Gun control

[Slytovhand]

Speaking of which...David Hicks.

I don't know if the name rings any US bells, but in Oz, it means a lot. And part of the reason the Liberals lost the last election was because of the mis-handling of his case.

He was in 'Gitmo' (not a term I usually use, btw) as an 'enemy combatant', although there's a stack of controversy about that.

In the end, he pleaded guilty... but there's been enough thought to say it was only to get out of that... especially when you add to it he's under a suppression order not to say a word about it all... (hatred of the US Gov't and it's policies isn't only from the countries it's actually bombed!)


Slyt

(damn... gone way OT... )

[Slytovhand]

Following on from the NRA thread.... I thought I'd go here, cos it's turning into a discussion on this stuff...

Me -

And out of curiosity (since I presume you are pro-gun), what does an individual need armour-piercing rounds for??

FashionLad -

Why does anyone need a car that goes 200mph? Why do people need to live in mansions? Why does anyone need excess of anything? If it's not hurting anyone, why can't a law abiding citizen have it? Just because we don't need it, doesn't mean we shouldn't be allowed the chance to own it.

3 points.

A) using that logic, why not grenades? Tanks? Mines? DU rounds?RPG's (not the D&D or NWN type)? SAM's? Napalm? Tomahawks, cruise, etc etc.? Chemicals? Biological? Nuclear?? how about owning a few military jets? Stealths?? Aircraft carriers, or frigates or subs... where does it end.. if it does? (we did a thread on that - under "Why Pedersen shouldn't own his own battleship"). Hey - if you're a law abiding citizen, you should be allowed be the chance to own it.

B) AP rounds, unlike cars that travel at 200mph, or live in mansions, or do anything in excess... have one, and only one designed purpose. To kill... human beings... who wear body armour. Who would those people most likely be? Police, military, intelligence agents, and the occasional politician or VIP (eg - visiting dignitaries). Thus, the most likely reason a person would have for purchasing AP rounds is to execute (assassinate??) lawful members of the society.

C) Quick question - if your state introduced a ban on guns tomorrow, and required all guns to be handed in to the local police station, what would you do?


Slyt

[crazylegs]

B) AP rounds, unlike cars that travel at 200mph, or live in mansions, or do anything in excess... have one, and only one designed purpose. To kill... human beings... who wear body armour. Who would those people most likely be? Police, military, intelligence agents, and the occasional politician or VIP (eg - visiting dignitaries). Thus, the most likely reason a person would have for purchasing AP rounds is to execute (assassinate??) lawful members of the society.

Although every armour an be defeated, for every round there is an armour that will defeat it, ceramic plates normally do the job quite nicely and will also protect against rifle fire (the 'soft' armour normally only protects against sidearms).

[Fashion Lad!]

Following on from the NRA thread.... I thought I'd go here, cos it's turning into a discussion on this stuff...

A) using that logic, why not grenades? Tanks? Mines? DU rounds?RPG's (not the D&D or NWN type)? SAM's? Napalm? Tomahawks, cruise, etc etc.? Chemicals? Biological? Nuclear?? how about owning a few military jets? Stealths?? Aircraft carriers, or frigates or subs... where does it end.. if it does? (we did a thread on that - under "Why Pedersen shouldn't own his own battleship"). Hey - if you're a law abiding citizen, you should be allowed be the chance to own it.

C) Quick question - if your state introduced a ban on guns tomorrow, and required all guns to be handed in to the local police station, what would you do?


Slyt

Two things...

A) of all, within reason. What individual besides Bill Gates or Warren Buffet is going to have enough money in this country to buy an Aircraft carrier and a few military jets? That's just getting ridiculous for argument.

And here's the deal. I am a law abiding citizen. I will not hurt anyone unless absolutely necessary. I really want a fully automatic gun, I don't have one be cause I'm a law abiding citizen. I have a couple of semi-automatics and the love of my collection is a Beretta 9mm Custom Carry (it's sex).

Now, Mr. Angry Evil Badman isn't a law abiding citizen. Mr. Badman breaks into my house with an AK-47, I have at best my 9mm semi-auto Beretta that can be readily available at anytime. Mr Badman knows that he will either be the only with a gun or the one with the more powerful gun. He breaks into my house, I'm dead. Great. Just fantastic. Why? Because someone decided that a fully automatic is something I should not have. And I am typically very law abiding go along with it. However, we all know that bad people do not follow, nor do they have any concern for anyone but themselves.

