad taking it out. Why not just keep it inside nice and safe on the telephone table? Had your car radio pinched? You shouldn't have left it in the car. House burgled? You should have had laser alarms and window bars installed. You did have laser alarms and window bars but they waited till you were home, kicked the door in and beat you up? You should have an armour-plated door and digital retinal-scan technology. It's your fault, always. The monumentally useless British police, with greater manpower per capita on higher rates of pay and with far more lavish resources than the Americans, haven't had an original idea in decades, so they cling ever more fiercely to their core ideology: the best way to deal with criminals is to impose ever greater restrictions and inconveniences on the law-abiding.

The gangs on Birmingham's streets instinctively understand this. They know, even if the Government doesn't, that the Blairite "total" ban, which sounds so butch and macho when you do your soundbite on the telly, is a cop-out: it makes the general population the target, not the criminals. And once that happens it's always easier to hassle the cranky farmer with the unlicensed shotgun than the Yardies with the Uzis. When you disarm the citizenry, when you prosecute them for being so foolish as to believe they have a right to self-defence, when you issue warnings that they should "walk on by" if they happen to see a burglary or rape in progress, the main beneficiaries will obviously be the criminals. Aston is the logical reductio of British policing: rival bad guys with state-of-the-art hardware, a cowed populace, and a remote constabulary tucked up in bed with the answering machine on.

I see I haven't yet mentioned the touchy social factor which even squeamish British Lefties have been forced to confront: Aston is yet more "black-on-black" violence. The reason I haven't mentioned it is because there hardly seems any point. What's new? Canada also had a Dunblane-like massacre, followed by Dunblane-like legislation, and, like Birmingham, boring, bland Toronto has lately been riven by gun violence from - wait for it - Jamaican gangs. But in neither Britain nor Canada is it politically feasible to suggest that perhaps Jamaicans should be subjected to special immigration scrutiny. As it happens, that Canadian massacre, of Montreal female students 12 years ago, was committed by the son of an Algerian Muslim wife-beater, but, although we all claim to be interested in the "root causes" of crime, they tend to involve awkward cultural judgments. It's easier, like Mr Blair, just to go "total": blame everyone, ban everything.

This basic approach of addressing any cultural factors apart from the ones that correlate was pioneered by American progressives. The corpulent provocateur Michael Moore, in his film Bowling for Columbine, currently delighting British audiences, spends an entire feature-length documentary investigating the "culture" of American gun violence without mentioning that blacks, who make up 13 per cent of the population, account for over half the murders (and murder victims, too). Once you factor them out, Americans kill at about the same rate as nancy-boy Canadians.

But, as I said, it's hardly worth mentioning in relation to Britain. In my part of New Hampshire, we're all armed to the hilt and any gangster who fancied holding up a gas station would be quickly ventilated by guys whose pick-ups are better equipped than most EU armies. The right of individual self-defence deters crime, constrains it, prevents it from spreading out of the drug-infested failed jurisdictions. In post-Dunblane, post-Tony Martin Britain, that constraint doesn't exist: that's why the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea now has a higher crime rate than Harlem.

Meanwhile, America's traditionally high and England and Wales's traditionally low murder rates are remorselessly converging. In 1981, the US rate was nine times higher than the English. By 1995, it was six times. Last year, it was down to 3.5. Given that US statistics, unlike the British ones, include manslaughter and other lesser charges, the real rate is much closer. New York has just recorded the lowest murder rate since the 19th century. I'll bet that in the next two years London's murder rate overtakes it.

Handgun crime 'up' despite ban



Handguns were banned following the Dunblane massacre

A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.
The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.

The ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997 as a result of the Dunblane massacre, when Thomas Hamilton opened fire at a primary school leaving 16 children and their teacher dead.



Existing gun laws do not lead to crime reduction and a safer place

David Bredin
Campaign for Shooting
But the report suggests that despite the restrictions on ownership the use of handguns in crime is rising.

The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000.

It also said there was no link between high levels of gun crime and areas where there were still high levels of lawful gun possession.

