PDA

View Full Version : What the $^**!@# is with you people and GUNS??



Pages : [1] 2

Pugwash
02-28-2009, 09:24 PM
?????????
:confused:
:confused:


Just AXing??

Phillip Allen
02-28-2009, 09:26 PM
they followed us into our yard and now they think we're not being nice...it's not about guns, it's about domination/control

some people want to control others who do not want to be controled

simple

jack grebe
02-28-2009, 09:33 PM
If you really need to ask, ..............oh never mind

Pugwash
02-28-2009, 09:36 PM
they followed us into our yard and now they think we're not being nice...it's not about guns, it's about domination/control

some people want to control others who do not want to be controled

simple

That makes me feel much better...:confused::confused:

Huh??

Really, I don't understand it.

Explain it to me and I might accept your "culture".

Otherwise I'm at a loss.

:rolleyes:

C. Ross
02-28-2009, 10:02 PM
Wellingtons = male empowerment?!

There must be aspects of British culture that still escape me.

The Bigfella
02-28-2009, 10:12 PM
they followed us into our yard and now they think we're not being nice...it's not about guns, it's about domination/control

some people want to control others who do not want to be controled

simple

Wrong again Phillip.

Some people are happy to call others who promote falsehoods.

You posted a "gun safety" thread.

Guns in your country are not safe.

Guns kill every 41st American male that dies.

C. Ross
02-28-2009, 10:19 PM
Apparently I also have not mastered the art of dry British wit. :p

Now, if we were talking wellies in camouflage with a built-in holster, my original joke would have made sense...

Pugwash
02-28-2009, 10:19 PM
Wellingtons = male empowerment?!

There must be aspects of British culture that still escape me.

Wellingtons are all about size..;)

I've read enough of Andrews posts to realise that it would " take a big man to fill his shoes'

If it wuzny for yer wellies....

I have a youtube link..

;)

Bob Adams
02-28-2009, 10:19 PM
41? Really? Gee, think you've mentioned it enough? Go pour some water on a fire or something, will ya?

L.W. Baxter
02-28-2009, 10:20 PM
"If you're gonna get that riled over a pair of lady-like, wellington boots, well, we best get to it."

--Billy, telling the story of ol' U.S. Christmas, Pat Garret and Billy the Kid

jack grebe
02-28-2009, 10:24 PM
I like this type of male enhancement



http://devpreview.sailmag.mystagingsites.com/racing/PaneraiNantucket.jpg

JimD
02-28-2009, 10:26 PM
Pug, its a little like what they say about sex in the way that those who talk about it the most are usually the ones who do it the least. There are a few members of this forum whose lives have been intimately, even heroically, involved with firearms, such as war vets. Of them I've noticed that while not avoiding the subject of firearms they rarely engage in the sort of soap operatic disertations on freedom and the right to bear arms the way some others do. Its the others, the ones who feel compelled to endlessly associate themselves with some grand patriotic project of constitutional righteousness in order to avoid the sorry little truth of their real lives who are the ones who won't stop harping on about guns, guns, and more guns. I have tried to feel compassion for this lot but for the most part have failed in that regard and have resorted to use of the ignore list. Best of luck to you in gaining the understanding of them you seek.

pcford
02-28-2009, 10:40 PM
Pug, its a little like what they say about sex in the way that those who talk about it the most are usually the ones who do it the least.

Homoerotic Overtones Enliven NRA Meeting

COEUR D'ALENE, ID—Repression was the order of the day as theNational Rifle Association's North Idaho Chapter held its annual convention this weekend.


NRA member Jack Harwich admires a fellow member's piece, stirring potent new feelings within himself.

More than 25,000 dedicated gun lovers from across Northern Idaho flocked to the Coeur d'Alene Convention Center for the two-day event, happily sublimating homosexual impulses amid a carefully maintained facade of platonic camaraderie.

Moscow, ID, resident Richard Hoflinger, 47, a longtime gun-rights activist, exhibited the collection of antique rifles through which he has channeled his culturally unacceptable impulses. "Guns should be part of any upstanding Christian family," Hoflinger said, sticking a long, thick, oily pipe-cleaner 14 inches up an 1886 Remington.

In the next booth, another latent gay man, Duane Erlich, moved his hand slowly up and down a well-polished 1948 Winchester. "Ain't she a beautiful baby?" he said, displaying the kind of feminization/infantilization of firearms for which NRA members are renowned.

Erlich then demonstrated the proper loading procedure for his "baby," lovingly inserting a pair of bullets into the dark, snug-fitting tunnels before thrusting the gun's bolt smoothly into the action, cocking it firmly. "This'll blow a man straight to heaven," he said.

The tone of the event was set by chapter president John Henry Unger, whose opening remarks cited the "wonderful variety of weaponry on display, from little snub-nosed pieces that fit snugly in your pocket to big, meaty shooters with barrels as thick as your arm."

Unger then fired his father's prize Colt Peacemaker revolver into the air, drawing raucous applause from the crowd, many of whose own fathers had suppressed latent physical attraction for their adolescent sons by channeling forbidden feelings into totemistic firearms.

All over the convention floor, gun manufacturers proudly unveiled new technologies which will allow simmering homoerotic tensions to be expressed with greater nuance than ever before. At the Smith & Wesson booth, company spokesman Darrell Trace displayed a handgun made from a newly developed metal alloy whose "incredibly hard" nature, he explained, gives it no recoil after use, providing its user with "a far greater sense of control over his piece."

"It's a very comfortable gun, very soft in the hands," Trace added, noting that Smith & Wesson had designed the gun to appeal to "shooters tired of coming home from the firing range with sore, worn-out wrists."

But even as conventioneers reveled in a two-day orgy of firearm-to-phallus transference, a dark cloud hung over the event. The NRA has declined in power over the last decade, and its once-potent lobbyists have come out on the small end of key legislative battles like the Brady Bill, causing many members to bring their lifelong subconscious fears of castration to the fore.

"If the gun-control lobby wants my rod, they'll have to yank it from my dead body," said Pocatello-area bar-owner Joseph Greer, holding a tell-tale snub-nosed revolver.

"Those guys up there in Washington are tryin' to take our guns away, but we ain't gonna let 'em," Greer continued, adding classic paternal displacement to the already rich psychosexual tapestry. "No siree, Bob."

from the onion news service

bang bang shoot shoot

Pugwash
02-28-2009, 10:47 PM
Pug, its a little like what they say about sex in the way that those who talk about it the most are usually the ones who do it the least. There are a few members of this forum whose lives have been intimately, even heroically, involved with firearms, such as war vets. Of them I've noticed that while not avoiding the subject of firearms they rarely engage in the sort of soap operatic disertations on freedom and the right to bear arms the way some others do. Its the others, the ones who feel compelled to endlessly associate themselves with some grand patriotic project of constitutional righteousness in order to avoid the sorry little truth of their real lives who are the ones who won't stop harping on about guns, guns, and more guns. I have tried to feel compassion for this lot but for the most part have failed in that regard and have resorted to use of the ignore list. Best of luck to you in gaining the understanding of them you seek.

Thank you for your well reasoned response....

However..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SguYlpm3ffQ

I started this thread asking a question about guns, and what the F$%?

Apparently it morphed into a thread about Wellies. I have to say that I'm quite happy about it.

Wellies- Good

Guns_ Bad

:D



k??

C. Ross
02-28-2009, 11:01 PM
Newsflash: Camouflage wellie attacks its mate. Gunplay suspected.

http://pic5.picturetrail.com/VOL63/1061244/3042296/75114906.jpg

Hwyl
02-28-2009, 11:03 PM
Apparently it morphed into a thread about Wellies. I have to say that I'm quite happy about it.

Wellies- Good

Guns_ Bad





Wellies, named after the Iron Duke commander in chief of the British Army

http://www.eriding.net/media/photos/history/armouries/040328_cb_mp_his_ra_wellington.jpg

I've completed the circle

LeeG
02-28-2009, 11:09 PM
I get off on spokes and rims

Flying Orca
02-28-2009, 11:12 PM
Well done pcford - Oystagirl laughed so hard she cried!

The Bigfella
02-28-2009, 11:41 PM
41? Really? Gee, think you've mentioned it enough? Go pour some water on a fire or something, will ya?

Can't handle the truth eh Bob?

Need to sling an insult based on a disaster where more than 200 of my countrymen - including people that I have met, from my late-brother's town, eh?

Yeah - some people can be low lifes, can't they Bob?

Keith Wilson
03-01-2009, 12:19 AM
What the $^**!@# is with you people and GUNS??I have no $%^&ing idea. I just don't get it.

Captain Blight
03-01-2009, 12:23 AM
Newsflash: Camouflage wellie attacks its mate. Gunplay suspected.

http://pic5.picturetrail.com/VOL63/1061244/3042296/75114906.jpgGIVE IM THE BOOT MATE!! PuT THE BOOT IN!!

C. Ross
03-01-2009, 12:27 AM
Football hooligans and skinheads.

Imagine if they were armed.

Captain Blight
03-01-2009, 01:18 AM
Football hooligans and skinheads.

Imagine if they were armed.
I thought of that while I was posting. Well, they are armed, with knives, chains, bottles and fists. Firearms would certainly not help the situation.

I've actually been thinking fairly hard about Pug's question for a little bit now. The answer is complicated, wrapped up in the mythos of the Minuteman and the mountain men, the cowboy and the doughboy; and the way our early history as a nation was heavily informed by firearms (the Kentucky rifle as icon of freedom) and the individuals who, like Cinnicinatus, took up arms and fought and then returned to civilian life. It's all tied together with the typically American rejection of fate and the absolutely unshakeable belief in self-determination. A certain degree of pugnaciousness makes its way in there, too, I suppose.

Bowling For Columbine skewers this mindset, very bitingly I might add.

seanz
03-01-2009, 01:23 AM
Football hooligans and skinheads.

Imagine if they were armed.

I'd tried imagining it and I kept thinking of the paras.......;)

Domesticated_Mr. Know It All
03-01-2009, 01:47 AM
I like guns.
They go bang.
I really love cannons.
They go BOOM!!!
I like blowing stuff up and fire too.

doorstop
03-01-2009, 02:02 AM
I am an Aussie.
I have a couple of guns.
I used to shoot ferals but haven't for some time.
I cannot imagine firing any gun at another person.
I cannot imagine living in a society so totally F@#$^D that I would ever need to own a firearm that had the sole purpose of self protection!!!

BrianW
03-01-2009, 02:42 AM
Guns kill every 41st American male that dies.

I'm glad you added the "that dies" part, otherwise I wouldn't have understood the "kill" part. :D

AussieBarney
03-01-2009, 02:58 AM
I want to weigh in this thread with a little story. It's about bold little Barney, who at the tender age of sixteen decided that he had the god-given moral right to be judge, jury and executioner. So, After he was presented with a grand-daddy of a waking nightmare he went and tried to kill a man. Thank the great spirit, or whoever you may worship, He missed. The society he lives in took a dim view of this mad action and slung him in the go-slow for twelve years. He was released after six years in the general population of an adult male prison. If he was not insane before this, he most certainly was when he was released. Because he is not now and was never a sociopath or a physcopath he has spent the last thirty two years agonising over that incident. Ian, (bigfeller) has heard the story and offered validation and has stated that the action was justified given the circumstances and for that I thank him from the bottom of my heart. The whole reason for this post is to tell you that: IF BARNEY DID NOT HAVE ACESS TO A FIREARM IT WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED. By the way, he went through two locked doors to get at the firearm.
My friends, Let me tell you. Guns kill, you pull the trigger and a small piece of copper coated lead emerges at a very high velocity and when it impacts with the human body it causes death. I know, I have pulled the trigger with intent. I wonder how many of the gun officionados on this thread would be able to live with themselves if they killed someone in cold blood. I thought I could and as it turned out, much to my horror, I could not. I have spent the last thirty years trying to come to terms with my actions on that day. I don't think I ever will. Barney
P.S. To this day, I have never picked up a firearm. They frighten seven hells out of me. I know what they can do. Barney

BrianW
03-01-2009, 03:05 AM
So... in this case, a gun did not kill a person and even the much vaunted safe storage laws didn't stop a determined person from accessing a firearm.

A knife would have been easier to access, and probably not have missed.


I'm thinking this is not a good example to change the American system.

BrianW
03-01-2009, 03:09 AM
Brian,

"Every 41st American" is different to "every 41st American who dies"

The former suggests that eight million Americans dies of gunshot wounds each year; the latter says that of the male Americans who die each year, one in 41 dies from gunshot wounds.

Oh, okay, I get it. Thanks.

PeterSibley
03-01-2009, 03:27 AM
So... in this case, a gun did not kill a person and even the much vaunted safe storage laws didn't stop a determined person from accessing a firearm.

A knife would have been easier to access, and probably not have missed.


I'm thinking this is not a good example to change the American system.

Brian ,it would have been a long time before our new gun laws .

shamus
03-01-2009, 03:49 AM
I can't work out why Australians are trying to recommend a change to American gun laws, or why Americans would think our gun laws are in any sense lacking for our society. I have all the guns I feel any need for. Guns have never been about shooting people, in Australia, unless you were a soldier. Deer season opened here this weekend.

Captain Intrepid
03-01-2009, 03:52 AM
I can't work out why Australians are trying to recommend a change to American gun laws, or why Americans would think our gun laws are in any sense lacking for our society. I have all the guns I feel any need for. Guns have never been about shooting people, in Australia, unless you were a soldier. Deer season opened here this weekend.

As a Canadian I'm motivated by the fact that I have family and friends in the US, might move there for a while, and the vast majority of criminals up here who carry guns have American handguns smuggled up in exchange for drugs.

shamus
03-01-2009, 04:24 AM
I expect that you, and your friends & family have made your own assessment of the situation, then. Noone HAS to go there do they? Can't expect them to change their silly ways just cause we want to go there, can we? Which I don't want to anyway..

Captain Intrepid
03-01-2009, 04:52 AM
Would you leave your home country over something like that? I wouldn't. It's not a hugely significant issue, but when it's raised, why not say your peace?

BrianW
03-01-2009, 04:58 AM
Brian ,it would have been a long time before our new gun laws .

Right, but he said he went through 2 locked doors. In effect the firearm was secured fairly well that night. Today, I'd assume safe combos would be shared among certain family members, so in a case like above the law might not be enough to protect us from our own family.

Hence my point that may not be the best example for changing gun laws in the USA.

BrianW
03-01-2009, 05:00 AM
...and the vast majority of criminals up here who carry guns have American handguns smuggled up in exchange for drugs.

My high capacity 45 auto was made in Canada. It's a global economy now, or so I keep getting told. :)

PeterSibley
03-01-2009, 06:03 AM
Right, but he said he went through 2 locked doors. In effect the firearm was secured fairly well that night. Today, I'd assume safe combos would be shared among certain family members, so in a case like above the law might not be enough to protect us from our own family.

Hence my point that may not be the best example for changing gun laws in the USA.

The last person I would give the keys or combination to would be a 16 year old boy .Teenagers in the house was the reason I disposed of my rifles .

Phillip Allen
03-01-2009, 07:27 AM
I am an Aussie.
I have a couple of guns.
I used to shoot ferals but haven't for some time.
I cannot imagine firing any gun at another person.
I cannot imagine living in a society so totally F@#$^D that I would ever need to own a firearm that had the sole purpose of self protection!!!

I don't have any "personal protection" arms...I just like guns

Phillip Allen
03-01-2009, 07:32 AM
Brian,

"Every 41st American" is different to "every 41st American who dies"

The former suggests that eight million Americans dies of gunshot wounds each year; the latter says that of the male Americans who die each year, one in 41 dies from gunshot wounds.


it was Bigfella who didn't get it...he re-posted the former statement 4 or 5 times before I called him on it and he got mad at me for it

Phillip Allen
03-01-2009, 07:34 AM
I can't work out why Australians are trying to recommend a change to American gun laws, or why Americans would think our gun laws are in any sense lacking for our society. I have all the guns I feel any need for. Guns have never been about shooting people, in Australia, unless you were a soldier. Deer season opened here this weekend.

thank you...guns, however, have always been about killing innocents in the minds of the fanatical anti gunners...it is not possible for them to see from any other perspective

Phillip Allen
03-01-2009, 07:36 AM
As a Canadian I'm motivated by the fact that I have family and friends in the US, might move there for a while, and the vast majority of criminals up here who carry guns have American handguns smuggled up in exchange for drugs.

if you guys wouldn't make cheap drugs available the exchange wouldn't happen

Bob Adams
03-01-2009, 09:50 AM
Can't handle the truth eh Bob?

Need to sling an insult based on a disaster where more than 200 of my countrymen - including people that I have met, from my late-brother's town, eh?

Yeah - some people can be low lifes, can't they Bob?

Hey Bigfella....41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 We hear you already. Last 4 homicides in Baltimore, 1 shooting, 2 stabbings, 1 beaten, then doused with gasoline and burned.The druggies can be imaginative when it comes to killing eh?
Yeah, the fire comment was not very sensitive, I am sorry for that, I'm not a low life. BTW, according to the news reports I heard, the fires were started by an arsonist. probably with a match. You people need to ban matches, makes starting a fire way too easy.

S/V Laura Ellen
03-01-2009, 09:57 AM
So Pug, How are my guns "bad"? I use them for their intended purpose in a legal manner to help support my family. That, my friend, is "good".

Doug

Doug, I don't think that many people would be troubled by hunters owning guns for the purpose of hunting to feed their family. As you've said "thats good".

I have no problem with fishing for food either, but "catch and release" is just torture. It is the same as going hunting, shooting and animal and then patching up the wound and letting the animal go.:D

Pugwash
03-01-2009, 10:05 AM
Doug, bro et al.

I have no problem with you wanting to eat squirrel. As long as they are Grey (not Red).