Pedersen should have his own battleship, it'd be neat.

Secondly, if it were the law that I had to give up all my guns, I'd do it. Because like I said, I follow the law. I'd be pissed, I'd be so pissed. I'd petition or go into politics. Or, I'd move to a country where the government has more faith in it's law abiding citizens.

And the people that really want us ban guns are the people in the U.N. Why are they so concerned about our guns?

[Slytovhand]

Crazy - Yep, I know that. There isn't too much in head protection that's really all that good Still - an answer to teh question wasn't even approached... if those are the people wearing such gear, why would you want the bullet to go through it... as a "law abiding citizen".


FashionLad. yep, A was intended to head into the ridiculous.. but as per the Battleship thread, there are people out there with the money, the resources... and the angst! But... the lesser stuff?? I mean - claymore mines?? Napalm?? RPG's??? And, given that most advocates of such freedoms also want that those freedoms include privacy (ie - no background checks other than for criminal history), it's just asking for trouble.


I'm glad you said you'd hand your guns in. And disappointed... I had the obvious argument against that But I've heard of those who would point blank refuse to hand them in, saying that "it's their right", and that they'd die to defend it. Ummm... now, not only are they not law abiding citizens, but they are also putting thier personal attitudes above that of the law... (not to mention, all those wonderful traits of the USA that people have died for - ie democracy - they've just spurned that ideal). Isnt' it supposed to be the lawyers who decide what's lawful and what isn't???


BTW - B)??

[Fashion Lad!]

FashionLad. yep, A was intended to head into the ridiculous.. but as per the Battleship thread, there are people out there with the money, the resources... and the angst! But... the lesser stuff?? I mean - claymore mines?? Napalm?? RPG's??? And, given that most advocates of such freedoms also want that those freedoms include privacy (ie - no background checks other than for criminal history), it's just asking for trouble.
BTW - B)??

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any gun control, that's just irresponsible. Napalm, claymore mines, those aren't guns. So yes, those should be illegal to the public. Grenade launcher, not really a gun again. I mean, there's a limit to everything. But, if it's what the general population would consider a gun, as a law abiding citizen, I should have the right to own it.

Why restrict good people when the bad guys are just going to do whatever they want anyway? (I still believe that the non-gun weapons that you mentioned should not be allowed to the public.)

Oh, and I never include a B) for some reason. I always go "A) of all" and "secondly" it's a habit I guess. Sorry.

[AFPheonix]

Part of the reason for restriction is to at least stem the tide of illegal weapons. We have too many guns that flow from us to our neighboring countries. Where do you think the drug cartels south of us get their weapons?
Gun laws need some revamping, but not in the way you want. They need to be made more cohesive with better regulation on where guns go from the source.
I'm sorry, but I think there are some weapons that the public should not have available to them, simply because that creates more demand for them, and therefore more supply. I don't wish for that to happen.

Besides, life is not like Robocop. Chances are, the guy who's gonna break into your house is going to be smart enough to case the joint and wait until you are likely to be away before breaking in, not come in with guns ablazin'.

[crazylegs]

Crazy - Yep, I know that. There isn't too much in head protection that's really all that good Still - an answer to teh question wasn't even approached... if those are the people wearing such gear, why would you want the bullet to go through it... as a "law abiding citizen".

If you're law abiding you won't be shooting at them, only the bad guys who wear body armour. When NIJ IIIA vests are available for a few hundred pounds (not a huge amount to the career criminal) it's not inconceivible that the guy climbing through the window is wearing a vest.

[BlaqueKatt]

. When NIJ IIIA vests are available for a few hundred pounds (not a huge amount to the career criminal) it's not inconceivible that the guy climbing through the window is wearing a vest.

that's why I prefer to go for head and knee shots-and even with a vest a shotgun slug at close range will take the perp off his feet-

Katt who oens a S&W .40 cal Sig, and will be purchasing a Taurus "judge" soon.

[protege]

*knows that a .38 can leave a quarter-sized hole from 30 feet away...*

I've probably said this before, but when I was younger, we always had guns in the house. Dad's hunting rifles, and at least one shotgun. All were equipped with trigger locks, and kept in a large (locked) case. Bullets and shells were kept somewhere else, again, under lock and key. As such, I was always told to respect firearms.