Of the 20 police areas with the lowest number of legally held firearms, 10 had an above average level of gun crime.

And of the 20 police areas with the highest levels of legally held guns only two had armed crime levels above the average.

Smuggling

The campaign's director, David Bredin, said: "It is crystal clear from the research that the existing gun laws do not lead to crime reduction and a safer place.

"Policy makers have targeted the legitimate sporting and farming communities with ever-tighter laws but the research clearly demonstrates that it is illegal guns which are the real threat to public safety."

He said the rise was largely down to successful smuggling of illegal guns into the country.

Weapons have even been disguised as key rings no larger than a matchbox to get them in, he said.

Other sources of guns include battlefield trophies brought back by soldiers, the illegal conversion of replica firearms including blank firing pistols and the reactivation of weapons which had been deactivated.

Ammunition

Examples of illegally manufactured guns include screwdrivers being adapted to fire off one round, he said.

The Metropolitan Police said its official figures showed a 20% drop in armed robberies of commercial premises between April and July this year, compared with the same period last year.

A Scotland Yard spokesman said that, since April 2001, the Flying Squad has arrested 39 people in connection with 34 armed incidents and seized 52 weapons.

Operation Trident, which investigates "black on black" shootings in the UK, has made more than 300 arrests, recovered 100 firearms and 1,500 rounds of ammunition since it was established a year ago.

The Home Office said measures were being taken to tackle handgun crime, including an intensified effort against illegally smuggled weapons.

[Jon A]

Mark, without even touching the deeper more fundamental issues, would you clarify this as a "non-hunting, designed for killing people" machine?
(IMG:http://www.winchesterguns.com/prodinfo/catalog/images/534103m.jpg)
I got my first couple of deer with one. As have millions of others, since long before I was born. That particular model has been taking deer, elk, antelope, bear and everything else in this country in three different centuries now. I don't know of any that hold three rounds or less--depending up the round it's chambered for, some hold over 10+ in the tube. But you'd outlaw and confiscate that?

The vast majority of all bolt action hunting rifles hold at least four in the magazine--usually only the big magnums that don't. So I'm wondering what your emotions would allow us to own? Ruger No. 1's and Contenders OK? The fat magnum bolt guns that only hold three? But you'd take away the vast majority of all hunting guns out there, which have been there since the 1800's, because you decided we can no longer be trusted with them?

Of course all handguns are out? Even revolvers? Even if I weld shut three holes in the cylinder?

As somebody who claims to like guns and hunting, you just really don't sound like you do. Under your rules the only one I'd be allowed to keep is my biggest and most powerful one--with which I am pretty deadly at over 1000 yds. Doesn't seem too logical. So what sort of handguns (if any) and rifles would King Mark A allow his subjects to own?


EDIT: Attachment added by trackbird (same photo Jon posted a link to).

Attached File(s)

 534103m.jpg ( 7.89K ) Number of downloads: 0

 

[rpoz-29]

My postscrip is not "machismo". It is fact. I turn 51 years old today and don't care a tinker's damn about impressing anyone. I have been in possesion of my handgun while being verbally insulted, and physically threatened after an accident. At no time did the desire to pull that gun cross my mind. The police arrived and took control of the incident. It wasn't my fault and when my license was run, the police learned that I was carrying, and complemented me on my self control. Sorry if I'm reading too much into YOUR response, but when someone decides that 3 rounds in any gun is enough, and implies that confiscation is an acceptable means of gun control, I feel moved to respond. And like many others have said, I'll never change your mind, and you'll never changed mine. Peace.

[marka]

Howdy,

Mark, without even touching the deeper more fundamental issues, would you clarify this as a "non-hunting, designed for killing people" machine?
(IMG:http://www.winchesterguns.com/prodinfo/catalog/images/534103m.jpg)

Ironically, work proxy servers block that site as it deals with weapons. :-) I can't see the image here.

I got my first couple of deer with one. As have millions of others, since long before I was born. That particular model has been taking deer, elk, antelope, bear and everything else in this country in three different centuries now. I don't know of any that hold three rounds or less--depending up the round it's chambered for, some hold over 10+ in the tube. But you'd outlaw and confiscate that?