I've even been out hunting for venison. I was not the shooter, unfortunately I was the Grallocher...:eek:.

However, the idea of the possesion of guns purely for the purpose of killing another person seems kind of strange.

Also, there seemed to be an awful lot of gun threads, WTF??

;)

Flying Orca
03-01-2009, 10:27 AM
guns, however, have always been about killing innocents in the minds of the fanatical anti gunners...

Not just the fanatics. Every piece of controlling legislation is a trade-off between freedom, responsibility, and consequences. I'm a gun owner and grew up hunting as a way of life, and I too think the gun ownership regime in the USA is far too skewed toward freedom in light of its obvious and ongoing consequences (as pointed out by the Bigfella). I wouldn't be happy with it if I lived there, and I'd be trying to change it... but that's one big reason why I don't live in the USA, birthright notwithstanding. :(

Pugwash
03-01-2009, 10:35 AM
1) I'm British and our native Red is being decimated by your damn Yankee imports...:(

2) I was once teaching someone to build a boat (we actually built two in the end) and got into the gun conversation. He said " I always carry mine" and patted his pocket. I have to say I kind of felt uncomfortable. Nice guy but.....

3) I know y'all feel strongly about it, my wife used to have a pizza shop( and a consealed weapons permit) and had a gun in a holster under the counter "for self defence". No effing use, she might as well have had a cucumber. I was more worried about it being used against her than her using it.

Phillip Allen
03-01-2009, 11:00 AM
1) I'm British and our native Red is being decimated by your damn Yankee imports...:(



we'll come get our squirrels if you'll come and get your starlings


:) BTW I killed about 50 greys outa my pecan tree last year so I'm trying to help...not sure I would shoot a red if one happend by...probably not

JimD
03-01-2009, 11:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Intrepid http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2118286#post2118286)
...and the vast majority of criminals up here who carry guns have American handguns smuggled up in exchange for drugs.

My high capacity 45 auto was made in Canada. It's a global economy now, or so I keep getting told. :)

And CI's statement is no less correct because of it.

Pugwash
03-01-2009, 11:18 AM
Think about it Pug. I know you'll get it;)

Doug

Well Do'H.....

I live here now, not there...;)

By the way, how's that whole Texas thing going. Hope it's going to work out for ya.

:)

Pugwash
03-01-2009, 11:40 AM
Texas- I'm talking to them every few days and, according to them, things are still good but going slow. I have to admit that I'm getting worried.
I've never stopped looking but there's not much out there so I'm hopeful still that it works out. Because we have prepared ourselves mentally for a major move to find work, my search has been geographically expanded. We really got to looking forward to Texas as a destination.

Doug

If you're psyched up for moving and assuming Kenneth....oops! Bobby Jindal isn't a complete Khyber. Louisiana sure has a bunch of "shovel ready" projects.

Not only that but I hear they have some pretty good music and nekkid wimmens (but only if you can afford beads).

Also you don't have to put up with the whole Texas-random execution thing.

:D

Peerie Maa
03-01-2009, 11:55 AM
thank you...guns, however, have always been about killing innocents in the minds of the fanatical anti gunners...it is not possible for them to see from any other perspective

The flip side of this is the "If the gun-control lobby wants my rod, they'll have to yank it from my dead body," said Pocatello-area bar-owner Joseph Greer, holding a tell-tale snub-nosed revolver." sort of remark attributed to the gun lobby. It makes me question whether a device designed for killing creatures should be in the hands of someone with that mentality.

Pugwash
03-01-2009, 12:05 PM
The flip side of this is the "If the gun-control lobby wants my rod, they'll have to yank it from my dead body," said Pocatello-area bar-owner Joseph Greer, holding a tell-tale snub-nosed revolver." sort of remark attributed to the gun lobby. It makes me question whether a device designed for killing creatures should be in the hands of someone with that mentality.

I think it is all in the mind.

That's the big problem.

My wifes pizza shop is a good example.."Well if someone tried to rob me I'd reach under the counter unholster the gun cock it, and then I'd be ready for bear"

In the mean time..........

Crazy Murricans seem to like imagining situations that they could prove themselves a hero, thus justifying their gun ownership.

Unfortunately every so often a story is reported that confirms this fantasy.

Joe (SoCal)
03-01-2009, 12:20 PM
Oh pug the favorite gun lust story always involves some crazed meth head or thug breaking into grandma's house and she blows him away with her ( Cue overly technical gun lust description ) M1911 a single-action (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigger_%28firearms%29), semi-automatic pistol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_pistol) (handgun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handgun)) chambered for the .45 ACP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.45_ACP) cartridge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartridge_%28firearms%29). It was designed by John M. Browning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Browning), and was the standard-issue side arm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side_arm) for the United States armed forces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_United_States) from 1911 to 1985, to use the short recoil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoil_operation#Short_recoil_operation).38 Super (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.38_Super), 9mm Parabellum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9_mm_Luger_Parabellum), .400 Corbon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.400_Corbon), and other cartridges firing rounds such as .38 ACP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.38_ACP).

As for me I don't Need a gun ;)

Joe (SoCal)
03-01-2009, 01:07 PM
I wish I liked game meat. Too bad ya cant hunt cows, I might hunt then ;)

Bob Adams
03-01-2009, 01:14 PM
Gee, who pushed the Scot button on me?

Pugwash
03-01-2009, 01:18 PM
I wish I liked game meat. Too bad ya cant hunt cows, I might hunt then ;)

You can, It's just not concidered very "sporting".

:)

RodB
03-01-2009, 01:36 PM
As usual the left demonizes or ridicules those who differ with them on any issue.... so any gun owner has to be some mental case... gimme a break!

The reality in the USA is twofold. There are many many millions of guns in our society...and that is a fact. Millions of law abiding citizens own them and keep them for various sports and also self defense. Number two...there are many millions of guns in the black market...and they will always be there... ie., the criminals will always have guns no matter what the laws say... and with the general population disarmed.

These are two facts that must be considered in this debate. As a gun enthusiast for most of my life (hunting, target shooting, metallic shillouette shooting, etc), I often wonder how most of you anti gun folks forget that in years past, guns were around in most all parts of the country and as easy to access as a cresent wrench. Millions have been raised with guns in the home, they are just another tool and should be respected and used and stored safely. Why do the rights of the common sense.. law abiding citizens have to be infringed upon because of a few idiots and criminals?

Why is it that when a gun crime takes place, the anti gun folk's first reaction is to penalize the entire law abiding population with some sweeping gun law... instead of aiming a law at the criminal... or how about really enforcing the laws in existence.

In general, anti-gun activists are not honorable. Mostly, they will do or say anything to take guns away from the population, with their end justifying the means. Bargaining with them is pointless so we have a stalemate in our present society... which I would like to point out... we have plenty of existing firearms laws that would be more effective if they are enforced to the letter. There certainly have been several cases where the loudest voices against guns are really meaning no guns for other folks... but they own them.

Hypothetical: Say you could wave a magic wand and make all firearms disappear in the USA, a discussion could then be had that we keep it that way if the resulting lack of firearm deaths becomes reality. I have a feeling that many gun owners could be convinced that this would be a betterment for our society in overall lower amounts of deaths. But alas, we must deal with the real world, with violent crime and drugs and predators taking children... and the existence of millions of firearms ...etc etc.

On the other hand, in a society where many many are armed, the criminal will never know if he will be shot if he tries to commit a crime. A deterrent shown to be a reality in the states with the right to carry concealed arms.... If the access of a gun was the most relevant factor in whether gun violence took place, then all the states with the "right to carry" laws would have an increase in gun violence...and they do not.... I rest my case.

RodB

Robert L E
03-01-2009, 02:01 PM
In the USA we live with a system that abhors the punishment of the innocent. It is all too typical for someone to be caught committing a horrendous crime being described as having a "long criminal history".

It is horrible when an innocent is wrongly convicted of a crime but I suspect that a hundred are wrongly acquitted (actually guilty) for each accused who is wrongly convicted.

A problem with all of this is that violent offenders are not locked up when they should be. Crime is higher because the prospect of real punishment is lower.

One of the paradoxes of gun ownership is that, while you MAY be at somewhat greater risk of being the victim of a gun crime if there are guns in your home, you are at less of a risk for such crimes and other violent crimes if your neighbor is armed. The reason for this is that criminals tend to avoid armed homeowners if they can and those same criminals do not know which homeowners are armed. Home invasions, muggings, rapes and other crimes tend to go up when honest citizens are disarmed.

The problem with most gun laws is that they only affect people who are not part of the problem. A person who would use a gun to rob or kill will not obey a gun law anyway. If you trust a cop with a gun then why would you not trust your neighbor? Cops are just citizens too. Most people are just as trustworthy as most cops.

I think that I am like most gun owners; while my guns could be used for personal protection, that is not what I have them for. I like to shoot. I like to hunt. Guns are just things I use and do not dwell on. I have never kept a gun at the ready because I think that is foolish where I live. If I were a farmer though, I would probably have one or more guns at the ready. You never know when a cat or a coyote may need dispatching. You are also farther from human help on a farm and somewhat more vulnerable to human predation.

It is odd that the places with the highest gun crime tend to be the places with the greatest degree of restrictions placed on honest people thus preventing them from defending themselves. Citizenship is lost and replaced with victimization. The government will take care of you, don't worry.


Lastly, a lot of anti's think that they know why gun owners have guns and like guns. They are wrong; they only know what would drive them themselves to own a gun. They would own a gun because they are in fear, because they hate, because they feel sexually deficient, or because they feel the need to commit violence. I hope that these antis never do get guns because they would be dangerous with them. Real gun owners I know have guns because they like to hunt or shoot, both wholesome family outdoor activities.

Bob

JimD
03-01-2009, 02:07 PM
... Home invasions, muggings, rapes and other crimes tend to go up when honest citizens are disarmed.

Bob

In the immortal words of many who have preceded me 'Got a source for that claim, Bob. Or did you just make it up because it bolsters your argument?'

Pugwash
03-01-2009, 02:16 PM
In the immortal words of many who have preceded me 'Got a source for that claim, Bob. Or did you just make it up because it bolsters your argument?'

25% of people own pet Armadillos

Prove me wrong...or go home........:p

It's fun making up statistics, I'm thinking of making it my new hobby.

:)

Phillip Allen
03-01-2009, 02:42 PM
In the immortal words of many who have preceded me 'Got a source for that claim, Bob. Or did you just make it up because it bolsters your argument?'

do you NOT believe in a tendency for attacks to increase when tge government tries to insure homes are without arms? It's a straight question...do you believe any difference happens at all?

seanz
03-01-2009, 03:06 PM
do you NOT believe

We may as well talk about beliefs.....statistics and commonsense aren't making much of an impact.

Or we could talk about the law......the right to bear arms and the requirement for a militia to be well-regulated.
Is your militia well-regulated?

Phillip Allen
03-01-2009, 03:11 PM
We may as well talk about beliefs.....statistics and commonsense aren't making much of an impact.

Or we could talk about the law......the right to bear arms and the requirement for a militia to be well-regulated.
Is your militia well-regulated?

no idea...BTW well-regulated means well-trained...or did you know that?

seanz
03-01-2009, 03:31 PM
No, but I learn a lot from these threads.
:)

Might put a crimp in some peoples free time if they had to show up for militia training just so they could own a hunting rifle.

Phillip Allen
03-01-2009, 03:32 PM
No, but I learn a lot from these threads.
:)

Might put a crimp in some peoples free time if they had to show up for militia training just so they could own a hunting rifle.

that got a laugh :) (and it has possibilities)

isla
03-01-2009, 03:43 PM
Wellingtons = male empowerment?!

There must be aspects of British culture that still escape me.

I think it's a rubber thing :D. I get my wellies from Asda, which is a subsidiary company of Wallmart. In Wallmart you can buy ammo, in Asda you can't. That's a British thing.

Pugwash
03-01-2009, 04:11 PM
I think it's a rubber thing :D. I get my wellies from Asda, which is a subsidiary company of Wallmart. In Wallmart you can buy ammo, in Asda you can't. That's a British thing.

But each has that whole yellow smilie thing going on, oh wait there it is.....:):):)

The Bigfella
03-01-2009, 04:19 PM
it was Bigfella who didn't get it...he re-posted the former statement 4 or 5 times before I called him on it and he got mad at me for it

Rubbish

my first post on this issue - in your "gun safety" thread was



One in 45 American males will discover (permanently) that guns aren't safe. They won't remember the details though. Lots more get to remember.


There's nothing inconsistent in that statement - except that the number was based on the death figures for one year. You ranted and raved and couldn't understand it - so I went back as far as 1979 through the stats and showed that the statement was true - and that the real situation was even worse.

Between 1980 and 2005, 29,549,997 American men died. 727,336 of them died from a gunshot. None of them in wars. I knowe you aren't up to the maths so let me do it for you. One in 41 died from a gunshot.

There is nothing inconsistent with my original statement and my more recent statement. American men will continue to die at the same rate from gunshot wounds as they have in the past unless you as a society do something about it. I showed that by going back over almost 30 years of data - it happens every year plus or minus a bit. The worst year for gun deaths for men in the years that I have looked at was 1991 - when every 34th American male death was a gunshot. The least bad years (they are all bad in this respect) were 1999 and 2000 when it was every 48th death.

So, Phillip - you didn't "call me on it" you simply continued to display ignorance of the true situation - and you got rude about it.

Try being nice - you'll find the day goes a whole lot better.

Pugwash
03-01-2009, 04:22 PM
Apparently, some people can post and talk at the same time:p Great talking to you Derek(spelled right?)

Doug

Yarp, to the spelling and the craic.

Cheers,

Derek.

(oh, and I posted after my phone crapped out on me, I'm sure that damned thing is a zombie...)

The Bigfella
03-01-2009, 04:22 PM
Not to be insensitive, but Barney became enraged, lost control of himself, picked up a gun and attemted to kill someone. I don't know the details behind it but I've had occasion to lose my temper and still had the forethought to restrain myself from picking up a gun. Even with guns in the house, I've never lost my temper to the point that I considered someone's life fair payment. That makes Barney a criminal and he served his time for it. I'm fairly confident that he cannot own or possess a gun any more. Why should I be stopped from owning and using guns just because Barney couldn't control his own temper?
BTW- That Bigfella believes he was justified in his actions is the ultimate hypocrisy.

Doug

Not at all Doug. I'd have cooked the prick's nuts and made him eat them. I wouldn't have shot him either. I'd have recycled him into mud crabs.

Bob Adams
03-01-2009, 04:39 PM
From the ABS:
The prevalence of unlawful entry with intent has slowly increased through the 1990s. In 1993 the rate was 2,161 victims per 100,000 persons. It rose to 2,281 per 100,000 persons by 2000, a little less than the 1998 peak.

The prevalence of assault also rose through the 1990s. While assaults recorded by police were much less frequent than instances of unlawful entry with intent, the increase in assaults between 1995 and 2000 (the longest period for which comparable data are available) was substantial. Between 1995 and 2000 the assault rate rose on average by 5.5% per annum, from 563 to 737 victims per 100,000 persons. These rates may, however, significantly understate the extent of assault within the community, as data from the 1993 and 1998 crime victims surveys suggest that a large proportion of assaults (over two-thirds) are not reported to the police

Elsewhere on the site, crimes against the elderly have also increased.Guess the means to defend theirselves meant something after all.

Pugwash
03-01-2009, 05:12 PM
This violent reaction takes malice, forethought and planning. In my country this is premeditated murder.
Bigfooler thinks it's better to plan and commit a torture/murder than to think before he pulls the trigger on a human being. Jeez, Mr. 41, are you sure you aren't a hypocritical POS?:rolleyes:

Doug

Bigfella's having a hard time coming to terms with the removal of Tylerdurden.

He feels empty and somehow at a loss.

We need to be more understanding and forgiving, think Sherlock without Moriarty or Batman without the Joker. (For our American readers)

;)

Pugwash
03-01-2009, 05:26 PM
Pug, you're just nuckin' futs. Can't wait to have that beer.

Doug

Nah, but I am a shining wit...;)

I might bring some of the good stuff with me, along with that urine my wife calls beer. What's your favourite?

The Bigfella
03-01-2009, 05:33 PM
Oh dear - the insults are flying thick and fast.

Hey guys - I've got a boat that needs sanding - and then a meeting to go to in town. I'll be back in 8 hours or so. Play nice till then

Pugwash
03-01-2009, 05:47 PM
Oh dear - the insults are flying thick and fast.

Nope, just funnin' with ya.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f_p0CgPeyA

'parently your turds flush the wrong way round, that must be weird.

Phillip Allen
03-01-2009, 08:14 PM
Pug, I'll cover the beer. Bring tater salad;)
You know we'll have to invite everyone don't you? Tonya's gonna' be pissed if everyone shows up and I left the day before.
So, who wants to come to an EBS/Shootin' match next weekend at my house? Keep in mind it may get cancelled for lack of host at the last minute.

Doug


Wow! I'd love to...anything more than a drive of a couple of hours is out though

Robert L E
03-02-2009, 12:38 PM
In the immortal words of many who have preceded me 'Got a source for that claim, Bob. Or did you just make it up because it bolsters your argument?'

It is easy to find hundreds of hits that support what I wrote, much more difficult to find those which refute what I wrote.

I've read many articles that say much the same thing but I do not have the ability to cite them. One of the better was in Psychology Today many years ago.

In any case restricting gun rights on honest citizens tends to seem to cause an increase in violent crime while the converse, reducing these restrictive laws seems to reduce violent crime.

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

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=126

John R. Lott, Jr.
More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Second Edition (http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/14167.ctl)
© 1998, 2000, 332 pages

http://gunowners.org/sk0703.htm

It is hard to find hits that are well annotated, if you wish to find more look yourself they are out there if you weed through the ones that do not cite sources.