The vast majority of all bolt action hunting rifles hold at least four in the magazine--usually only the big magnums that don't. So I'm wondering what your emotions would allow us to own? Ruger No. 1's and Contenders OK? The fat magnum bolt guns that only hold three? But you'd take away the vast majority of all hunting guns out there, which have been there since the 1800's, because you decided we can no longer be trusted with them?

I'm reminded of my Ithica 20ga pump. Holds five normally, but you're required to install a plug to limit capacity to three for some types of bird hunting (or, at least, you were when I grew up with it in Maine). Magazine / tube capacity can be changed.

Of course all handguns are out? Even revolvers? Even if I weld shut three holes in the cylinder?

In my hypothetical world, yes. Or do you hunt with revolvers?

As somebody who claims to like guns and hunting, you just really don't sound like you do. Under your rules the only one I'd be allowed to keep is my biggest and most powerful one--with which I am pretty deadly at over 1000 yds. Doesn't seem too logical. So what sort of handguns (if any) and rifles would King Mark A allow his subjects to own?

Dude, its my opinion. You don't need to share it. I'm under no illusions as to whether or not it would successfully be adopted. I'm also under no illusions as to the types of gun violence it would slow down / stop. You're 100% correct that a trained person with a good hunting rifle will be an effective sniper if they choose their place of fire carefully. I'm more interested limiting access to the carjackers, crack head, and mentally disturbed folks.

You may well not agree with me. I very easily could be wrong.

But so is just blithely spouting off "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

Mark

[trackbird]

Or do you hunt with revolvers?

Many people do hunt with revolvers. Typically deer are hunted with .357 magnum and larger and buffalo and elk (and Hippo's) are hunted with .454 Casull, S&W 460 and 500's, etc. Revolvers are fundamentally a strong design and can be very powerful and used for taking some of the largest game.

[marka]

Howdy,

Or do you hunt with revolvers?

Many people do hunt with revolvers. Typically deer are hunted with .357 magnum and larger and buffalo and elk (and Hippo's) are hunted with .454 Casull, S&W 460 and 500's, etc. Revolvers are fundamentally a strong design and can be very powerful and used for taking some of the largest game.

Many people hunt with a spear too.

Mark

[sgarnett]

While I don't agree with the NRA stance on everything, I think they are quite right to point out that vigorously enforcing the existing laws would be a big step forward.

For traffic laws, the philosophy seems to be setting a limit at 45 to achieve target speeds of 55 (or whatever). I don't think that's the right approach. Set the limit at 55 if that's the target, and prosecute 56.

This post has been edited by sgarnett: Sep 18 2006, 02:47 PM

[trackbird]

Howdy,

Or do you hunt with revolvers?

Many people do hunt with revolvers. Typically deer are hunted with .357 magnum and larger and buffalo and elk (and Hippo's) are hunted with .454 Casull, S&W 460 and 500's, etc. Revolvers are fundamentally a strong design and can be very powerful and used for taking some of the largest game.

Many people hunt with a spear too.

Mark

Mark,

I've met you in person and think you're a bright, level headed guy and I feel that we get along great (and I'm sure that we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one). So, with that said, I'll mention that I was trying to seriously answer your question. I'm not sure what your reply has to do with that answer, maybe I just missed it. I think you meant "Many people hunted with a spear", it's not too common these days.

If you want to hunt hippo's with a spear or a knife, you are more than welcome to have at it, same for deer, elk, bison, grizzly bears, etc. It surely can be done, but for the larger critters, I'd suggest a powerful revolver (and practice) or a powerful rifle for the job. Large bore revolvers make excellent hiking weapons in "bear country". They are not large and cumbersome like a rifle, they are packable and can be used to protect yourself from things that might eat you. I'd not want to face a bear with only 3 shots in my revolver (unless it's a .454 Casull or larger, and maybe not even then). Of course, I don't personally spend much time in bear country. I live here:

http://www.10tv.com/?sec=home&story=si.../466791665.html

[BigEnos]

(IMG:http://www.smileygenerator.us/community/searchsmiley/s/eat_drink-snack.gif)

[trackbird]

(IMG:http://www.smileygenerator.us/community/searchsmiley/s/eat_drink-snack.gif)

I'm going to restate my fear that nothing good can come from this thread (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/banghead.gif) . However, I still don't have a reason to lock it (and hope not to get one). So, we'll let it run its course.

[sgarnett]

At one time, I was carrying a seven shot .45 because of a pair of ferral rottweilers in a friend's rural neighborhood. Actually, it was their negligent owner and the ignorant, lenient judge that slapped his/her wrist that should have been shot, but nevertheless it was the dogs who were attacking anything they came across. The police found the rotting carcasses of several large dogs and numerous smaller pets in the owners yard.

I doubt if I'll ever be threatened by a healthy coyote while hiking, but a rabid one is a definite possibility.

[Curiously, the next line was actually a separate post. I'm not sure how they became combined.]

Well, like I said, there's little to be learned by reading the opinions of people I already agree with (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

This post has been edited by sgarnett: Sep 18 2006, 03:23 PM

[trackbird]

[Curiously, the next line was actually a separate post. I'm not sure how they became combined.]

Off topic:

If you are the last post, and you post again within 10 minutes (I think that's where the timer is set), it merges the posts. It's a function that was added with one of the recent upgrades (a few months back).

By the way, Happy Birthday Bill (RPOZ-29). (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

[Shortcutsleeping]

I tried, in vain apparently.

Costas, you going to the Big Show?

Hahahaha...yeah...you could see where this was going from the first few posts. [sigh]

ANYway, I am not going to make Nats this year. Simply too much going on in my private life and way too much in my work life for me to make it. I have new tires and a prepped car, but no time. I will plan better for next year and hopefully make it.

And in the spearit of the thread, [I crack myself up], did the guys who hunted with spears only carry three?

Costas
cars and such...

it is a JOKE! (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif) (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif) big hugs everybody!

[trackbird]

And I don't put much weight into the whole "right to bear arms" crap.

Err....can we just stop this thread before it turns into a huge GUNS KILL PEOPLE vs PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE debate which has no bearing on our little car forum?

I'd like to respond to the above comment, but really, I'm not going to change Mark's view and he isn't going to change mine....and I'd imagine that everyone here is kinda set in their ways. Maybe we all could go back to discussing cars.

Costas
cars and such...

and the 'such' includes projective weapons

I tried, in vain apparently.

And, I appreciate both of your efforts. Thanks guys!

[2000Z-71]

A firearm is an inanimate object, a tool, nothing more and nothing less. To blame them as the cause or murder and violence is the simple solution that ignores the real problem and does nothing to change the situation.

Gun control is the belief that a 115lb. woman can defend herself against a 215lb. attacker intent on causing her harm. A firearm in that situation is an equalizer.

To claim that banning certain types of firearms would make for a safer society is a huge misconception. To use that same logic if we all drove 3 cylinder 45 horsepower hatchbacks, there would be no traffic fatalities, accidents, DUI's etc.

I have a real problem with somebody telling me that I should devalue my personal safety and that of my family because firearms make them nervous.

[marka]

Howdy,

A firearm is an inanimate object, a tool, nothing more and nothing less. To blame them as the cause or murder and violence is the simple solution that ignores the real problem and does nothing to change the situation.

Nobody is blaming anyone other than the person pulling the trigger. The disagreement here comes with where you draw the line on things that make it easy to kill people.

Bombs and their important parts are illegal for regular folks to buy. Presumably you don't have a problem with that.

Military weapons (in general) are illegal for regular folks to buy. Presumably you don't have a problem with that either.

I personally wouldn't mind seeing it also be illegal for regular folks to own handguns or shotguns/rifles with more than a three shot capacity. Its quite clear you _do_ have a problem with that.

Its all where you decide you want to draw the line. We differ on that, nothing more.