Bob

stevebaby
03-02-2009, 01:11 PM
On the other hand, in a society where many many are armed, the criminal will never know if he will be shot if he tries to commit a crime. A deterrent shown to be a reality in the states with the right to carry concealed arms.... If the access of a gun was the most relevant factor in whether gun violence took place, then all the states with the "right to carry" laws would have an increase in gun violence...and they do not.... I rest my case.

RodBWhat you have described is the current situation. The USA still has the highest murder rate in the Western world.
"Right to carry" laws have been around for a long time, yet Americans still murder each other at a rate 6 times that of, say Britain.
Are you more violent than the Brits, or more criminal?

stevebaby
03-02-2009, 01:12 PM
It is easy to find hundreds of hits that support what I wrote, much more difficult to find those which refute what I wrote.

I've read many articles that say much the same thing but I do not have the ability to cite them. One of the better was in Psychology Today many years ago.

In any case restricting gun rights on honest citizens tends to seem to cause an increase in violent crime while the converse, reducing these restrictive laws seems to reduce violent crime.

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

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=126

John R. Lott, Jr.
More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Second Edition (http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/14167.ctl)
© 1998, 2000, 332 pages

http://gunowners.org/sk0703.htm

It is hard to find hits that are well annotated, if you wish to find more look yourself they are out there if you weed through the ones that do not cite sources.

BobYou have to be desperate to quote John Lott. He's a fraud.

Tinman
03-02-2009, 01:37 PM
I had an interesting conversation with a recently retired Ottawa city police officer on Sunday. We talked abou tthis very issue, and about Canada's incredibly restrictive gun control laws. I asked him if the gun registry was any help in any way in his work. He told me and I qoute him here:
"None at all. when it comes to domestic abuse cases, we simply assume there will be fireiarms within the home." He went on to say he was not willing to put his life or the lives of his fellow officers in the hands of a glorified typist punching in data for a computer program that is supposed to let him know where the guns are. It just isn't worth the risk. He was completely jaded in regards to our methods of gun control, and suggested that we are doing this all backwards. Rather than trying to limit access and punish legal owners, he suggested hard time mandatory gun sentences for anyone committing a crime with a firearm, and that every high school cirriculum should include a firearm safety course. I thought it an interesting pespective from a man who spent 35 years on the beat.

Popeye
03-02-2009, 01:48 PM
I thought it an interesting pespective from a man who spent 35 years on the beat. why was he not promoted up thru the ranks ?

Tinman
03-02-2009, 02:00 PM
He was a Sgt. Some guys just like the beat and don't want the politics of the office.

TomF
03-02-2009, 02:04 PM
...I asked him if the gun registry was any help in any way in his work. He told me and I qoute him here:
"None at all. when it comes to domestic abuse cases, we simply assume there will be fireiarms within the home." He went on to say he was not willing to put his life or the lives of his fellow officers in the hands of a glorified typist punching in data for a computer program that is supposed to let him know where the guns are. It just isn't worth the risk...Interesting that Police Chiefs across Canada have consistently taken the diametrically opposed view about the registry's usefulness. In writing. More than once.

They also said that officers should assume that whatever the registry said, firearms could be present in domestic calls ... but that knowing they were and assuming they might be were very different things.

Tinman
03-02-2009, 02:29 PM
The difference between the opinions of the Police chiefs and the guys on the beat, is not surprising. Vern White, the Chief here, does not share his counterparts view on the topic. He agrees with his Sgt.

Phillip Allen
03-02-2009, 03:17 PM
Interesting that Police Chiefs across Canada have consistently taken the diametrically opposed view about the registry's usefulness. In writing. More than once.

They also said that officers should assume that whatever the registry said, firearms could be present in domestic calls ... but that knowing they were and assuming they might be were very different things.


Tom...police chief is a political position...try a little perspective

TomF
03-02-2009, 03:24 PM
less political here - at least not big "P" political. Not elected.

The argument they made repeatedly was that their officers were safer knowing that a house had firearms, rather than simply acting as if it likely did. Though officers should always take that latter, prudent course.

Kaa
03-02-2009, 03:28 PM
The argument they made repeatedly was that their officers were safer knowing that a house had firearms, rather than simply acting as if it likely did.

How about the safety of the occupants of the house?

Kaa

stevebaby
03-02-2009, 03:31 PM
He was a Sgt. Some guys just like the beat and don't want the politics of the office.Some are obviously incapable of career progression.

TomF
03-02-2009, 03:36 PM
How about the safety of the occupants of the house?

KaaThe occupants of the house are, as has been mentioned literally countless times, statistically VASTLY safer when there are no guns present. Especially in households where there are domestic disputes that might prompt the police to show up. One would hope that includes the majority of houses where the gun registry says there are no guns present, eh? Even in Canada, you're 6X as likely to be murdered if you live in a household that owns one or more rifles/shotguns.

Oh, sorry. That's not what you meant, is it? ;)

Yeah, I suspect that the police's trigger (or Taser) fingers would be a bit less "twitchy" going into houses where they didn't know for certain that there was a fair arsenal that could be brought into play against them.

Tinman
03-02-2009, 03:47 PM
Some are obviously incapable of career progression.

I would suggest that there is nothing at all wrong with retiring a Sgt. after 35 years on the force. I suppose it might be hard to believe, but there are some, who enjoy that level of rank/responsibility.

Tinman
03-02-2009, 03:51 PM
The occupants of the house are, as has been mentioned literally countless times, statistically VASTLY safer when there are no guns present. Especially in households where there are domestic disputes that might prompt the police to show up. One would hope that includes the majority of houses where the gun registry says there are no guns present, eh? Even in Canada, you're 6X as likely to be murdered if you live in a household that owns one or more rifles/shotguns.

Oh, sorry. That's not what you meant, is it? ;)

Yeah, I suspect that the police's trigger (or Taser) fingers would be a bit less "twitchy" going into houses where they didn't know for certain that there was a fair arsenal that could be brought into play against them.

Tom, that is a typical left wing rant. Most of the people where I live, and by that I am talking 90%, own and use firearms. We've had one murder in the last 25 years, and that was with antifreeze. I suppose now we should ban ethylyne glycol? Here is another news flash. The cops ain't the bad guys.

Flying Orca
03-02-2009, 04:02 PM
In any case restricting gun rights on honest citizens tends to seem to cause an increase in violent crime while the converse, reducing these restrictive laws seems to reduce violent crime.

Funny, that doesn't seem to be the experience in the countries where it's actually been done... ;)

TomF
03-02-2009, 04:07 PM
It's not a typical left wing rant. Look up the figures yourself on Juristat ... Stat Can figures, drawn from police reports.

Fact - most murders in Canada are committed by someone known to the victim - most often the spouse. Most other murders are criminal-on-criminal gang related.

Fact - most spousal murders are committed with firearms, even in Canada.

6X more likely.

Look Tinman, I owned a rifle for years. So did my Dad. My neighbours have hunted upland birds (with some stunningly handsome dogs!) for decades. Nope, we've none of us been murdered, for all of that.

We - your family/friends and mine - are not anomalies. Most gun owners won't be murdered, and won't know someone who is.

But of the people who are murdered? Spouse with a hunting weapon.

TomF
03-02-2009, 04:12 PM
Oh and Tin? I agree that the police aren't the bad guys, though some disagree.

htom
03-02-2009, 04:24 PM
If you have a non-violent country before you impose "gun control laws", you will probably have a non-violent country after you impose them. Canada, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland ....

If you have a violent country before you impose "gun control laws", you will probably have a MORE violent country after you impose them. USA, Brazil, Mexico, ....

The Bigfella
03-02-2009, 04:33 PM
Sorry to throw a spanner into the works of that one. We had a far more violent country before we intoduced gun safety laws. Now its safer.

htom
03-02-2009, 04:58 PM
Looking at historical homicide rates, you were (and are) a low-violence state. I'm happy for you.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/vda/vda-sec04.html

Looking further, there seem to be geographical areas of Australia that have high (and low) rates per 100,000; just as the USA has. North Dakota isn't Washington, D.C.

PeterSibley
03-02-2009, 05:32 PM
Looking at historical homicide rates, you were (and are) a low-violence state. I'm happy for you.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/vda/vda-sec04.html

Looking further, there seem to be geographical areas of Australia that have high (and low) rates per 100,000; just as the USA has. North Dakota isn't Washington, D.C.

Yep ,that's a good and informative link .The NT spike is the result of some intractable breakdown in some of the communities up there , LOTS of alcohol and a very young population . It is contained in a reasonably small population .

JimD
03-02-2009, 05:34 PM
It is easy to find hundreds of hits that support what I wrote, much more difficult to find those which refute what I wrote.

I've read many articles that say much the same thing but I do not have the ability to cite them. One of the better was in Psychology Today many years ago.

In any case restricting gun rights on honest citizens tends to seem to cause an increase in violent crime while the converse, reducing these restrictive laws seems to reduce violent crime.

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

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=126

John R. Lott, Jr.
More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Second Edition (http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/14167.ctl)
© 1998, 2000, 332 pages

http://gunowners.org/sk0703.htm

It is hard to find hits that are well annotated, if you wish to find more look yourself they are out there if you weed through the ones that do not cite sources.

Bob

Thanks for wasting my time with these links that do nothing to support your claim. Life is short, so please don't expect me to waste any more of it this way. Sorry if I sound cranky, Bob, but I'm a little weary and leary of sub machine gun enthusiasts (I don't know if you are one or not. I have to admit they are fun to shoot occassionally). Not so much that they like full auto assault rifles but that they claim to have hard evidence that the general proliferation of such weapons makes them safer. I've yet to see any supporting data, outside of a war zone, that is. I realize that's not what you yourself said, however you did say this:
Originally Posted by Robert L E http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2118712#post2118712)
... Home invasions, muggings, rapes and other crimes tend to go up when honest citizens are disarmed.

Bob


And I called you on it because frankly, in both your country and mine I can't ever think of a time when honest citizens ever were disarmed, apart from very rare and specific instances such as Katrina. Certainly not in any general wide spread way. Even the nra link you provided says there was a steady fall in the violent US crime rate in the years 1991 - 2004. Weren't those precisely the years when the Clinton assault rife ban was in effect? Gotta be roughly coinciding, at least.

PeterSibley
03-02-2009, 05:36 PM
My situation is / was pretty much as Portland describes less the army experience .I grew up shooting bunnys for 5 bob a pair but times have changed and I've shot all the cats around here ,the house got full of teenagers so in the interests of keeping the kids from doing themselves an injury the little Browning auto went away .

Phillip Allen
03-02-2009, 06:18 PM
Just my perspective , which I think is common to most Australians.
I grew up in the country , and my father shot a lot of rabbits , he probably made more money from rabbits , than his job.
His brother lived almost all of his working life , and raised a family , from rabbit shooting and trapping.
I learnt to use a rifle and shotgun at an early age.
I shot competitively.
I was a qualified marksman in the army , and served in SVN as a number 2 machine gunner.
After I got out of the army , I didn't touch a weapon for something like 30 years.
I had no need to.
Weapons like rifles and shotguns were kept for a purpose , hunting , and I did shoot competitively for a while, as a kid.
When I shifted to the farm , I found the rifle at my mothers , up in the ceiling , I took it home and used it , for reducing the rabbit numbers.
We had no use for handguns.
The weapons were always locked away , and ammo and magazines kept seperately from the weapon.
They were never kept for "protection" , and I wouldn't want to use one for that purpose either.
I've travelled , and trekked with horses on my own , through some pretty isolated places all around Australia , and never carried a weapon , why should I ?.
I have visited the USA 3 times , 7 weeks each time , and each time I've been there for the 4th of July , and its scared me s-----s , with neighbours blazing away in to the night , the bloke across the road with automatic fire.
And weapons all around the house , in the car , the trailer , everywhere !.
Loaded weapons.
Going trekking , with 1/2 a dozen people , there must have been a dozen or more weapons with them , all around the place.
And I'm used to much more isolation , and no weaponry.
It really freaked me out .
And then our friends visited Australia .
No weapons.
And then they visited again , this time he flew off to Darwin , and rode a motor bike about 6000kms across the country , through the centre , everywhere.
No weapons.
His wife meantime was living on her own in a little cottage on the edge of a forest here , no weapons.
Why should she need one ?.
They wanted to move here then , but they didn't meet immigration criteria , and weren't allowed to.
My daughter and son in law are in the Police force , and have no weapons in the house.
My other daughter and son in law are in the military , and have no weapons in the house.
I am the only one with a weapon , but I have no use for it here in my new place , I have no pest problem , I know it is valuable , so I'll probably sell it .
And good riddance.
I believe that is the position most Australians are coming from.
Make of it what you will.
Regards Rob J.

yes, yew but your post ignores folks (the bulk of us) who keep no loaded guns lying around...I like guns and play with them and hurt no one...some people like jet skis and play with them and hurt no one...keeping guns for the sake of personal protection is a red herring...it assumes that is the only reason we have them and that we walk around in fear of assault...this is sensationalizing for the sake of selling copy and stirring up huge batches of koolaid for the masses to drink, and drink they do!

rufustr
03-02-2009, 06:18 PM
On ya Rob, Good post.

Rufus.

Phillip Allen
03-02-2009, 06:21 PM
did you read Jack's post about find a gun in someone else's property...the "reaction" for many here was to run around (figuritively) with their hands in the air shouting like chicken little...how did we come to this hysteria?

stevebaby
03-02-2009, 07:08 PM
Just my perspective , which I think is common to most Australians.
I grew up in the country , and my father shot a lot of rabbits , he probably made more money from rabbits , than his job.
His brother lived almost all of his working life , and raised a family , from rabbit shooting and trapping.
I learnt to use a rifle and shotgun at an early age.
I shot competitively.
I was a qualified marksman in the army , and served in SVN as a number 2 machine gunner.
After I got out of the army , I didn't touch a weapon for something like 30 years.
I had no need to.
Weapons like rifles and shotguns were kept for a purpose , hunting , and I did shoot competitively for a while, as a kid.
When I shifted to the farm , I found the rifle at my mothers , up in the ceiling , I took it home and used it , for reducing the rabbit numbers.
We had no use for handguns.
The weapons were always locked away , and ammo and magazines kept seperately from the weapon.
They were never kept for "protection" , and I wouldn't want to use one for that purpose either.
I've travelled , and trekked with horses on my own , through some pretty isolated places all around Australia , and never carried a weapon , why should I ?.
I have visited the USA 3 times , 7 weeks each time , and each time I've been there for the 4th of July , and its scared me s-----s , with neighbours blazing away in to the night , the bloke across the road with automatic fire.
And weapons all around the house , in the car , the trailer , everywhere !.
Loaded weapons.
Going trekking , with 1/2 a dozen people , there must have been a dozen or more weapons with them , all around the place.
And I'm used to much more isolation , and no weaponry.
It really freaked me out .
And then our friends visited Australia .
No weapons.
And then they visited again , this time he flew off to Darwin , and rode a motor bike about 6000kms across the country , through the centre , everywhere.
No weapons.
His wife meantime was living on her own in a little cottage on the edge of a forest here , no weapons.
Why should she need one ?.
They wanted to move here then , but they didn't meet immigration criteria , and weren't allowed to.
My daughter and son in law are in the Police force , and have no weapons in the house.
My other daughter and son in law are in the military , and have no weapons in the house.
I am the only one with a weapon , but I have no use for it here in my new place , I have no pest problem , I know it is valuable , so I'll probably sell it .
And good riddance.
I believe that is the position most Australians are coming from.
Make of it what you will.
Regards Rob J.Thanks Rob. A voice of reason.

Joe (SoCal)
03-02-2009, 07:29 PM
Thanks Rob, make sense to me and I'm not even an Ausi ;)

High C
03-02-2009, 07:38 PM
....there was a steady fall in the violent US crime rate in the years 1991 - 2004. Weren't those precisely the years when the Clinton assault rife ban was in effect?....

They were also the years that concealed carry laws went into effect. The number of violent crimes committed with "assault weapons" is next to nothing. Pure political theater.

Phillip Allen
03-02-2009, 07:40 PM
They were also the years that concealed carry laws went into effect. The number of violent crimes committed with "assault weapons" is next to nothing. Pure political theater.


party pooper

JimD
03-02-2009, 07:59 PM
They were also the years that concealed carry laws went into effect.

I could see where that could discourage a few crooks in the case of street crime. Can you give me the 25 words or less lowdown on the concealed laws or a link? As in anyone anywhere can get one?

Phillip Allen
03-02-2009, 08:26 PM
anyone can get one...after a back ground check and application...must have passed a gun course of some kind. I never wanted such a license so don't have any more info...

JimD
03-02-2009, 08:54 PM
They were also the years that concealed carry laws went into effect. The number of violent crimes committed with "assault weapons" is next to nothing. Pure political theater.

A very important consideration that almost always gets overlooked in these gun/crime threads is all the other factors that contribute to increases and decreases in crime, such as periods of economic upheaval or prosperity, or social rest or unrest, etc. Sunspot activity and the weather for all anyone knows for sure. It would be interesting if there were crime stats for pre industrial societies where guns did not exist at all. I would imagine that crime still fluctuated based on all the other factors. I think we tend to oversimplify and rely far too heavily on looking for statistical associations that are false; a gun law changes and a crime rate changes and there is an immediate claim that one change was directly because of the other whereas that may not be the case at all. A lot of tangibles and intangibles out there.

Phillip Allen
03-02-2009, 08:55 PM
it's very fashionable Jim...

everyone has accepted that the US is violent...I wonder if it is as compared to other societies?...who's keeping count that doesn't have a dog in the fight one way or another?

Tinman
03-02-2009, 09:00 PM
It's not a typical left wing rant. Look up the figures yourself on Juristat ... Stat Can figures, drawn from police reports.

Fact - most murders in Canada are committed by someone known to the victim - most often the spouse. Most other murders are criminal-on-criminal gang related.