Gun control is the belief that a 115lb. woman can defend herself against a 215lb. attacker intent on causing her harm. A firearm in that situation is an equalizer.

You'll note throughout this discussion that folks haven't tried to restate the argument of the pro-gun folks into something it isn't. Perhaps you could offer the same curtesy.

I have a real problem with somebody telling me that I should devalue my personal safety and that of my family because firearms make them nervous.

And I have a real problem with someone that requires a gun to feel safe in normal society.

Mark

[trackbird]

Well, so much for my hopes that this would sink into oblivion......

To lock, or not to lock, that is the question.....

[marka]

Howdy,

I've met you in person and think you're a bright, level headed guy and I feel that we get along great (and I'm sure that we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one). So, with that said, I'll mention that I was trying to seriously answer your question. I'm not sure what your reply has to do with that answer, maybe I just missed it. I think you meant "Many people hunted with a spear", it's not too common these days.

We're going to have to agree to disagree for sure. :-)

When I said that people hunt with a spear too, what I was implying was that I've never met someone who hunted with a pistol, despite growing up in rural Maine being very interested in guns, hunting, etc. etc. In my opinion, someone who chooses to hunt with a pistol isn't someone who's serious about hunting, its someone who likes to show off. That opinion was shared by the other hunters I knew back in the day.

I don't have a problem with not allowing hunting with a pistol.

And, in terms of self defense against animals, you'd be a _lot_ better off with a 12 gauge pump with three rounds of buckshot than you would be with a pistol with 10 bullets. And, in the extremely rare case where you'd want more stopping power, you'd be better off with a rifle (with which you could actually hit something) than you would be with a pistol.

Mark

Howdy,

Well, so much for my hopes that this would sink into oblivion......

To lock, or not to lock, that is the question.....

Hey man, I'd stopped reading the thread, then it popped up again on latest posts... :-)

I'd say locking it would be fine if you wanted to though. Or you could just delete my recent posts if you want.

Whatever.

Mark

This post has been edited by marka: Oct 1 2006, 02:18 AM

[sgarnett]

And I have a real problem with someone that requires a gun to feel safe in normal society.

Define this "normal society", and where might I find it? (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[marka]

Howdy,

And I have a real problem with someone that requires a gun to feel safe in normal society.

Define this "normal society", and where might I find it? (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Here on the commune, of course!

:-)

Mark

[trackbird]

Mark, I wasn't just picking on your post. It was "in general" with the question of locking it.

And, actually you can't use a rifle in Ohio to hunt, but you can use a handgun. So, it's not too uncommon here to find guys who prefer a .357 or .44 magnum for that duty. You can use a 12 gauge for deer here as well. I know guys who use either, or get two tags and use both (one, then the other).

As for defense against animals, it depends on the animal. As I stated, a 44 magnum makes for decent bear "repellant" and is less cumbersome to carry than a 12 gauge pump or a rifle. If you're going hiking and not hunting (in bear country), it makes sense to me to carry a reasonably powerful revolver. But, that's just my opinion, we may not agree.

And I very well know that I can hit things with a revolver. I've got about 10-15,000 rounds of .357 mag "under my belt" in the last couple years. However, it only holds 6 and not 10. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[sgarnett]

And, in the extremely rare case where you'd want more stopping power, you'd be better off with a rifle (with which you could actually hit something) than you would be with a pistol.

Any animal I'd be shooting at for self defense would certainly be large enough and close enough to hit with a pistol, and in fact that would be my weapon of choice for speed. Any self defense shot that requires a rifle to hit the target would be really tough to justify as self-defense.

I'm not worried about being attacked by the coyotes. I very rarely see them. However, I did at one time carry a 45 because of a roaming, vicious pair of feral rottweilers.

A case can be made for the shotgun, even though the handgun is much easier to keep, um , at hand, but I'd certainly feel no more comfortable about a whacko carrying a 3 shot pump 12 instead of a 7 shot 45.

[2000Z-71]

Bombs and their important parts are illegal for regular folks to buy. Presumably you don't have a problem with that.