Fact - most spousal murders are committed with firearms, even in Canada.

6X more likely.

Look Tinman, I owned a rifle for years. So did my Dad. My neighbours have hunted upland birds (with some stunningly handsome dogs!) for decades. Nope, we've none of us been murdered, for all of that.

We - your family/friends and mine - are not anomalies. Most gun owners won't be murdered, and won't know someone who is.

But of the people who are murdered? Spouse with a hunting weapon.

Ok, I get what you are saying, and nod in agreement about how MOST people won't be murdered, by or know anyone who would, murder anyone with or without a firearm. What I would suggest, is that rather than regulating guns becasue husband/wife boyfriend/girlfriend get so angry they blow each other away with the ole .308, we figure out why they would even think of resorting to that in the first place? Solve that problem, and suddenly the world is a safer place.

stevebaby
03-02-2009, 09:12 PM
What I would suggest, is that rather than regulating guns becasue husband/wife boyfriend/girlfriend get so angry they blow each other away with the ole .308, we figure out why they would even think of resorting to that in the first place? Solve that problem, and suddenly the world is a safer place. People don't think rationally all the time,and when they fail to act in a rational manner then the last thing you want is for a firearm to enter the equation.You want to post a cop to monitor every domestic dispute? Get real.

Phillip Allen
03-02-2009, 09:19 PM
People don't think rationally all the time,and when they fail to act in a rational manner then the last thing you want is for a firearm to enter the equation.You want to post a cop to monitor every domestic dispute? Get real.

do armed policemen always think rationally?

Tinman
03-02-2009, 09:42 PM
People don't think rationally all the time,and when they fail to act in a rational manner then the last thing you want is for a firearm to enter the equation.You want to post a cop to monitor every domestic dispute? Get real.


Now this is where it gets really dumb. We've had guns since Columbus got here, and now in the last 50 years, we are too stupid to see through our rage and not want to kill someone wiht the first gun we can find. Perhaps there is more going on here. Is it possible that our forefathers had an ingrained sense of the value of human life that tempered them that we have lost? I think there may be a lot to that point.

JimD
03-02-2009, 10:09 PM
Now this is where it gets really dumb. We've had guns since Columbus got here, and now in the last 50 years, we are too stupid to see through our rage and not want to kill someone wiht the first gun we can find. Perhaps there is more going on here. Is it possible that our forefathers had an ingrained sense of the value of human life that tempered them that we have lost? I think there may be a lot to that point.

Depends what you mean by ingrained. I believe there is a lot of merit to the claim that 'society made me do it'. Societal factors are hugely influential in human behavior.

Kaa
03-02-2009, 10:24 PM
Is it possible that our forefathers had an ingrained sense of the value of human life that tempered them that we have lost?

It is possible, but it isn't true.



Professor Stone has estimated that the homicide rate in medieval England was on average 10 times that of 20th century England. A study of the university town of Oxford in the 1340's showed an extraordinarily high annual rate of about 110 per 100,000 people. Studies of London in the first half of the 14th century determined a homicide rate of 36 to 52 per 100,000 people per year.

By contrast, the 1993 homicide rate in New York City was 25.9 per 100,000. The 1992 national homicide rate for the United States was 9.3 per 100,000.

After examining coroners' inquests, Barbara A. Hannawalt, a professor of medieval English history at the University of Minnesota, concluded that most slayings in medieval England started as quarrels among farmers in the field. "They were grubbing for existence," she said. Insults to honor were taken seriously, and violence was the accepted method of settling disputes, since the king's courts were slow, expensive and corrupt.
(http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C03E2D6163FF930A15753C1A9629582 60)

There's more if you follow the link.

Kaa

Tinman
03-02-2009, 10:29 PM
It is possible, but it isn't true.


(http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C03E2D6163FF930A15753C1A9629582 60)

There's more if you follow the link.

Kaa

Umm.. I was thinking more specifically of North America since Columbus. Hell why not throw the Roman murder rate under Nero in as well while you are at it. One more point. The squabblinng farmers didn't exactly strut around with 357's on thier hips did they? The point of this discussion was about murder using firearms, not pitchforks or walking sticks. Leets stick to apples and apples, shall we?

Bob Smalser
03-02-2009, 10:29 PM
The problem with the gun laws y'all are so proud of is you seem to turn into mindless Nazis enacting and administering them.

None of the Brit countries have provisions to accommodate what under our laws are called Curios and Relics....firearms not antiques, yet over 50 years old and with significant historical or sentimental value.

Like the fine English circa 1890-1940 game guns we are currently buying up so cheaply:

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/2080858/352402877.jpg

And priceless family war relics available even cheaper:

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/19850601/320725048.jpg

A Canadian heirloom the family is no longer allowed to possess. Grandpa carried it in France and survived to bring it home with him. A Smith and Wesson 1st Model .44 Hand Ejector (Triple Lock).

At the onset of WWI in 1914, Webley couldn't produce enough pistols for Britain and Smith eventually provided 75,000 of them. The first 6000 were (then) very expensive civilian-model .44 Triple Locks converted to fire .455 Webley, and the remainder were manufactured without the special third lockup at the crane of this model. A very rare and valuable pistol, even without the Brits mindlessly destroying them when they became obsolete.

While I obtained this from a Canadian neighbor, I've kept the link to the family intact and will relinquish it if they ever get permission to possess it. Unfortunately like a lot of priceless relics Greatgrandson cleaned it up with sandpaper to remove some rust, and some careful restoration is in order.

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/19850601/320727830.jpg

He buggered the barrel pin trying to remove it and you can see the fine scratches that cover most of the revolver.

If you know Smiths, here you can see the TL's distinctive ball detent at the front of the crane and its corresponding frame notch at the base of the ejector shroud.

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/19850601/320727233.jpg

So smirk on while we gleefully buy a significant part of your heritage right out from under you.

Tinman
03-02-2009, 10:30 PM
[quote=Tinman;2120414]

Umm.. I was thinking more specifically of North America since Columbus. Hell why not throw the Roman murder rate under Nero in as well while you are at it. One more point. The squabblinng farmers didn't exactly strut around with 357's on thier hips did they? The point of this discussion was about murder using firearms, not pitchforks or walking sticks. Lets stick to apples and apples, shall we?

Kaa
03-02-2009, 10:46 PM
The point of this discussion was about murder using firearms, not pitchforks or walking sticks. Leets stick to apples and apples, shall we?

Oh, so when you said


Is it possible that our forefathers had an ingrained sense of the value of human life that tempered them that we have lost?that applied only to firearms, right? That ingrained sense prevented them from shooting people, but beating them to death with walking sticks or running pitchforks through them was perfectly fine?

Kaa

C. Ross
03-02-2009, 10:57 PM
So. English farmers settled disputes with violence at an alarming rate.

Hah! We're back to wellington boots as the source of danger, right where this thread started!

(Beautiful guns, Bob. My dad likes the same vintage, and is going to have to give up his collection someday soon, sadly. They'll be passed on to folks who appreciate them.)

JimD
03-02-2009, 11:56 PM
A Canadian heirloom the family is no longer allowed to possess.

Why can he no longer possess it?

And for anyone interested in finding their way through the labirinth of Canadian gun laws here's a good site: http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/default_e.asp . For example:



Restricted Firearms

If you possess or wish to acquire a restricted firearm, here is some information you should know regarding legal requirements under the Firearms Act.
Definition Of A Restricted Firearm

According to the Criminal Code, a restricted firearm is:

A handgun that is not a prohibited firearm;
A semi-automatic, centre-fire firearm with a barrel length less than 470 mm that is not a prohibited firearm;
A firearm that can fire after being reduced, by folding, telescoping or otherwise, to an overall length of less than 660 mm; and
Any firearm prescribed under the Criminal Code regulations to be restricted (including some long guns).
Summary of Key Requirements


You require a firearms licence that is valid for restricted firearms in order to possess or acquire a restricted firearm and to obtain ammunition.
You require a registration certificate issued under the Firearms Act for all firearms in your possession.
You require an Authorization to Transport (http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/form-formulaire/indiv_forms/679_e.asp), issued by your Chief Firearms Officer (http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/cfo/default_e.asp)(CFO), in order to transport a restricted firearm from one location to another.
You must store, display and transport your firearms (http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/factsheets/storagetransport_e.asp) according to the regulations applying to restricted firearms.
Firearms Licence

You must be at least 18 to get a licence authorizing you to have restricted firearms. If you are younger than 18, you can use restricted firearms only if you are under the direct and immediate supervision of a licensed adult.
If you do not yet have a firearms licence or if you wish to change your licence privileges to include restricted firearms, you must apply for a Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL) (form CAFC 921 (http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/form-formulaire/indiv_forms/921_e.asp)). To be eligible for a PAL, you must meet specific safety-training requirements (http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/factsheets/safety_training_e.asp).

If you already have a Possession-Only Licence (POL) that is valid for restricted firearms, you may renew it if you apply before it expires and you have at least one restricted firearm registered in your name.
Exception: If you had a POL that expired after January 1, 2004, you may obtain a new POL to possess restricted firearms if:

you apply before May 16, 2009;
you still possess restricted firearms that were registered to you;
you still require them for an approved purpose; and
you pass the public-safety checks
Initially, a PAL for restricted firearms costs $80 and is renewable every five years for as long as you possess firearms. The fee to renew a POL or a PAL or to change your licence privileges is waived until May 16, 2009. If you have already paid a renewal fee, the fee will be refunded.
Permitted Purposes For Owning A Restricted Firearm

There are a few purposes for which you can be licensed to acquire and/or possess a restricted firearm, the most common being target practice or target shooting competitions, or as part of a collection.
In limited circumstances, restricted firearms are also allowed for use in connection with your lawful profession or occupation, or to protect life.

Exception: If you have a firearm that is registered to you as a relic under the former legislation, you may continue to possess it for that purpose. However, you cannot pass that designation on to the next owner. The next owner can acquire the firearm only for one of the purposes referred to above.
As set out in the Firearms Act, a relic firearm is one that is of value as a curiosity or rarity, or that is valued as a memento, remembrance or souvenir.
Criteria For Each Purpose

Depending on which purpose you select, there are some specific criteria you have to meet, as follows.
Target Shooting Practice and Competition

To be authorized to have restricted firearms for target shooting purposes, you must provide proof that you practice or compete at an approved shooting club or range.
For more information about approved shooting clubs and ranges, contact your provincial CFO by calling 1 800 731-4000.
Collectors of Restricted Firearms

To be authorized to have restricted firearms as part of a collection, you must:

Know the historical, technical or scientific features of such firearms in your collection
Consent to occasional inspections of the place where your collection is stored
Comply with regulations dealing with safe storage, record-keeping and other matters related to restricted firearms
Employment Purposes and Protection of Life

In limited circumstances, an individual may be authorized to possess and/or acquire a restricted firearm for employment purposes or for protection of a life.
Registration

To be able to register a firearm, you require a firearms licence that is valid for that class of firearm. There is no fee to register or transfer a firearm.
Previously Registered Firearms

All registration certificates issued under the former legislation expired on December 31, 2002. Restricted firearms registered in the former system had to be re-registered under the Firearms Act to update the information. If you have not yet re-registered your restricted firearms, you must do so as soon as possible or dispose of them lawfully. You can apply to re-register them online (http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/online-en_ligne/registration_e.asp) through the CAFC Web site or by submitting a paper application (form CAFC 998 (http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/form-formulaire/indiv_forms/998_e.asp)). There is no fee.
Newly Acquired Firearms

If you acquire a firearm from a Canadian source, it must be registered to you before you take possession of it. This will occur as part of the transfer process and must take place any time a firearm of any class changes ownership.
In most cases, the entire process can be completed by calling 1 800 731-4000 and selecting the "transfer" option from the menu of services. Alternatively, fill out form CAFC 681 (http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/form-formulaire/default_e.asp#registration). This is a two-part form that must be completed by both you and the current owner.
If you acquire a firearm in another country and import it to Canada, refer to the fact sheet on importing a firearm (http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/factsheets/imports_e.asp).
Verification

A restricted firearm being registered for the first time in Canada – for example, a new import - must be verified by an approved verifier. Restricted firearms that have previously been registered in Canada are already deemed to be verified. They do not need to be verified again unless the Registrar requests another verification to confirm their description or classification. Call 1 800 731-4000 for help to have a firearm verified.
Authorizations To Transport

You require an Authorization to Transport (ATT) from a provincial CFO in order to transport a restricted firearm from one location to another. There is no fee for an ATT.
To be eligible for an ATT you must have a valid firearms licence authorizing you to possess restricted firearms.
You can apply for an ATT by calling 1 800 731-4000 or by submitting form CAFC 679 (http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/form-formulaire/indiv_forms/679_e.asp).
Information

For more information about the Firearms Act, contact the CFP (http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/contact/default_e.asp).
This fact sheet is intended to provide general information only. For legal references, please refer to the Firearms Act (http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/pol-leg/FireArmsAct_e.asp) and its regulations. Provincial, territorial and municipal laws, regulations and policies may also apply.

La présente fiche de renseignements est également disponible en français (http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/factsheets/restricted_f.asp).
May 2008

stevebaby
03-03-2009, 12:28 AM
do armed policemen always think rationally?Yes, far more so than the general population.After all, they have to go through a rigorous selection process to determine their suitability for the job.

Bob Smalser
03-03-2009, 12:34 AM
Why can he no longer possess it?



Didn't ask for specifics.

But I suspect they don't have a lawyer in the family to wade through all the felonious gotchas than made Mama nervous having Grandpop's revolver in the house for so many decades.

From determining whether a military pistol is restricted or prohibited, from buying an approved safe, from having the safe inspected, from the uselessness of having the gun locked away, from insuring you stay on the good side of your local Firearms Control Officer, who may be another budding junior Nazi.....from special permits to own, special permits to transport, separate special hoop jumps for ammunition, the requirements for currency in the Canadian Firearms Safety Course (CFSC) and the Canadian Restricted Firearms Safety Course (CRFSC)....etc et al ad nauseum....and all for your law-abiding citizens.....the bull**** was piled as high as possible to make ownership such an intimidating PIA fewer would try.

Be proud. Your bull**** is effective. Mama is thoroughly intimidated, and I and others like me get 3 grand worth of heirloom for a couple hundred bucks.

stevebaby
03-03-2009, 12:40 AM
The problem with the gun laws y'all are so proud of is you seem to turn into mindless Nazis enacting and administering them.

None of the Brit countries have provisions to accommodate what under our laws are called Curios and Relics....firearms not antiques, yet over 50 years old and with significant historical or sentimental value.


priceless
Priceless? The Mona Lisa is priceless.A rusty old gun produced by the thousand really does not compare.
Read our gun laws before you hit the keyboard.

http://www.police.nsw.gov.au/community_issues/firearms/firearms_amendment_act_2008#ExemptionsforAntiqueFi rearms

stevebaby
03-03-2009, 12:43 AM
Didn't ask.

But I suspect they don't have a lawyer in the family to wade through all the felonious gotchas than made Mama nervous having Grandpop's revolver in the house for so many decades.

From determining whether a military pistol is restricted or prohibited, from buying an approved safe, from the uselessness of having it locked away, from insuring you stay on the good side of your local Firearms Control Officer, special permits to own, special permits to transport, separate special hoop jumps for ammunition...etc et al ad nauseum....and all for your law-abiding citizens.....the bull**** was piled as high as possible to make ownership such an intimidating PIA fewer would try.

Be proud. Your bull**** is effective. Mama is thoroughly intimidated, and I get 3 grand worth of heirloom for a couple hundred bucks.So it's not "priceless".
It's worth about the same as my laptop.

stevebaby
03-03-2009, 12:46 AM
Now this is where it gets really dumb. We've had guns since Columbus got here, and now in the last 50 years, we are too stupid to see through our rage and not want to kill someone wiht the first gun we can find. Perhaps there is more going on here. Is it possible that our forefathers had an ingrained sense of the value of human life that tempered them that we have lost? I think there may be a lot to that point.I doubt that. The murder rate in Britain and Australia is half what it was 120 years ago.

Bob Smalser
03-03-2009, 12:49 AM
Read our gun laws before you hit the keyboard.

So it's not "priceless".
It's worth about the same as my laptop.



Read your laws yourself. Antique firearms, whether legally defined as pre-1898 (US) or pre-1900 (Australia) aren't in question. I've been discussing cartridge firearms of historical value made between 1890 and WWII.

Got it now? Or do I have to define it using smaller words? Like that in 30 years your laptop will be toxic molecules in a landfill while these firearms will more than triple in value. Duh.

But then again, thinking past your nose isn't a feature of your gun laws, either. You lose your heritage. I make money and add value.

stevebaby
03-03-2009, 01:01 AM
Antiques, whether legally defined as pre-1898 (US) or pre-1900 (Australia) aren't in question. I've been discussing cartridge firearms of historical value made between 1890 and WWII.

Got it now? Or do I have to define it using smaller words? Like that in 30 years your laptop will be toxic molecules in a landfill while these firearms will triple or more in value?

But then again, thinking past your nose isn't a feature of your gun laws, either.The reason for the scarcity value is that the British destroyed so many of them.
For all anyone knows, my laptop might increase in value over the next 30 years.
What's the "historical value". Was the gun used to kill anyone famous, or owned by someone famous?
What makes it different to thousands of other guns, that would justify calling it "priceless"?

Tinman
03-03-2009, 02:37 AM
I doubt that. The murder rate in Britain and Australia is half what it was 100 years ago.

Didn't I mention the fact I was talking about North America just the previous post to this one? I thought so too. But I am still finding it difficult to believe that the rates are "half what they used to be".

stevebaby
03-03-2009, 03:41 AM
Didn't I mention the fact I was talking about North America just the previous post to this one? I thought so too. But I am still finding it difficult to believe that the rates are "half what they used to be".

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4524A092E30E4486CA2569DE00256331

The Bigfella
03-03-2009, 04:09 AM
Wow - here's an interesting story...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9506E5D71139F935A15754C0A96E9582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all




Most important, the experts say, the high Southern murder rate is a key factor behind America's disproportionately high homicide rate compared with other democratic, industrialized nations. In 1996, the last year for which data are available, the United States murder rate was 7.4 per 100,000 people. The next closest country was Finland, at 3.2 per 100,000 people, with France at 1.1, Japan at 0.6 and Britain at 0.5.

.....

In analyzing homicide data for whites, Professor Nisbett found there was no difference in murder rates between white males in the largest cities in the South and the rest of the country. But in medium-sized cities, with populations between 50,000 and 200,000, Southern white males commit murder at a rate twice that of their counterparts in the rest of the nation, he said. In small cities, with populations from 10,000 to 50,000, the ratio is 3 to 1 and in rural areas it is 4 to 1. The excess murder in the South, he said, comes from crimes ''where you could plausibly say an insult had been involved.''
.....

Professor Nisbett devised a psychological test, administered to students at the University of Michigan, that appears to demonstrate a Southern sensitivity to insult and disposition to violence. In the test, a person unexpectedly bumps into a subject as he walks down a corridor, and calls him a jerk. Out-of-state white male students from the South, even pre-med students, tend to react with anger and show measurable increases in levels of testosterone and cortisol, hormones that indicate stress. White Northern males typically respond by laughing the incident off and do not show the same hormonal reactions, Professor Nisbett said.

Mike Field
03-03-2009, 06:13 AM
... a Southern sensitivity to insult and disposition to violence..... White Northern males typically respond by laughing the incident off and do not show the same hormonal reactions....

Why am I not at all surprised at this?

Anyone here who happens to remember our ex-Forumite Stan will perhaps feel similarly....

But --


... they have to go through a rigorous selection process to determine their suitability for the job.

Possibly. But it's not that long since a stupid Victorian rookie cop shot and killed his female buddy, in a police station, while horsing around with a loaded gun. No amount of psychological testing will ensure that there are no idiots in the police force.

And as far as I'm aware, no psychological testing is required for any Yanks to own fire-arms of any sort, whether they're police officers or not....
.

stevebaby
03-03-2009, 06:46 AM
Why am I not at all surprised at this?

Anyone here who happens to remember our ex-Forumite Stan will perhaps feel similarly....

But --



Possibly. But it's not that long since a stupid Victorian rookie cop shot and killed his female buddy, in a police station, while horsing around with a loaded gun. No amount of psychological testing will ensure that there are no idiots in the police force.

And as far as I'm aware, no psychological testing is required for any Yanks to own fire-arms of any sort, whether they're police officers or not....
.Not long after "Dirty Harry" came out my neighbour (a Qld. cop) aimed a loaded .44 Magnum at my face while drunk. He didn't last long in the Force.
Cops are a lot better than they used to be.

PeterSibley
03-03-2009, 06:54 AM
Not long after "Dirty Harry" came out my neighbour (a Qld. cop) aimed a loaded .44 Magnum at my face while drunk. He didn't last long in the Force.
Cops are a lot better than they used to be.

Having had a friend end up half deaf and pissing blood at the end of an "interview" ( no charge laid ...no crime committed ) ....they would bloody well need to be .:mad:

stevebaby
03-03-2009, 07:11 AM
Having had a friend end up half deaf and pissing blood at the end of an "interview" ( no charge laid ...no crime committed ) ....they would bloody well need to be .:mad:...one of the reasons I left after a few years. Much worse than that has happened.
Your mate should have sued, maybe a bit difficult in a rural area.
OK, very difficult anywhere...

Phillip Allen
03-03-2009, 08:36 AM
police are too superior to be guilty...you said so your self Steve

Tinman
03-03-2009, 08:55 AM
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4524A092E30E4486CA2569DE00256331

From what I can tell, the Austrailian government can't make a decent graph to save it's life, so it has that in common with the gang in Ottawa. But what i did get out of that link is that homicide rates down under have been relatively constant during the 20th century. That hardly suports the lower by half claim made eariler. The reference to a much higher rate in earlier times must be considered knowing that Austrailia was a penal colony in it's earliest days. So the higher rate isn't surprisng. Based on the information presented through the link, I see no reason tochange my original argument.

TomF
03-03-2009, 09:51 AM
From what I can tell, the Austrailian government can't make a decent graph to save it's life, so it has that in common with the gang in Ottawa. Tinman, that's an astonishing comment. You do know that StatsCanada is one of the most highly respected statistical agencies in the world? While I know little of the Australian stat agency in question here, their statistical info on health is highly respected, and used by most developed countries as part of their ongoing health system research.

It sounds disturbingly like the stats which don't support your opinions must have been created by incompetents, or they'd say what you believe ...

Popeye
03-03-2009, 09:52 AM
what does the halifax harbour master make of all this ?

Phillip Allen
03-03-2009, 10:02 AM
Phillip does a c&p...the only foolks who need to read this are the ones convinced that if we take gun away, they (personally) will feel safer and victorious/virtuous

One R. Lane wrote in on March 31:

“After reading his March 23 diatribe, it is clear to me that Review-Journal columnist Vin Suprynowicz has not yet learned the obvious: the more handguns a country has in circulation, the more handgun deaths that country is going to get — not less.

“The United States has some 200 million handguns in circulation, and the highest handgun death rate (per 100,000 population) of any industrialized nation, with the possible exception of Brazil. Japan has the fewest number of handguns in circulation and the lowest handgun death rate per 100,000.

“If all these guns make us safer, we should be the safest nation on earth.”



Thus endeth R. Lane’s succinct submission.



Wow. This really simplifies the question, doesn’t it? All we have to do is look to see if we can find any historic examples where a government has banned access to handguns for a sizeable portion of the population, and see what that did to handgun death rates among that population.

And you know what? It turns out R. Lane is correct!



Back in the 1920s and 1930s, the forward-thinking German “Weimar” republic effectively banned firearms possession by just about anyone but the military, the government police, and the ruling “Junker” class, who were allowed to keep their fancy hunting rifles.

The ban was particularly effective among the ethnic minorities, such as the Jews.

Was this effective in keeping the Jews from killing each other with handguns? Yes!

Later, when millions of Jews — essentially all the Jews in Germany and the German-occupied portions of Europe — were rounded up and sent to concentration camps including Auschwitz and Buchenwald to be exterminated, despite the fact that on some mornings the other prisoners were each given water and a piece of bread, while the Jewish prisoners were not allowed to either eat or drink — did the Jews kill anyone with a handgun in order to get some food or water to keep themselves or their loved ones from starving. No! They couldn’t, because they HAD no handguns!

See how well that works?

Now, some troublemakers may point out they pretty much all died early and violent deaths anyway, so the MANNER in which they died Ð the fact that they died of starvation, or by being gassed in the extermination chambers, or being shot with rifle bullets — isn’t really as important as the fact that they might have defended themselves and avoided being loaded on the trains to the death camps if they’d HAD handguns.

But that’s hardly the point at issue, is it? Besides, what are you saying: That they should have disobeyed the lawful orders of the duly constituted authorities?

The government took away their handguns, and — just as R. Lane predicted we’d find — their rate of handgun deaths dropped to almost nothing.

Or did it? At www.jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/survive.htm, Aaron Zelman, head of the civil rights organization Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, interviews Holocaust survivor Theodore Haas, who, as it turns out, managed to get himself shot with a handgun while at Dachau — more than once — DESPITE the ban.

“Q.) You mentioned you were shot and stabbed several times. Were these experiments, punishment or torture?

“A.) They were punishment. I very often, in a fit of temper, acted while the brain was not in gear. The sorry results were two 9 mm bullets in my knees. Fortunately, one of the prisoners had a fingernail file and was able to dig the slugs out.”

But this, as R. Lane would doubtless point out, is “the exception that proves the rule.” In contrast, look at the trouble that was caused when a few surviving Jews in the Warsaw ghetto were allowed to lay hands on a few handguns on April 19, 1943 (a date which our own Janet Reno decided to commemorate 50 years later by gassing and incinerating a bunch of our own innocent women and babies in a church at Waco, Texas, for daring to possess perfectly legal firearms.)

Those Polish Jews used those handgun to kill Nazi-sympathizing Ukrainian guards and take away their rifles. Then, with this slight increase in armament, they were able to hold German Wehrmacht forces at bay for weeks, tying up units that were badly needed by Hitler on the Russian front.

Surely we can all agree that was a bad thing. How much better it would have been had those desperate Jews had not been able to get their hands on even a few handguns. Why, maybe then they would have marched peacefully onto the trains to the death camps, sparing everyone a whole lot of trouble, and not setting the kind of dangerous example that would encourage surviving Jews to go and successfully defend themselves against overwhelmingly more numerous Arab aggressors in fledgling Israel five years later.

Here in America — where gun control has always been aimed at disarming women and blacks while letting good ole white boys keep their huntin’ guns– we know all about “uppity” minorities who won’t “keep their place,” don’t we, R. Lane? (See “Bitches With Guns” at www.aware.org/success/bwg.shtml or www.gunowners.org/wv20.htm .)

We return to my friend Aaron Zelman’s interview with concentration camp survivor Theodore Haas:

“Q.) Did the camp inmates ever bring up the topic, ‘If only we were armed before, we would not be here now’?

“A.) Many, many times. Before Adolf Hitler came to power, there was a black market in firearms, but the German people had been so conditioned to be law abiding, that they would never consider buying an unregistered gun. The German people really believed that only hoodlums own such guns. What fools we were.

“It truly frightens me to see how the government, media, and some police groups in America are pushing for the same mindset. In my opinion, the people of America had better start asking and demanding answers to some hard questions about firearms ownership, especially if the government does not trust me to own firearms, why or how can the people be expected to trust the government?

“There is no doubt in my mind that millions of lives could have been saved if the people were not ‘brainwashed’ about gun ownership and had been well armed. Hitler’s thugs and goons were not very brave when confronted by a gun. Gun haters always want to forget the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, which is a perfect example of how a ragtag, half starved group of Jews took up 10 handguns and made asses out of the Nazis.”

Thus ends the interview with Theodore Haas.

Other population groups who saw their rates of death by handgun bullets reduced after handgun bans included the prosperous Ukrainian farmers under Stalin in the 1930s, and just about everyone under Mao Tse-Tung in China after 1949 and under Pol Pot in Cambodia a few decades later. See these fine “progressive” leaders’ proud death tolls at the “Gun Control Hall of Fame” at http://ecclesia.org/truth/fame.html. But not from handguns!

So now we have some hard, historical examples of the kind of peaceful paradise that victim disarmament statists like R. Lane have in mind for us.

As for whether Japan is a “safer” place to live than America, there’s no accounting for taste, though we might want to examine a few other causes of death that seem to be far higher there, including “committing suicide by jumping out of a high window while under interrogation by police,” before embracing that particular system, whole hog.

Personally, I don’t think aiming to be the “safest” nation on earth is shooting very high. I’d much prefer to live in “the freest and safest” nation on earth. And this was indeed the freest and safest nation on earth, R. Lane (possibly tied with equally well-armed Switzerland) — from 1782 to about 1912, back when we were also the best-armed nation on earth. De Tocqueville wrote of his amazement that a single woman could travel the entire length of the Mississippi without fear of harassment in the 1830s; most Americans didn’t even lock their front doors.

Since then, crime has indeed crept upward, along with a lot of other infringements on our freedoms, our happiness, and our prosperity.

What’s changed since 1913 that might help us explain that? Can any of you “progressives” out there help me, here?

Tinman
03-03-2009, 10:02 AM
Tinman, that's an astonishing comment. You do know that StatsCanada is one of the most highly respected statistical agencies in the world? While I know little of the Australian stat agency in question here, their statistical info on health is highly respected, and used by most developed countries as part of their ongoing health system research.

It sounds disturbingly like the stats which don't support your opinions must have been created by incompetents, or they'd say what you believe ...

Acttually that was a poke at government in general, not specificaly stats can. I do however think that the charts posted by the Auusies are abysmal and very difficult to read.

TomF
03-03-2009, 10:08 AM
Phillip,

Look at the actions in recent years (say, the last 20 or 30) of governments in the UK, Australia, Canada, and the US.

Of those, which went furthest to restrict personal freedoms, institute policies which allow spying on citizens, etc.? Detainment without charge, incarceration of significant parts of the population etc.?

I think that you'll find the countries with fewer firearms in circulation, paradoxically, were "freer" than the one consistently restricting personal freedoms while trumpeting the word "liberty."

Phillip Allen
03-03-2009, 10:13 AM
Phillip,

Look at the actions in recent years (say, the last 20 or 30) of governments in the UK, Australia, Canada, and the US.

Of those, which went furthest to restrict personal freedoms, institute policies which allow spying on citizens, etc.? Detainment without charge, incarceration of significant parts of the population etc.?

I think that you'll find the countries with fewer firearms in circulation, paradoxically, were "freer" than the one consistently restricting personal freedoms while trumpeting the word "liberty."


non sequtur Tom...

mmd
03-03-2009, 10:19 AM
Careful, TomF; you're tugging on Superman's cape...

TomF
03-03-2009, 10:20 AM
non sequtur Tom...What's non sequitur, Phillip?

Your C&P argued that disarming Germany's citizens allowed Nazis to prosper, with all the removals of freedom etc. that entailed. And asked what's changed ...

From that argument, we'd expect the US, with its much broader distribution of firearms, to have much more freedom than places with fewer firearms.

How's that worked for you, in these GWOT days?

Why do you think the rest of the world is so relieved to see Obama, after 8 years of increasing erosion of the basic freedoms which undergird Western democratic traditions?

TomF
03-03-2009, 10:22 AM
Careful, TomF; you're tugging on Superman's cape...Yup. I'll stop now, if I can manage to restrain myself. What's obvious from outside a place isn't near as obvious from the inside.

I'm sure that's true of Canada too.

Ian McColgin
03-03-2009, 10:23 AM
Phillip, if TomF's remarks is a non sequitor, then that gun lobby claim that gun possession is the bulwark of freedom is also a non sequitor.

Some things are uneasy alliances more than causal connections. The gun lobby is deeply tied to the religious right and the contemporary "conservative" power elite, neither of which shows even the slightest interest in protecting individual liberty. The philosophers of fascism, the guys who taught Hitler and Mussolini, actually mapped out how to capture populist and wealthy corporatist movements. Nothing has changed in how the populists who own guns and the populists who believe in God and the populists who support individual enterprise are manipulated and coopted today.

So, in profound ways gun ownership itself is not related to civic liberty but how we deal with gun ownership really is at the heart of civic liberty. Nations that manage rational debate and broad social consensus are more supportive of liberty than nations that polarize the debate into hysterical sloganeering.

Phillip Allen
03-03-2009, 10:29 AM
What's non sequitur, Phillip?

Your C&P argued that disarming Germany's citizens allowed Nazis to prosper, with all the removals of freedom etc. that entailed. And asked what's changed ...

From that argument, we'd expect the US, with its much broader distribution of firearms, to have much more freedom than places with fewer firearms.

How's that worked for you, in these GWOT days?

Why do you think the rest of the world is so relieved to see Obama, after 8 years of increasing erosion of the basic freedoms which undergird Western democratic traditions?

the loss of freedoms was a result of a poorly controlled govt (bear in mind that some years of the out of control gvt were attended by the other party being in control and likely wishing failure of their opponents to the detriment of their constituents...a kind of malfeasants by omission) and not the presents of firearms...that presents must figure in somewhere but not strongly
To claim that presents of arms makes folks kill one another is excluding a myriad of other factors to focus on a single factor as the causal ...this is simple minded and a result of the repetition of the same sort of non sequitur as I cited above

TomF
03-03-2009, 10:37 AM
Thanks Ian.

Phillip, if the erosion of th US' civil liberties wasn't sufficient to provoke the much storied use of firearms the 2nd Amendment allows, what would provoke such an armed insurrection?

If there's to be no armed insurrection in defence of civil liberties, what's the point of having all the weapons?

stevebaby
03-03-2009, 10:58 AM
the loss of freedoms was a result of a poorly controlled govt (bear in mind that some years of the out of control gvt were attended by the other party being in control and likely wishing failure of their opponents to the detriment of their constituents...a kind of malfeasants by omission) and not the presents of firearms...that presents must figure in somewhere but not strongly
To claim that presents of arms makes folks kill one another is excluding a myriad of other factors to focus on a single factor as the causal ...this is simple minded and a result of the repetition of the same sort of non sequitur as I cited above'malfeasants (sic) by omission" is nonfeasance.

Phillip Allen
03-03-2009, 11:02 AM
Phillip, if TomF's remarks is a non sequitor, then that gun lobby claim that gun possession is the bulwark of freedom is also a non sequitor.

Some things are uneasy alliances more than causal connections. The gun lobby is deeply tied to the religious right and the contemporary "conservative" power elite, neither of which shows even the slightest interest in protecting individual liberty. The philosophers of fascism, the guys who taught Hitler and Mussolini, actually mapped out how to capture populist and wealthy corporatist movements. Nothing has changed in how the populists who own guns and the populists who believe in God and the populists who support individual enterprise are manipulated and coopted today.

So, in profound ways gun ownership itself is not related to civic liberty but how we deal with gun ownership really is at the heart of civic liberty. Nations that manage rational debate and broad social consensus are more supportive of liberty than nations that polarize the debate into hysterical sloganeering.

surely Ian, you don't think I'm tied to religious extremists? It is they who have attached themselves to to us...just like Ike grumbling about that "idiot" McCarthy...Ike had to silence Joe but not get caught at it by the Republican fanatics...hard work

again, and loudly, religious fanatics will be killing as soon as they have dictatorial power...including so-called Christians...

stevebaby
03-03-2009, 11:03 AM
police are too superior to be guilty...you said so your self SteveThen you will be able to post a link to that statement, or apologise for lying.
Won't you?