Not really, you can make a crude form of plastic explosive in your kitchen using Karo syrup and a few other common household chemicals. Tim McVeigh used fertilizer and diesel to make the Oklahome City bomb. All very common easily available items.

Military weapons (in general) are illegal for regular folks to buy. Presumably you don't have a problem with that either.

Not to split hairs but it depends what you define as a military weapon. The AR15 is the semi-automatic only version of the military's M-16 and is very common, There are also semi-automatic versions of the AK series and SKS that are legal for us regular folk to buy. There are some place like California where "asault rifles" are illegal.

The problem is the definition. California tried banning them several years ago. They found themselves in a corner by naming weapons on a list that were illegal to own. Quite simply all the manufacturer had to do was change a minor detail of the firearm and give it a new name and it was again legal. They have contiunually been adding to that list since its creation to try and keep up.

I do have one AR-15. It's a fun plinker and does make for a SHTF option.

I personally wouldn't mind seeing it also be illegal for regular folks to own handguns or shotguns/rifles with more than a three shot capacity. Its quite clear you _do_ have a problem with that.

That would make most everything in my toy box illegal. Even the most basic .30-06 sporter rifle typically has a 5 round magazine with room for an extra one in the chamber. I fail to see the logic of a 3 round maximum capacity.

Its all where you decide you want to draw the line. We differ on that, nothing more.

My point is it's a line that can not be drawn. When bad people want to do harm they will find a way be it with a firearm, knife, bomb, sligshot, rock, etc. Banning firearms only serves to disarm the law abiding and deprive them of a means of a defense.

Gun control is the belief that a 115lb. woman can defend herself against a 215lb. attacker intent on causing her harm. A firearm in that situation is an equalizer.

You'll note throughout this discussion that folks haven't tried to restate the argument of the pro-gun folks into something it isn't. Perhaps you could offer the same curtesy.

Where was I discourteous? It is a discussion and I was trying to make a point.

I have a real problem with somebody telling me that I should devalue my personal safety and that of my family because firearms make them nervous.

And I have a real problem with someone that requires a gun to feel safe in normal society.

Again define normal? I live and work in Phoenix which has a very high incidence rate of car jackings. I also have an 18 month old daughter who when in my car is strapped in the backseat in her car seat. In a car jacking situation, giving up the car with her still strapped in is not an option. Having a firearm and a concealed carry permit does offer me an option if escape is not possible. Having someone tell me that I don't have that option because it makes them nervous is not something that I am willing to accept.

edit: edited quote syntax for easy reading.

This post has been edited by Eugenio_SS: Oct 1 2006, 03:44 PM

[trackbird]

And, again I'll state that it doesn't appear that anyone in this discussion is going to "swap sides". So, we can probably discuss it until we all turn purple and people start getting mad on both sides and still accomplish very little.

So, if you're going to play, please play nice (everyone, not for any post in particular).

[Crazy Canuck]

when the thread was started... i was just pissed @ the local events... especially the idiot that had a machine gun to shoot @ random ppl.
guns per say are innofensive if left alone... I guess i wanted to share the frustration.
As for gun control, there will always be 2 sides of the story, and it's not what was intended.
As for what types of guns should be legislated/controlled, indirectly was taken in the thread... can't really say one has a bazooka or automatic gun like the one used for self defense or hunting.
Personally, i'm not too confortable w/ ppl carying guns, but that's my opinion.
We can discuss this forever... and disagree in many tangents.

bottom line, there was a f***ed guy that decided to go to a college and shoot @ random ppl. Cops were pretty fast to control the situation and although 1 person died and several injured, it could've been much worse... and the bastard is dead.
If anything, he should've killed himself 1st before doing any dammage to others.

my only question is: for what purpose does one buy a gun like the one used in this situation, unless he wants to really shoot lots of targets close by at short time-period, such as an ambush.
Do people use these on herds of pray when there are plenty of pray ?

[Shortcutsleeping]

my only question is: for what purpose does one buy a gun like the one used in this situation, unless he wants to really shoot lots of targets close by at short time-period, such as an ambush.
Do people use these on herds of pray when there are plenty of pray ?