Phillip Allen
03-03-2009, 11:04 AM
Thanks Ian.

Phillip, if the erosion of th US' civil liberties wasn't sufficient to provoke the much storied use of firearms the 2nd Amendment allows, what would provoke such an armed insurrection?

If there's to be no armed insurrection in defence of civil liberties, what's the point of having all the weapons?


nonsense Tom...you are reaching

having guns is a hobby...for me...that is ONE point but certainly I don't think my way of thinking should be pressed upon others...you DO want your way of thinking pressed upon others...patently obvious

Phillip Allen
03-03-2009, 11:05 AM
Then you will be able to post a link to that statement, or apologise for lying.
Won't you?

where's the lie?

TomF
03-03-2009, 11:07 AM
Phillip, I'm just observing. We're freer, and it irritates the hell out of some.

By all means keep your hobby - as I've said before, I'm a former rifle owner, and would own a shotgun to go hunting grouse and woodcock with my neighbour, were certain family circumstances different.

But I was no freer when I owned a rifle than I am now, without one. What I think is nonsense is the proposition that owning handguns and hunting weapons keeps you safe from government oppression. That's a quaint relic of your country's revolutionary beginnings - true at the time, but of no more enduring use in our contemporary world than flint/steel firestarters.

Phillip Allen
03-03-2009, 11:09 AM
"Phillip, I'm just observing. We're freer, and it irritates the hell out of some"

well how do you quantify that? and even if it were so...how can you connect that directly with gun confiscation and restriction?

TomF
03-03-2009, 11:13 AM
"Phillip, I'm just observing. We're freer, and it irritates the hell out of some"

well how do you quantify that? and even if it were so...how can you connect that directly with gun confiscation and restriction?I quantify it by freedom from officially sanctioned erosions of basic liberties ... like detention without charge, being subject to the various indignities and invasions of privacy enabled by the Patriot act etc. I also measure it by the radically smaller proportion of our population that's incarcerated.

Is that directly related to gun ownership or the lack thereof? I dunno. I hear a whole lot about how the 2nd Amendment is critical to the maintenance of freedom, so I assume that 2nd Amendment advocates think there's a relationship. Your C & P argued for a direct relationship between gun ownership and liberty, which I challenged.

From my standpoint, the statistical relationship between gun possession and the likelihood of being murdered is rather compelling. That relationship holds true in my country, as well as yours.

stevebaby
03-03-2009, 11:17 AM
police are too superior to be guilty...you said so your self SteveI didn't say that at all. There's your lie.
Even for you, that's blatantly dishonest.

Phillip Allen
03-03-2009, 11:17 AM
I quantify it by freedom from officially sanctioned erosions of basic liberties ... like detention without charge, being subject to the various indignities and invasions of privacy enabled by the Patriot act etc. I also measure it by the radically smaller proportion of our population that's incarcerated.


okay...now to back to before the Bush admin and see if it changes...advance to the Obama admin and see if it changes

TomF
03-03-2009, 11:19 AM
okay...now to back to before the Bush admin and see if it changes...advance to the Obama admin and see if it changesHere's hoping. It's that hope, I think, that got him elected ... and made him the rock star he is with the rest of the globe.

stevebaby
03-03-2009, 11:22 AM
certainly I don't think my way of thinking should be pressed upon others...Bwahahahaha! You don't think your way thinking should be forced on others so you post on the Net and lie and twist and distort everything said on the forum.
Your ex-wife has my profoundest sympathy.

Phillip Allen
03-03-2009, 11:26 AM
Here's hoping. It's that hope, I think, that got him elected ... and made him the rock star he is with the rest of the globe.

I don't like the results either...yes I voted for the guy...there wasn't another apparent choice at the time...


I'm betting that the Democrat government will hold on to the "advances" into our freedoms so long as they can shift the blame on the other party...and those voters who identify with the Democrat party will help that agenda as much as drinking the koolaid can do

Ian McColgin
03-03-2009, 12:37 PM
Well, at least for Guantanamo and federally sanctioned torture, the bet that the government will hold on to ground gained invading our rights has already been lost, and we hope for more to come.

My major problem with Phillip's general argument is that he reasons almost entirely by extension of his own thoroughly responsible gun ownership and use, competely ignoring the very vocal loonies who have captured the gun lobby and the even loonier gun hobbiests who, to take an example from around my parent's farm, hunt rabbits, deer, foxes and most anything else they see moving from snow mobiles. (Those jerks give a bad name to ski-dumbs and hunting in one drunken move, and there are hundreds of them buzzing the farmlands of our northern states. But there's another rant.)

At the bare minimum anti-gun regulation folk might identify the regulations they oppose and then essay the hard to make case that for all the problems firearms pose in our society, regulation somehow makes them either more deadly or in any event not much less indiscriminatly deadly. This would be analogous to the probably not controversial on this Forum view that we really need not follow Connecticut (I think they did this) into registration of canoes and such.

Phillip Allen
03-03-2009, 12:53 PM
Well, at least for Guantanamo and federally sanctioned torture, the bet that the government will hold on to ground gained invading our rights has already been lost, and we hope for more to come.

My major problem with Phillip's general argument is that he reasons almost entirely by extension of his own thoroughly responsible gun ownership and use, competely ignoring the very vocal loonies who have captured the gun lobby and the even loonier gun hobbiests who, to take an example from around my parent's farm, hunt rabbits, deer, foxes and most anything else they see moving from snow mobiles. (Those jerks give a bad name to ski-dumbs and hunting in one drunken move, and there are hundreds of them buzzing the farmlands of our northern states. But there's another rant.)

At the bare minimum anti-gun regulation folk might identify the regulations they oppose and then essay the hard to make case that for all the problems firearms pose in our society, regulation somehow makes them either more deadly or in any event not much less indiscriminatly deadly. This would be analogous to the probably not controversial on this Forum view that we really need not follow Connecticut (I think they did this) into registration of canoes and such.

boats here aren't regulated untill ya put a motor on it...not sure about sail

PatCox
03-03-2009, 12:58 PM
Why, if we didn't have guns, the negroes would kill us and rape our women. Canada, Australia, you don't have negroes like ours, you wouldn't understand.

Phillip Allen
03-03-2009, 01:07 PM
Why, if we didn't have guns, the negroes would kill us and rape our women. Canada, Australia, you don't have negroes like ours, you wouldn't understand.


pat...not everyone is as silly as you are

Ian McColgin
03-03-2009, 01:18 PM
Actually, all vessels are regulated. There are safety and signalling requirements and rules of the road. Many states also require (though often don't enforce) state registration of larger non-motor craft. In general there has not been operator licensing unless one goes commercial, but some states are getting there.

The point of the analogy is that debate over maritime regulation, even when a proposal is stupid as in the recent Maine proposal, is highly rational, especially when compared with the emotional response even breathing the words "gun control" can evoke.

stevebaby
03-03-2009, 01:21 PM
I don't like the results either...yes I voted for the guy...there wasn't another apparent choice at the time...


I'm betting that the Democrat government will hold on to the "advances" into our freedoms so long as they can shift the blame on the other party...and those voters who identify with the Democrat party will help that agenda as much as drinking the koolaid can doHow about posting that link to what you dishonestly claimed that I had said?

Phillip Allen
03-03-2009, 01:24 PM
what did I say you said that you take exception to Steve?

JimD
03-03-2009, 01:36 PM
Didn't ask for specifics.

But I suspect they don't have a lawyer in the family to wade through all the felonious gotchas than made Mama nervous having Grandpop's revolver in the house for so many decades.

From determining whether a military pistol is restricted or prohibited, from buying an approved safe, from having the safe inspected, from the uselessness of having the gun locked away, from insuring you stay on the good side of your local Firearms Control Officer, who may be another budding junior Nazi.....from special permits to own, special permits to transport, separate special hoop jumps for ammunition, the requirements for currency in the Canadian Firearms Safety Course (CFSC) and the Canadian Restricted Firearms Safety Course (CRFSC)....etc et al ad nauseum....and all for your law-abiding citizens.....the bull**** was piled as high as possible to make ownership such an intimidating PIA fewer would try.

Be proud. Your bull**** is effective. Mama is thoroughly intimidated, and I and others like me get 3 grand worth of heirloom for a couple hundred bucks.

Nazi's, Mr Smalser? Oh my, how clever you are! Wrong again, not surprisingly, but pithy. Be proud.

TomF
03-03-2009, 01:47 PM
I'm glad you appreciate the handgun, Bob. If/when the family decides they want it as a family heirloom, they'll find that it's not so difficult as all that to fill in the forms, take a course or two, and keep the gun stored according to regs.

The family heirloom I'm looking forward to inheriting is an antique Bechstein grand piano, which my wife's grandparents brought when they left Russia for Canada in the 30s. While I wouldn't need a special permit to move it around, like most true family heirlooms ... I suspect I'll find little need.

The family who owned the pistol might similarly find little need to move it, either. Filling in some paperwork, even if they do, probably won't be too big a bother.

stevebaby
03-03-2009, 01:49 PM
where's the lie?
police are too superior to be guilty...you said so your self Steve

__________________
How about you post a link to where I am supposed to have said that.
You can't, and that's why you avoid answering.
Because I said no such thing, you knew that, and you lied.

stevebaby
03-03-2009, 01:55 PM
Nazi's, Mr Smalser? Oh my, how clever you are! Wrong again, not surprisingly, but pithy. Be proud.The gun went from "priceless heirloom" to three grand in a few minutes. At that rate of depreciation it doesn't look like much of an investment.

pcford
03-03-2009, 01:58 PM
Phillip, if TomF's remarks is a non sequitor, then that gun lobby claim that gun possession is the bulwark of freedom is also a non sequitor.


Yes...that's a good one...the gun wackos would have you believe that it's 1807 and all one have to do is grab your gun head for the hills with a group of like minded "patriots."

If you haven't noticed the government has B52s and atomic weapons...and is all too ready to use them.

One might be better served to pay attention to politics and eliminate the possibility of having another corrupt and incompetent administration instead of sitting in the corner "polishing your gun."

stevebaby
03-03-2009, 02:23 PM
police are too superior to be guilty...you said so your self Steve

__________________
How about you post a link to where I am supposed to have said that.
You can't, and that's why you avoid answering.
Because I said no such thing, you knew that, and you lied.Waiting, waiting...
You lied. There is no other word to describe your statement.
You are dishonest.

JimD
03-03-2009, 02:29 PM
The gun went from "priceless heirloom" to three grand in a few minutes. At that rate of depreciation it doesn't look like much of an investment.

Now I'm curious. If I have time I'll drop by the local RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) station and ask them about a possesion permit for a WW I family heirloom pistol and see what they say. News at eleven...

PatCox
03-03-2009, 02:33 PM
Phillip, I was dead serious.

Oh, they never say "negroes." They say "thugs" and "criminals."

Phillip Allen
03-03-2009, 02:54 PM
Waiting, waiting...
You lied. There is no other word to describe your statement.
You are dishonest.

sorry Steve...I was away from the desk and doing other things...and now I'm leaving for a few hours...I'll get back later and answer your question

Bob Smalser
03-03-2009, 03:24 PM
Actually, Bob, far from smirking, I agree with you, but I think you overstate the case - there is no restriction on shotgun ownership here in Britain, beyond the simple shotgun licence....



http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/2080858/356868040.jpg

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/2080858/356868028.jpg

Do I overstate? I'm not even talking about AK's and Walter Mitty's where we share common ground.

Invite your local Firearms Control Officer into your home to enjoy your display of Curio and Relics on the wall or your glassed gun cabinet of fine shotguns. Then tell me what your court date and fine is, eh?

But then again, as it's also illegal in your country to defend your home from break-ins by intruders, perhaps hanging even relics on the wall isn't prudent where you live.

You've lost sight that you're being treated like small children instead of responsible adults in your Nanny States.




...I suspect they don't have a lawyer in the family to wade through all the felonious gotchas than made Mama nervous having Grandpop's revolver in the house for so many decades.

From determining whether a military pistol is restricted or prohibited, from buying an approved safe, from having the safe inspected, from the uselessness of having the gun locked away, from insuring you stay on the good side of your local Firearms Control Officer, who may be another budding junior Nazi.....from special permits to own, special permits to transport, separate special hoop jumps for ammunition, the requirements for currency in the Canadian Firearms Safety Course (CFSC) and the Canadian Restricted Firearms Safety Course (CRFSC)....etc et al ad nauseum....and all for your law-abiding citizens.....the bull**** was piled as high as possible to make ownership such an intimidating PIA fewer would try.

Be proud. Your bull**** is effective. Mama is thoroughly intimidated, and I and others like me get 3 grand worth of heirloom for a couple hundred bucks....

TomF
03-03-2009, 03:28 PM
Bob,

I'd be interested, nanny-state-resident or no, where you're finding the lovely old British shotguns listed for sale...
http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/2080858/352402877.jpg

stevebaby
03-03-2009, 03:39 PM
http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/2080858/356868040.jpg

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/2080858/356868028.jpg



Invite your local Firearms Control Officer into your home to enjoy your display of Curio and Relics on the wall or your glassed gun cabinet of fine shotguns. Then tell me what your court date and fine is, eh?

But then again, as it's also illegal in your country to defend your home from break-ins by intruders, perhaps hanging even relics on the wall isn't prudent where you live.

We used to pull Martini-Henry and Lee-Enfields up from the river when we were kids. All the kids had one.
Your statement that "..it's also illegal in your country to defend your home from break-ins by intruders,", is not true.

JimD
03-03-2009, 03:45 PM
Smalser, you are rapidly reducing your currency to that of second rate troll. But of course you're free to do so.

Bob Smalser
03-03-2009, 04:06 PM
Smalser, you are rapidly reducing your currency to that of second rate troll. But of course you're free to do so.

Meaning: Because you don't have answers for the valid points I raise, you resort to childish taunts.

stevebaby
03-03-2009, 04:14 PM
Meaning: Because you don't have answers for the valid points I raise, you resort to childish taunts....and the statement that it is illegal to defend yourself from burglars in Britain?
Nonsense.

Bob Smalser
03-03-2009, 04:16 PM
I'd be interested, nanny-state-resident or no, where you're finding the lovely old British shotguns listed for sale...


Around 80 Pounds and up.

http://www.ukgunroom.com/

http://www.guntrader.co.uk/GunsForSale/

I put a deposit on the gun with the dealer and send him an ATF Form 6 to fill out, which he sends to our Bureau of Alcohol Tax and Firearms for approval. It takes a couple weeks for them to approve it and get it back to me, then I send it back to the dealer with payment who uses it as his authority to export the gun to a firearms license holder here.

As these are hardly firearms favored by criminals, I imagine you have a similar, relatively easy nutroll, and you can probably find it here:

http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/default_e.asp

TomF
03-03-2009, 04:18 PM
Bob,

I accept that we've got a series of rules in place regarding the ownership, use, storage, and transportation of firearms. More about concealable firearms than long guns, and more still about firearms which are designed to be full-auto.

Mostly, we think that's a good thing. Mostly, we haven't found it necessary to keep firearms for personal protection, unless we're in the drug trades.

Sure, some proto-Nazi inspector might exist who takes it upon himself to tie people up in even tighter knots. You have no home-grown powermongering little twerps of your own? You've somehow missed hearing Jamie's arguments with the US Coast Guard over the bill of sale for Airlie? Same jerks, different genre.

That said, I do like your shotguns. Though I wouldn't feel put out in having to keep them locked in a gun cabinet, separate from their ammunition. Thanks very much for the links - I'll be off to do some exploring.

stevebaby
03-03-2009, 04:19 PM
...and the statement that it is illegal to defend yourself from burglars in Britain?
Nonsense.No answer Bob?

Bob Smalser
03-03-2009, 04:36 PM
...and the statement that it is illegal to defend yourself from burglars in Britain?
Nonsense.

Really?

Find me a source for the laws in Britain providing homeowners the right to self defense, then.

Hurt a burglar, and the British government provides him a lawyer to sue you.




....There are also no veritable self-defense laws in England....

....Britons are chagrined by the findings of a U.S. Department of Justice study that says a person is nearly twice as likely to be robbed, assaulted or have a vehicle stolen in Britain as in the United States.....

....To make matters worse for England (and this is also true for Canada), in those countries where citizens are disarmed in their own homes, day burglary is commonplace and dangerous because criminals know they will not be shot at if caught flagrante delicto; whereas in the U.S., burglars prefer night burglaries and they try to make sure homeowners are not at home to avoid being shot at by the intended victims. A recent report on this dangerous practice and the rising tide of thievery and burglaries in England has dubbed Britain "a nation of thieves." The London Sunday Times noted: "More than one in three British men has a criminal record by the age of 40. While America has cut its crime rate dramatically Britain remains the crime capitol of the West. Where," asks the British author, "have we gone wrong?"(8).....