Personally, I enjoy rapid fire. Burst shootin a handgun (anything from triple-taps to 20-rd-empty-the-mag) is enjoyable as a controlled use of power. I'd LOVE to do the ispca fast shoot competitions but I already have expensive hobbies and don't need to add anymore.

An ambush works two ways. The bad guys will want to shoot a lot to take down the good guys, and the good guys will need to shoot a lot to defeat the ambush. Regardless of what law is passed (from limiting guns to completely eliminating them) the bad guys WILL have guns.

Speaking of use of power, for what purpose does one build a 400rwhp car? The speed limit (even in Texas) is only 70mph. Unless one wants to really get to the 70 limit in a short time-period....?? (rhetorical) I think a part of why we do these things is because we can.

pray = I pray to never get shot.
prey = somebody tries to prey on me, they might get shot.
(IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)

Costas
cars and such...

[Crazy Canuck]

EugeniOwned by english language.
worse, I know pray = begging/talking to God; prey = poor little to-be-dead creature. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rotf.gif)

good analogy on the hp, though... yet ppl don't necessarily do it for pure speed, per say.

guns is one of those things that if limited/outlawed, will only impact the good guys, since the bad guys will always find their way, putting the good guys in a tougher situation when faced w/ the bad ones.

can i get a portable bazooka for self-defense ? (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

[trackbird]

when the thread was started... i was just pissed @ the local events... especially the idiot that had a machine gun to shoot @ random ppl.

Eugenio, the Beretta Storm isn't really a "machine gun", it's actually just a semi automatic rifle that uses pistol ammo. Honestly, pistol ammo is typically less "effective" than rifle ammo, so if he'd had a higher powered weapon, he might have killed a few more of his victims. Pistols are not good weapons for killing people. I'm not saying that they are not capable, but you will see cases of people shot 4, 5, 6, 7 times or more with a handgun who live. Very few people shot with a rifle caliber more than once will live(without getting into a discussion of where they are shot, I'm speaking of being shot in the torso). You have a much higher chance of causing death with a rifle cartridge in a rifle. Also, the Storm is considerable more expensive (and less readily available) than a standard issue AK-47. Those are 1/2 the price of the beretta, ammo is very inexpensive and they are more powerful with more capacity. I'm surprised he didn't have an AK instead. The Storm seems to be an odd choice (due to cost of the weapon, cost of ammo, and the aren't "everywhere" in circulation like the AK's).

I had actually considered purchasing a Beretta Storm at one point. One of our local ranges was having "Carbine Silhouette" matches, where you have to quickly knock down steel targets (plates) and it required the use of a pistol caliber carbine (carbine=small rifle). And, I thought the Beretta would be a unique item for the job (it's a rifle sized pistol, or, a pistol powered rifle). I believe the Storm is limited (by available magazines) to 15 rounds. Not that 15 rounds isn't "a bunch", but he's have done much more damage with an AR-15 and a 30 or 40 round magazine. It's a higher powered weapon and holds far more ammo. Which brings me to the issue of capacity. Given a 3 round weapon, he'll just have to reload more. It was the same thing during "the ban" here in the states. You were limited to 10 rounds in the magazine (instead of 15+ in some cases), it just meant that every 10 rounds you would toss in a fresh mag instead of every 15. Not much of a hinderance really. It's back to bad people will use guns to do bad things. There isn't much anyone can do to prevent all cases of it. He could have just as easily driven a van or pick up truck across campus and ran down dozens of people. He'd have likely killed more of his victims that way.

A psychopath will be a psychopath, no matter what we try to do to limit their ability to do damage.

I'm glad Tamara was safe.

can i get a portable bazooka for self-defense ? (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

You wouldn't want it. It's far to slow and cumbersome to reload..... (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

[bsim]

My $0.02 - I'll *think* about banning guns AFTER the bad guys are gone. I don't care how. If all the sociopaths are locked up, stupid people can't breed, and we legislate moralistically, maybe. Until then...