1. Blackstone W. Commentaries on the Laws of England. First edition, 1765. Reprinted, 1974. Quoted by L. Adams in The Second Amendment Primer, Birmingham, AL, 1996, p.60.
2. Faria MA Jr. Vandals at the Gates of Medicine --- Historic Perspectives On the Battle Over Health Care Reform. Macon, GA, Hacienda Publishing, Inc., 1995, p.116.
3. Hypocrites pillory Pinochet. AIM Report, December-A. 1998, http://www.aim.org.
4. Kopel D. Gun Control in Great Britain: Saving Lives or Constricting Liberty? Office of International Criminal Justice at the University of Illinois at Chicago, 1992, p.46. Quoted by Murphy C. Current in Theory and Reality of Self-Defense in Great Britain. Gun News Digest, Spring 1997, p.22-23, 45.
5. Faria MA Jr. The perversion of science and medicine (Parts I-IV). Medical Sentinel 1997;2(2):46-53 and 2(3):81-86, http://www.haciendapub.com.
6. Marshall T. Is Times Square safer than Piccadilly Circus? The Washington Times, National Weekly Edition, Oct. 19-25, 1998.
7. Sniffen MJ. Murder rate reaches 30-year low. Associated Press, Nov. 23, 1998.
8. Ungoed-Thomas J. A nation of thieves. London Sunday Times, Jan. 11, 1998. Quoted by J. Tartaro in Great Britain --- "a nation of thieves." Gun News Digest, Fall 1998, p.27.
9. Faria MA Jr. Medical Warrior: Fighting Corporate Socialized Medicine. Macon, GA, Hacienda Publishing, Inc., 1997, pp.107-120.
10. Suter EA. Guns in the medical literature --- a failure of peer review. J Med Assoc Ga 1994;83(3):137-148.
11. Suter EA, Waters WC IV, Murray GB, et al. Violence in America -effective solutions. J Med Assoc Ga 1995;84(6):253-263.
12. Lott JR. More Guns Less Crime --- Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press, 1998.

http://www.haciendapub.com/article15.html

downthecreek
03-03-2009, 04:51 PM
Really?

Find me a source for the laws in Britain providing homeowners the right to self defense, then.

Hurt a burglar, and the British government provides him a lawyer to sue you.

http://www.bsdgb.co.uk/index.php?Information:The_Law_Relating_to_Self_Def ence

Arguments based on distortion and exaggeration are not usually very convincing.

Crime rates are hard to compare, of course, except homicide. I don't think there is any doubt that there are higher rates of lesser crime in the UK, but you are still an awful lot less likely to end up murdered here.

I have no axe to grind about guns. I wouldn't want to see American gun laws imported here, but neither would I argue against them over there if that's what Americans want. Different ships, different long splices. But there are too many other factors involved in things like crime rates (both in causation and recording) to allow the kinds of facile comparisons that always seem to surface when this issue is raised.

PeterSibley
03-03-2009, 04:54 PM
There's this subtle difference between stopping a burglary and shooting the burglar .A British Commonwealth thing .

Bob Smalser
03-03-2009, 04:57 PM
I accept that we've got a series of rules in place regarding the ownership, use, storage, and transportation of firearms.

I've no objection at all to severe restrictions on non-sporting weapons like 50-caliber rifles and AK clones. And I've no need at all to keep a loaded gun in the home, and don't. The problem is it won't stop there, eh? It certainly didn't in your countries. And I don't want to jump through hoops to buy a 50-year-old pistol, to pay license-holder fees and special shipping to mail one back to a client, to be required to store my harmless wall displays in safes, or ask Nanny every time I want to take a pistol to the range.

Here's that Canadian WWI relic restored at top right along with some other old Smiths. Notice I browned and feathered the new bluing at the corners to replicate the old, original finish. If your grandfather carried it as a 19-year-old subaltern, you'd probably consider it priceless, too. Well, when someone in that family is willing to jump through the ridiculous hoops necessary to own it, I've promised to give it back. And that promise extends to my sons after me. I'm fully confident they will, because we understand that sort of thing.

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/19850601/352079558.jpg




...Britain has no moral standing to judge America harshly. Violent crime is declining in America and rising in Britain. The risk of being violently attacked in England & Wales is already higher than in America and rising. In Scotland, the situation is worse. Many killed or injured with knives or other weapons in Britain, would be alive and unharmed if their assailants had feared they might have a gun.

The main disadvantage of widespread gun ownership in America is that suicide is easier. 58% of America's gun deaths are self-inflicted, which is one reason you have to be careful when gun control advocates choose to compare "gun deaths" rather than homicides. Only 38% of America's "gun deaths" are homicides and some of those are justifiable (e.g. self-defence).

Britain's only statistical advantage in the field of crime is that our homicide rate is lower. America counts all reported offences. We remove homicides from the statistics if all suspects are acquitted (although the victim remains dead). We might not show the V-Tech killings in our statistics at all, if they were found to have been committed by a mentally-disturbed person (see Home Office Statistical Bulletin 02/07). America's statistics more accurately reflect the total number of victims.

It's hard to say what the statistical difference would be if comparable figures were available, but it seems reasonable to suspect that some of Britain's advantage would be lost.

Burglaries are twice as common in Britain as in America and 53% of them (because of improved household security) now take place when the homeowner is present. In America only 13% of burglaries take place while an occupant is home. American burglars do not have the benefit of a government guarantee that all properties are undefended. Would anyone in America have frightened my wife like these guys? I don't think so. They would have been afraid that she or some kindly neighbour would have shot them. That fear would have neutralised all their advantages of youth, strength and disregard for reputation.

To carry a licensed gun in America, you must - in every State - have a clean criminal record. Am I naive enough to expect American criminals to obey America's gun control laws? No. The naive ones are those who expect British criminals to abide by Britain's. They simply don't. While, by definition, no law-abiding citizen in Britain is armed; one-third of young criminals own or have access to a gun. There may be as many as four million illegal firearms in Britain.

For most of my life, I shared the common British view that America's attitude to gun control was crazy. However, disarming the law-abiding has proved to be disastrous. The British State can't or won't protect us. We were stupid to let it disarm us.

UK matches Africa in crime surge
Record rise in violent offences beats Russia and US
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/jun/03/nickpatonwalsh.theobserver

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf

http://lastditch.blogspot.com/2005/10/blairs-britain-part-ii.html

Why Britain needs more gunshttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2656875.stm

One in three young criminals is armedhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/sep/03/ukguns.tonythompson

Up to 4m guns in UK and police are losing the battlehttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/up-to-4m-guns-in-uk-and-police-are-losing-the-battle-505487.html

downthecreek
03-03-2009, 05:13 PM
I've no objection at all to restrictions on non-sporting weapons. And I've no need to keep a loaded gun in the home. My neighbors take care of that. The problem is it won't stop there, eh?

If you really want to prove your point, you may need to discuss the statistics from countries other than the UK where gun ownership is strictly controlled and where crime rates are very significantly lower than they are in the USA. Really, the situation is by no means as simple as your very selective cut and pastes suggest.

PatCox
03-03-2009, 05:16 PM
Well, ya see, we shoot horse theives in these here parts.

In the US, I would even shoot a person for invading my home, I would shoot to kill, too, if they were armed. In the US, someone coming into a home like that is likely to be an insane, stupid, armed, and very violent person. We do not have a class of "professional" burglars in the US. Anyone who comes in your house while you are home in the US is very likely to kill you.

So I think this difference is reflective of very different crime patterns in the US and the UK.

But the gun nuts are still taking it too far when they lament that they should be allowed to walk around armed everywhere, that teachers and students should be armed in the schools, its an obvious case of clinical insanity when they say things like "an armed society is a polite society."

Hell, even the "wild west" had gun control, Sherrif Wyatt Earp made carrying pistols illegal in town.

The Bigfella
03-03-2009, 05:21 PM
From what I can tell, the Austrailian government can't make a decent graph to save it's life, so it has that in common with the gang in Ottawa. But what i did get out of that link is that homicide rates down under have been relatively constant during the 20th century. That hardly suports the lower by half claim made eariler. The reference to a much higher rate in earlier times must be considered knowing that Austrailia was a penal colony in it's earliest days. So the higher rate isn't surprisng. Based on the information presented through the link, I see no reason tochange my original argument.

What the hell does being a penal colony in the 1700's have to do with crime rates in the late 1800's?

A total of 162,000 convicts were transported to Australia - some for such heinous crimes as stealing a loaf of bread.

The population now is more than 21.5 million - so I don't think prolific breeding explains all that growth either.

Crime rates in the late 19th century were much higher than now. Gun ownership during those days was much higher than in the US at the same time.

oznabrag
03-03-2009, 05:29 PM
..snip...

If you haven't noticed the government has B52s and atomic weapons...and is all too ready to use them.



If you haven't noticed, the 'best-equipped army of all time' has been writhing around in the desert for the past 6 years or so trying to defeat a bunch of rag-tag, under-armed, un-armored guerrillas to no useful purpose.

This is precisely the strategy the US used in the American Revolution and it is, demonstrably, no less effective today.

"One might be better served to pay attention to politics and eliminate the possibility of having another corrupt and incompetent administration instead of sitting in the corner "polishing your gun."

No argument there.

John T

The Bigfella
03-03-2009, 05:34 PM
boats here aren't regulated untill ya put a motor on it...not sure about sail

Boats here aren't regulated until they get to the dangerous stage - which here is assumed to be when they are mechaninically propelled, more than 5.5 metres in length and capable of exceeding 10 knots. I guess our regulations make us freer yet again...?

stevebaby
03-03-2009, 05:52 PM
I've no objection at all to severe restrictions on non-sporting weapons like 50-caliber rifles and AK clones. And I've no need at all to keep a loaded gun in the home, and don't. The problem is it won't stop there, eh? It certainly didn't in your countries. And I don't want to jump through hoops to buy a 50-year-old pistol, to pay license-holder fees and special shipping to mail one back to a client, to be required to store my harmless wall displays in safes, or ask Nanny every time I want to take a pistol to the range.

Here's that Canadian WWI relic restored at top right along with some other old Smiths. Notice I browned and feathered the new bluing at the corners to replicate the old, original finish. If your grandfather carried it as a 19-year-old subaltern, you'd probably consider it priceless, too. Well, when someone in that family is willing to jump through the ridiculous hoops necessary to own it, I've promised to give it back. And that promise extends to my sons after me. I'm fully confident they will, because we understand that sort of thing.

Britain is more violent than the USA? Why then is the murder rate of the USA so high when compared to Britain?

stevebaby
03-03-2009, 05:57 PM
http://www.bsdgb.co.uk/index.php?Information:The_Law_Relating_to_Self_Def ence

Arguments based on distortion and exaggeration are not usually very convincing.

Crime rates are hard to compare, of course, except homicide. I don't think there is any doubt that there are higher rates of lesser crime in the UK, but you are still an awful lot less likely to end up murdered here.

I have no axe to grind about guns. I wouldn't want to see American gun laws imported here, but neither would I argue against them over there if that's what Americans want. Different ships, different long splices. But there are too many other factors involved in things like crime rates (both in causation and recording) to allow the kinds of facile comparisons that always seem to surface when this issue is raised.Thank you dtc. You beat me to it!
As your link states, there is both a common law and statutory right to self-defence in Britain and Australia.
It's only a matter of time before somebody brings up the case of Tony Martin, who claimed when he was charged with murder, that he was acting in self-defence when he shot in the back and killed a burglar who was running away.

stevebaby
03-03-2009, 06:03 PM
Really?

Find me a source for the laws in Britain providing homeowners the right to self defense, then.

Hurt a burglar, and the British government provides him a lawyer to sue you.Quite predictably, you are referring to the case of Tony Martin. Tony Martin was convicted of murder by a jury of his peers who heard the facts. The facts were that Tony Martin did not act out of self-defence. The jury determined that he acted out of revenge.
Are revenge killings legal in the USA?
No...they are not.

stevebaby
03-03-2009, 06:06 PM
sorry Steve...I was away from the desk and doing other things...and now I'm leaving for a few hours...I'll get back later and answer your questionNow that you're back on line...where is the link to what you falsely attributed to me?

Bob Smalser
03-03-2009, 06:25 PM
Are you advocating shooting burglars?.



Not at all. Like I said and you apparently missed, we don't keep loaded guns in my house.

My point is that because others can an will in perfect legality under appropriate circumstances, I don't have to.


If you really want to prove your point, you may need to discuss the statistics from countries other than the UK where gun ownership is strictly controlled and where crime rates are very significantly lower than they are in the USA. Really, the situation is by no means as simple as your very selective cut and pastes suggest.

My point is that your gun control laws imposed on law-abiding citizens are a PIA I'm unwilling to meekly acquiesce to.

That they don't seem to have done you much good for all their trouble is purely anecdotal.

Phillip Allen
03-03-2009, 06:30 PM
Now that you're back on line...where is the link to what you falsely attributed to me?

Joe and I are sitting here loading ammunition...I am just scanning...I'll answer when I can go back and put it together for you...

Phillip Allen
03-03-2009, 07:45 PM
Bob , I have had "home invasions" by completely irrational people.
One was a new young mother , who had to have her babies bottle heated , and walked in to our house , made herself at home , and heated her babies bottle.
Another bloke walked in to the house , to get tank water for his overheating car.
Should I meet them with a rifle ?.
I've caught people milking the tank on my car , I've had a kid in my shed , with the intention of stealing.
Should I have met them with a rifle ?.
Because if I was to arm myself , its with the preparedness of using it.
Once you pull that trigger , there is no going back.
Thats just crazy , and completely unnecessary.
You say its quite ok in your country , and I'll believe you.
Is it any wonder it frightened the s--t out of me when I visited , and found people quite happy to set themselves up as judge , jury , and executioner.
You don't understand where I'm coming from obviously , and probably never will.
That too is a worry.
To be honest , I feel sorry for you , trapped in that sort of gun culture.
Regards Rob J.

what percentage of home invaders are there to heat a baby bottle?

Bob Adams
03-03-2009, 07:46 PM
Phillip, I was dead serious.

Oh, they never say "negroes." They say "thugs" and "criminals."


The two times my house was broken into while occupied, the "economicly disadvantaged" individuals were white. Stop generalising., Sounds awful prejudiced to me.

Phillip Allen
03-03-2009, 07:47 PM
it IS prejudiced or course...but he can't see it

Bob Adams
03-03-2009, 07:55 PM
Bob , I have had "home invasions" by completely irrational people.
One was a new young mother , who had to have her babies bottle heated , and walked in to our house , made herself at home , and heated her babies bottle.
Another bloke walked in to the house , to get tank water for his overheating car.
Should I meet them with a rifle ?.
I've caught people milking the tank on my car , I've had a kid in my shed , with the intention of stealing.
Should I have met them with a rifle ?.
Because if I was to arm myself , its with the preparedness of using it.

Once you pull that trigger , there is no going back.
Thats just crazy , and completely unnecessary.
You say its quite ok in your country , and I'll believe you.
Is it any wonder it frightened the s--t out of me when I visited , and found people quite happy to set themselves up as judge , jury , and executioner.
You don't understand where I'm coming from obviously , and probably never will.
That too is a worry.
To be honest , I feel sorry for you , trapped in that sort of gun culture.
Regards Rob J.

Reading stuff like this, I know what needs to be banned.....Hollywood movies! Too many people can't seperate them from reality.

stevebaby
03-03-2009, 07:59 PM
police are too superior to be guilty...you said so your self Steve

__________________
How about you post a link to where I am supposed to have said that.
You can't, and that's why you avoid answering.
Because I said no such thing, you knew that, and you lied.Where did I say that Phillip?
There's only 5 pages in this thread or you can easily do a search for my posts.
You are a bare-faced liar if you don't come up with evidence that I said that.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
03-03-2009, 07:59 PM
Bang Bang Pardner. :D

stevebaby
03-03-2009, 08:01 PM
what percentage of home invaders are there to heat a baby bottle?What percentage of the population are likely to have their home invaded by armed intruders?

Bob Adams
03-03-2009, 08:01 PM
Bang Bang Pardner. :D

See what I mean about the movies?

JimD
03-03-2009, 08:02 PM
Meaning: Because you don't have answers for the valid points I raise, you resort to childish taunts.

Actually, I was thinking its more because its always the same old same old around here when it comes to gun laws. Americans gun each other down in the streets at rates several times higher than any other civilized country and then say that the rest of us are defenceless sheeple ruled by bureaucratic Nazis for not doing things your way.

Mike Field
03-03-2009, 08:03 PM
Why, if we didn't have guns, the negroes would kill us and rape our women. Canada, Australia, you don't have negroes like ours, you wouldn't understand.


pat...not everyone is as silly as you are

Pat, not everyone can see as clearly as you do.

Least of all those myopic people who can't see past the foresights of their guns....
.

Bob Adams
03-03-2009, 08:05 PM
Bob , I'm very much a realist.
We live in 2 different cultures , and the 21 weeks I spent in yours was frightening , I've got to say.
Regards Rob J.
Might I inquire as to what frightened you? What did you see? Hear? Were you threatened? What?

Joe (SoCal)
03-03-2009, 08:18 PM
Read my first post in this thread Bob.
Regards Rob J.

One of the best post's in this thread I may add ;)

Bob Adams
03-03-2009, 08:20 PM
Read my first post in this thread Bob.
Regards Rob J.
Are you refering to the 4th of July? (Independance Day) Traditionaly celebrated with fireworks and such. How many did you SEE fireing weapons?

Bob Smalser
03-03-2009, 08:24 PM
Bob , I have had "home invasions" by completely irrational people.

One was a new young mother , who had to have her babies bottle heated , and walked in to our house , made herself at home , and heated her babies bottle.

Another bloke walked in to the house , to get tank water for his overheating car.

To be honest , I feel sorry for you , trapped in that sort of gun culture.


You left out the teenager trying to visit your daughter.

You also left out human perspective and judgment. Entirely.

When the US made Concealed Carry Permits easily available, as a professional firearms snob I expected a rash of accidental discharges and tragic, mistaken shootings just as you describe. Only everywhere, not just in the home. Well, in almost 20 years since then it simply hasn't happened, indicating that responsible adults still exist in high percentages among law-abiding citizens.

So I'm content to go my own way and let you go yours. If you're afraid of this place because country people shoot off their guns on the 4th of July, then the solution is simple. Stay home.

stevebaby
03-03-2009, 08:38 PM
Joe and I are sitting here loading ammunition...I am just scanning...I'll answer when I can go back and put it together for you...
Bwahaha...hiding under the bed Phillip?
You have to come out sometime.
I can wait.

Phillip Allen
03-03-2009, 08:56 PM
Bwahaha...hiding under the bed Phillip?
You have to come out sometime.
I can wait.