(IMG:http://www.bsimconsulting.com/stuff/gun.gif)


(IMG:http://www.bsimconsulting.com/stuff/gun_show.jpg)

This post has been edited by bsim: Oct 5 2006, 02:33 AM

[Mericet]

can i get a portable bazooka for self-defense ? (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

You wouldn't want it. It's far to slow and cumbersome to reload..... (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

I should tell you about the time I visited Mozambique and saw a soldier patrolling the main road to Maputo (the capital). His firearm of choice: a RPG-7, (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/huh.gif)

[v7guy]

this whole thread has been interesting, been reading it since the begining. I love guns and get a huge kick out of the sport aspect (shooting targets). I usually shoot until I can't anymore (black and blue shoulder). I'm typically a pacifist though, to the point I don't eat any form of meat or use any products with animals in it if I can avoid it. I'll spend more money and time to get something that doesn't use animal products if it's available. With that said........I'm not so naive to think that a gun isn't valuable, if someone was trying to rob me I would have no problem shooting them, if an animal was coming after me I would have no problem shooting it. There is a practical application and I'm very aware that I may have to use my weapons someday. I have no problem with that, it's an unfortunate fact of life (if I want to live). Typically the only people we see that has problems with the gun laws are the ones that are trying to obey them. I have to be honest and say that I would have alot easier time defending myself with a handgun than I would my rifle or shotgun, just from a maneuverability standpoint.
Personally, I don't have a problem with something like a 3 round capacity, my 870 supermag I've limited to three rounds even though it will accept 7. But as mentioned, you just reload more, it doesn't take much of any time.

I guess I'm just missing the point of why someone would have a problem with guns. It's been shown over and over that the only people that are impacted by gun laws are the honest guys, the other guys are still going to get them, even if they come from overseas. Whenever I hear about someone wishing guns were illegal I remember a case a few years back when an old lady took a hatchet and killed her son, daughter in law, and grandkids. They asked why she took a hatchet and hacked them up and she said because she didn't have a gun. It's a pretty nasty reminder, but it really does show things for the way they are in the society we live in.

I wish we could keep people like this from ever getting ahold of anything that could hurt others. But making guns illegal would be about like making vehicles illegal, the few people that screw up shouldn't deny everyone else the privledge.

Now that I've typed all this I'm not sure why I bothered, cause as others have already said, everyone here has pretty much made up thier mind a long time ago. But it is nice to see a group that can agree to disagree, it doesn't happen very often.

[sgarnett]

Now that I've typed all this I'm not sure why I bothered, cause as others have already said, everyone here has pretty much made up thier mind a long time ago. But it is nice to see a group that can agree to disagree, it doesn't happen very often.

I think we all agree that nobody is going to change their mind on an issue such as this. That's not the point.

You don't have to "change sides" to recognize that the opposition brings up some good points. Increased awareness can only be a good thing no matter which side you are on.

[Absolut Speed]

You don't have to "change sides" to recognize that the opposition brings up some good points. Increased awareness can only be a good thing no matter which side you are on.

Arguing for or against guns is a good way to avoid whatever is at the root of the issue, be it bad parenting, inept criminal justice system, prison overcrowding, mental health care shortfalls, etc

[marka]

Howdy,

You don't have to "change sides" to recognize that the opposition brings up some good points. Increased awareness can only be a good thing no matter which side you are on.

Arguing for or against guns is a good way to avoid whatever is at the root of the issue, be it bad parenting, inept criminal justice system, prison overcrowding, mental health care shortfalls, etc

I think you'll probably find that we all mostly agree with the root of the issue. The place we might differ is whether or not the root of the issue can possibly be addressed.

Mark
(who would rather defend himself against an axe than a Glock)

[robz71lm7]

I think we've had equal time here for both sides to share their viewpoint. Therefore I'm going to lock this thread. This is not due to any one post or any one poster. I do not think this discussion needs to be dragged up every week. If you have a problem with this feel free to PM me and we can discuss.

Best Regards,

Rob