I'm back Steve but I'm still not in the mood to do homework...I'm much better in the mornings...I really mean to look it up or appoplogize which ever...

:)

stevebaby
03-03-2009, 09:20 PM
Yes, far more so than the general population.After all, they have to go through a rigorous selection process to determine their suitability for the job.Is this the post that you were referring to Phillip? It took me 10 seconds to find it.
"...police are too superior to be guilty...you said so your self Steve"
__________________
Now where did I say that?
Your light's on so everyone can see that you're online.
Come out, come out, wherever you are...:D

RodB
03-03-2009, 09:46 PM
There is some rediculous BS on this thread... I thought the following of interest even if there is some exaggeration...


A Little History Lesson... esp for the Aussies...that are so concerned about the gun laws in the USA.....

----------------------------------------------------------------

Turkey established gun control in 1911. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

---------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------


The Soviet Union established gun control in1929, . From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

----------------------------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to
defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-----------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control:
56 million

------------------------------

It has now been 12 months since gun owners inAustralia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australian taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned in their guns, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too!

While figures in Australia over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind him of this history lesson.

With Guns...........We Are "Citizens".

Without Them........We Are "Subjects".

During W.W.II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

Note:
Admiral Yamamoto, who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor had attended Harvard U 1919-1921 & was Naval Attaché to the U. S. 1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor & our Army had been deprived of funding & was ill prepared to defend the country.

It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U. S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U. S. & knew that almost all households had guns.

JimD
03-03-2009, 09:49 PM
Gun control is not the same as mass confiscation and disarming. Gun control is not the same as mass confiscation and disarming. Gun control is...

But it could be repeated a thousand times and paranoid wing nuts will never hear it.

JimD
03-03-2009, 09:53 PM
That , if you believe it yourself , has destroyed any credibility you might have had.
Rob J.

You're starting to catch on I see, Rob.

RodB
03-03-2009, 10:09 PM
:D

It is interesting... you gotta admit...

R

PatCox
03-03-2009, 10:10 PM
Portland, there may be a large cultural divide between you and those US citizens you are talking to.

Do you understand that in the US, we do, as a culture, believe that it is justifiable to shoot anyone who invades your home or property? The home is sacrosanct, anyone who enters your home, you can shoot, in the US. I don't disagree with this, by the way. The rule was, as long as the body was in your home, you were not going to be charged. If you shot someone in the doorway, you are well advised to drag him in a few feet. But thats it, anyone entering your home you can shoot.

And people in the US think its pefectly OK to shoot at prowlers, if they hear someone in their shed, see him fleeing across the yard, yes, they will shoot. And they will not be charged with a crime. I have been shot at, for simply trespassing in an orange grove, in broad daylight, just walking across a grove to get to the other side.

RodB
03-03-2009, 10:18 PM
A recent story I saw was telling of the recently solved murder of the young girl by an illegal alien, who was in Mexico now..and how Mexico would not let the US authorities have him unless they agreed to not execute him.... only life in prison.

Additional comments were mad about George Bush concerning a Canadian citizen who had committed murder in Texas and was executed. When G Bush was asked what he had to say to the Canadian citizens concerning the execution of the aforementioned... George supposedly said... "Don't commit capital murder in Texas"...

RodB

JimD
03-03-2009, 10:20 PM
...in the US, we do, as a culture, believe that it is justifiable to shoot anyone who invades your home or property? ....

A Canadian perpective http://stason.org/TULARC/society/guns-canadian/15-Isn-t-the-US-style-self-defence-illegal-in-Canada.html :



15. Isn't the US-style self-defence illegal in Canada?

Not only can you defend your life with deadly force, but you may defend
your home. Sections 32 and 40 of the Criminal Code (CC) allow use of
deadly force
1) where you fear death or grievous bodily harm, and
2) to keep persons from illegally entering your home.

Colet v Regina (CCC vol. 57, 2d, pages 105 to 113, Jan 27, 1981) is the
most recent example of the latter that I have found. Briefly, the local
police tried to enter Mr Colet's home in Prince Rupert, BC, without a
warrant to do so. (They had only a warrant to seize whatever weapon he
might have had.) He violently denied entry, even throwing Molotov
cocktails at the police. Mr Justice Ritchie wrote in the _unanimous_
Supreme Court of Canada decision:

"The common law principle has been firmly engrafted in our law since
Semayne's case (1604) as reported in 5 Co. rep. 91a 77E.R. 194 where
it was said [at p. 91b]: ``that the house of every one is to him as
his castle and fortress, as well for his defence against injury and
violence, as for his repose...''. This famous dictum was cited by
my Brother Dickson in the case of Eccles v Bourque et al (1974), 19
CCC (2d) 129, 50 D.L.R. (3d) 753, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 739, in which he
made an extensive review of many of the relevant authorities."

However, it is likely far better to use the protection offered by
sections 494, 25 and 29 of the Criminal Code (CC) of Canada. They
"marry" to offer major protection to any person who is trying to
_arrest_ a criminal, or a person he or she believes on reasonable
grounds to be a criminal _and_ a threat of death or grievous bodily
harm. They also protect him or her if force is used because the
person being arrested is resisting arrest.

When dealing with any home invasion (or other criminals) the _first_
words out of your mouth should _always_ be, "YOU ARE UNDER ARREST!"
If the intruder then assaults _you_, he has _no_ justification. He
is resisting arrest, and that is a crime under CC s. 270. One
should also read CC s. 265, 267, 268, and 270(1)(b) to clarify the
above sections. CC s. 27, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44,
and 45 should be read by every person interested in what one can and
cannot do in the areas of self-protection and control of doubtful
situations.

Lots more interesting reading...



14. Why do some say we have a right to have and use firearms when we have no "2nd amendment" in Canada?

While such a guarantee was not put into our constitution (as was done in
the US), our countries share a common history. We both have legal
systems based on English Common Law. We share rights dating back to the
Magna Carta.

The 1689 English Bill of Rights specifically states that subjects of
the Crown (citizens), in their capacity as individuals, as a righ
"may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions". The
Bill also states that disarming citizens is contrary to the law.
This law still applies and re-inforces the common-law right.

Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms states:
"7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the
person and the rights not to be deprived thereof except in
accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."
This section re-inforces the right of self-defence and strengthen
the argument that access to firearms by law-abiding citizens is a
right that continues to exist for Canadians.

The Charter also states:
"26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms
shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights
or freedoms that exist in Canada."
This section states that even if a right is not mentioned in the
Charter, that doesn't mean it does not exist. Many of our rights
exist in common-law and were established centuries ago by such
documents as the Magna Carta and the 1689 English Bill of Rights.

Rights of having arms for self-defence are tied direct to the
centuries-old common law right of self-defence. If one has the
right to defend one's self and others, one must have the right to
the tools necessary to uphold such a right. As always, there is
much debate about "where to draw the line". There is more detail in
the [74]section on self-defence.

JimD
03-03-2009, 10:34 PM
... George supposedly said... "Don't commit capital murder in Texas"...

RodB

One of the few intelligent remarks Bush ever supposedly said.

Bob Adams
03-03-2009, 10:38 PM
Bob , in regard to the 4th of July , I'm familiar with gunfire , I served in SVN in the infantry.
Did I see these people shooting ?.
You have got to be bloody joking , it was dark , and I was cowering in my bed , and staying there !.
Even my hosts apologised , when they saw my look of fear and bewilderment.
Rob J.

OK. It's 4th of July, there are lots of explosions. Imagine that. You saw no one shooting. Hardly enough evidance to convict. Thank you for your service in SVN.

JimD
03-03-2009, 10:40 PM
...
But what you are talking about is killing people for something as frivilous as a home invasion.
Regards Rob J.

Frivolous? Someone invades my home and he's gonna get his frivolous skull fractured, at the very least.

PatCox
03-03-2009, 10:50 PM
Portland, trust me, I know, I would not ever feel justified in shooting someone in my home, unless I had a realistic belief that his presence was a real threat to my life. Thats me, personally.

But the law here kinda has an assumption in it that anyone in your home uninvited is a threat to your life.

And where that might not make sense in your country, where not every hobo is armed, here, guns are everywhere, and all criminals have them. So, with our assumption that the home invader is armed, we are entitled to presume we can respond with firearms.

Its kinda like in nuclear strategy, Mutual Assured Destruction? The problem with it, is it puts everyone on a hair trigger. When it comes to breaking out their guns, believing that using the gun is justified and necessary, Americans are on a hair-trigger. We are on a hair-trigger because of fear-mongering demagoguing politicians who have been stoking fear and hate for their own purposes.

But you have to understand, when you appeal to the moral sense of an American, and say, "isn't it wrong to shoot some dumb teenager for stealing apples from your tree," many times, the American, after due reflection and moral consideration, will say, "hell yes its justified, thats my property." "propety," ownership, material possessions, are inherently considered an adjunct of the self in this material society. In the US, an attack on your "property," and especially your home or your car, cars (or trucks) are worshipped, totemic power symbols in our culture, is considered the same as an attack on your self.

We are a violent culture in which a scarily large percentage of the population suffers from a Bernie Goetz-like obsession with imagining oneself a victim and unleashing furious, justified, violent retribution on some wrong-doer.

RodB
03-03-2009, 11:02 PM
Some of the comments in this thread really are ridiculous... why the F---k have a handgun if you keep the ammunition in another room. all locked... If you ever need a gun, its usually needed PDQ... and not a lot of time find the ammo and load it. What an absurd concept!
An unloaded weapon is just a useless hunk of steel... get real.

If you have decided you would never use a firearm on another human being, then why own one (I am not talking about hunting weapons or collector type items)? What a bunch of theoretical eutopian BS...

There are some very safe ways to store a loaded weapon... ie., a combination lock box. Duh!!

RodB

PeterSibley
03-03-2009, 11:04 PM
Pat , I don't know what to say about that ! :eek:

An interesting version of a Christian nation .

Bob Adams
03-03-2009, 11:05 PM
Portland, trust me, I know, I would not ever feel justified in shooting someone in my home, unless I had a realistic belief that his presence was a real threat to my life. Thats me, personally.



That's the way most gun owners feel. The overwheming majority whom have used thier weapons in self defense never had to fire them. For instance, I have posted about the 2 break ins I had while I was home, (and sleeping). Are there 2 corpses? No. One fled upon realizing I was armed. The other needed a round being chambered to convince him this was not the place to be. Only if bodily harm was imminent would I fire. Most feel the same. The "judge, jury, & executioner" citizen is mostly a product of Hollywood.

JimD
03-03-2009, 11:06 PM
..There are some very safe ways to store a loaded weapon... ie., a combination lock box. Duh!!

RodB

Or a trigger guard lock

PeterSibley
03-03-2009, 11:07 PM
An unmarked hole in the ground .

Bob Adams
03-03-2009, 11:12 PM
Or a trigger guard lock

Not practical for a defense weapon.Too long to get the key and remove in a stressful situation. I find the electronic vault to be a better choice, I practiced until I could open it in a couple seconds.

Peter, a fine idea, but impractical also:p

RodB
03-03-2009, 11:13 PM
Rob B , no , what you posted was NOT interesting , I'm seen it before , and its plain lies .
Pat Cox , yes , I know we are talking about a different culture.
But what you are talking about is killing people for something as frivilous as a home invasion.
Have you ever killed somebody ?.
Have you seen the look in their eyes , the moment they realise that you are about to kill them ?.
Have you watched them die ?.
Later have you thought about their family ?.
I can't believe still , that life is so cheap , in your culture.
And that people can be so indifferent to the taking of a humans life.
Yes , I have been there , in my military life , and it haunts me still.
In a civilian life , no way , I am a completely different mindset.
I am just thankful I live in a peaceful country , with a respect for human life.
Regards Rob J.

What I posted has some elements of truth... you just have your head somewhere in the sand or sky...??

In years past, a home invasion ...ie, burglary would most likely take place when you were not home... if you are home... the odds that the folks breaking in your home mean you harm are pretty high.

So, you just sit there and tell them hello... offer them a cup of coffee... some others will react much more differently... like blowing their Fricking heads off..


That's the way most gun owners feel. The overwheming majority whom have used thier weapons in self defense never had to fire them. For instance, I have posted about the 2 break ins I had while I was home, (and sleeping). Are there 2 corpses? No. One fled upon realizing I was armed. The other needed a round being chambered to convince him this was not the place to be. Only if bodily harm was imminent would I fire. Most feel the same. The "judge, jury, & executioner" citizen is mostly a product of Hollywood.

I think this is pretty much the case throughout the country... In gun courses where folks are going for a license to carry... the course materials consistenly cover the negatives if you ever have to shoot someone... from personal conscience to legal problems. It is a serious decison, but they also tell would be gun owners that you should not even consider owning a handgun if you are not prepared to kill someone if you have to draw it.... Its not a toy, but a tool that you are prepared to use if your your life is in danger... its that simple.

RodB

stevebaby
03-03-2009, 11:17 PM
What I posted has some elements of truth... you just have your head somewhere in the sand or sky...??

In years past, a home invasion ...ie, burglary would most likely take place when you were not home... if you are home... the odds that the folks breaking in your home mean you harm are pretty high.

So, you just sit there and tell them hello... offer them a cup of coffee... some others will react much more differently... like blowing their Fricking heads off..

RodBInternet tough guys...:D:D:D

Bob Adams
03-03-2009, 11:22 PM
Internet tough guys...:D:D:D

Gee, the internet's like Sam Colt's revolver...the great equalizer.

RodB
03-03-2009, 11:27 PM
Stevebaby.... any truth to the following... from above? Just wondered????


It has now been 12 months since gun owners inAustralia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australian taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned in their guns, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too!

While figures in Australia over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

R

Bob Adams
03-03-2009, 11:29 PM
I made a post somewhere, one of these gun threads, showing a graph from the ABS showing the increased victimization of the defensless elderly. I don't remember the other specifics.

JimD
03-03-2009, 11:33 PM
Not practical for a defense weapon.Too long to get the key and remove in a stressful situation. I find the electronic vault to be a better choice, I practiced until I could open it in a couple seconds.

You could remember the combo and punch all those numbers in a real world situation more easily than turning a key in a lock? I'll take your word for it.

RodB
03-03-2009, 11:36 PM
Jim, those 6 button lock boxes are great because you don't have to find the key.... the buttons glow in the dark... your combination can be pressed in seconds...but the gun is safely locked away to keep everyone else safe...

RodB

JimD
03-03-2009, 11:39 PM
Jim, those 6 button lock boxes are great because you don't have to find the key.... the buttons glow in the dark... your combination can be pressed in seconds...but the gun is safely locked away to keep everyone else safe...

RodB

Ok, I buleeves you.

stevebaby
03-03-2009, 11:57 PM
There is some rediculous BS on this thread... I thought the following of interest even if there is some exaggeration...


A Little History Lesson... esp for the Aussies...that are so concerned about the gun laws in the USA.....

----------------------------------------------------------------

Turkey established gun control in 1911. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

---------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------


The Soviet Union established gun control in1929, . From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents,
unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

----------------------------

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to
defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-----------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control:
56 million

------------------------------

It has now been 12 months since gun owners inAustralia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australian taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned in their guns, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too!

While figures in Australia over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind him of this history lesson.

With Guns...........We Are "Citizens".

Without Them........We Are "Subjects".

During W.W.II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

Note:
Admiral Yamamoto, who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbor had attended Harvard U 1919-1921 & was Naval Attaché to the U. S. 1925-28. Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor & our Army had been deprived of funding & was ill prepared to defend the country.

It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U. S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U. S. & knew that almost all households had guns.What a load of drivel. Can't you people write (or think) for yourself? C&P, C&P....are you incapable of putting together a reasoned and coherent response by yourself?
The Japanese didn't invade the US because the citizens were armed. They wanted oil, rubber and tin from Malaya and the Dutch East Indies. Grow much rubber in the States?
You conveniently ignore the fact that the Pacific Fleet and the American troops in the Phillipines were armed with far better weapons than a bunch of pistols and hunting rifles. The Japanese had no hesitation in attacking a well-armed and numerically superior force then, just as they did when they attacked China and the Soviet Union. If you think they would be deterred by a bunch of civilians with pistols and hunting rifles then you are seriously deluded. They had no hesitation in attacking the USA and Britain and the British Commonwealth and inflicting heavy loss of life.
It's a matter of public record that the Australian General Blamey told Macarthur not to send him any more American troops due to their reluctance to actually fight the Japanese.If your Army wouldn't fight, why do you think civilians would?
The C&P that you posted is a load of utter nonsense. The temporary increase in Victoria's murder rate was a temporary aberration involving a couple of drug gangs killing each other. They were not killing ordinary citizens. If you were an honest person, I'd invite you to show the most current crime statistics which show a FALLING crime rate.I won't bother, because you can't do that without destroying your own argument. Or rather....someone else's argument which you C&P'ed.
The murder rate has certainly fallen, and there have been no more Port Arthurs.

JimD
03-04-2009, 12:03 AM
..It's a matter of public record that the Australian General Blamey told Macarthur not to send him any more American troops due to their reluctance to actually fight the Japanese.If your Army wouldn't fight, why do you think civilians would?.

Ouch. Your general may have said that but nevertheless many thousands of American soldiers died apparently not fighting the Japanese.

stevebaby
03-04-2009, 12:11 AM
Stevebaby.... any truth to the following... from above? Just wondered????



RLet's take it sentence by sentence then.
"It has now been 12 months since blah blah blah...
Nope. It's been 10 years since those laws were enacted, and there are another 10 years of statistics. Why not post them?
I dare ya.
This tired old rubbish has been doing the rounds for years, and in any discussion about firearms, it's inevitable that someone from the firearm manufacturing lobby will bring it up.
I repeat...can't you think for yourselves?