At the farm, Grandpa always had a rifle or two or his shotgun around. Not for protection, but to take care of "varmints." That is, rabid animals--he wasn't about to let them attack his grandkids. We weren't the only ones who had guns--plenty of neighbors had them too. Crime wasn't a problem then, mainly because criminals simply weren't stupid enough to break in...knowing that the homeowner was likely to be armed.

However, crime has jumped up a bit, mainly because the new arrivals (read: rich idiots who want the country life) tend to bring lots of expensive stuff, but usually do not own firearms. These homes usually do get robbed.

Not long ago, someone tried to break into my grandmother's house when she was in the hospital after her auto accident. Sometime around 1am or so, I heard someone trying to force the front door open. Apparently, no car was visible (I'd put the Tercel in the garage that night), so nobody was home. Needless to say, whoever it was fled when I flipped the porch light on

Didn't stop there though--I grabbed a pitchfork off the kitchen porch, and went after the bastard. Probably not the best idea...but I never had that problem again! I'm sure I scared the shit out of the perp--a crazy farmer brandishing a pitchfork and yelling at you might do that...

[crazylegs]

that's why I prefer to go for head and knee shots-and even with a vest a shotgun slug at close range will take the perp off his feet-

Katt who oens a S&W .40 cal Sig, and will be purchasing a Taurus "judge" soon.

I have no idea how good your shooting is, however trying to hit a running person while they move perpendicular or erratically in relation to yourself is difficult enough in the best of situations. This is why police/armed forces etc are taught to aim for the largest mass (i.e. the torso) and it's more likely to be hit due to its relative mass in comparision with the rest of the body which is long, mobile and flexible (ie arms and legs).

I will agree with you on the shotgun though!

[Slytovhand]

If you're law abiding you won't be shooting at them, only the bad guys who wear body armour. When NIJ IIIA vests are available for a few hundred pounds (not a huge amount to the career criminal) it's not inconceivible that the guy climbing through the window is wearing a vest.

a) no, that was the point, Crazy.. it's only the crazies who would be shooting at those people.... (oh, sorry..didn't mean you )

b) ummm.... I'm thinking, the more guns that become standardly available, the more vests just might get purchased. At the moment, I don't see your average burglar wearing such a vest at all. Your average rapist isn't going to either (read - about none of them... even if guns do become common place with AP rounds).

I see that the only people who are going to be wearing such a vest are those totally bent on destruction... seriously heavily armed bank robbers, seriously nasty gangs... and those, well - just being in the general area is going to be bad for you - let alone trying to shoot back.

Your standard home breaker is either poor or drug-fucked. If poor, there isn't any vest. If drug-fucked, there's no brains about the idea of wearing a vest...

I don't think I've seen any example of anything that suggests to me that AP rounds are actually going to be of much use over and above any standard round ... unless you're going to start including civil war.

Fashion.. question for you, on the topic of 'responsible'... I personally think any gun ownership needs to be based on a few different things... one of those is levels of responsibility (ie - psych evaluation). So - what 'responsibility factors' do you think should be in place for sellers, and required by buyers/owners?


Btw - .50 cal sniper rifle?? Certainly a gun.... yes/no? Heavy machine guns? Just wondering where the line is drawn.

(oh, if I hadn't stated it clearly, I'm not totally opposed to gun ownership... just needs restrictions.. the sort that may well have saved quite a few lives over the past few decades)

[Fashion Lad!]

Fashion.. question for you, on the topic of 'responsible'... I personally think any gun ownership needs to be based on a few different things... one of those is levels of responsibility (ie - psych evaluation). So - what 'responsibility factors' do you think should be in place for sellers, and required by buyers/owners?

I don't believe people need a psych evaluation to decide whether or not they can own a gun. I feel that everyone who wants to own a gun should go through gun safety courses.

Where does the line get drawn? It shouldn't be drawn at whether or not it's fully or semi-automatic. If I hold down the trigger, I want to be able to empty a clip. Or, in the case of a semi-auto, I want to be able to shoot as fast I can pull the trigger.

When I was growing up, we had guns in the house. They were loaded, ready to go. They weren't locked. My parents didn't keep them a secret. But, they did definitely take my brother and myself through several gun safety classes. We learned to respect the gun and what it can do.

A lot of things can be avoided through education.

[Greenday]

I think the main problem is, a lot of people are getting guns through illegal means and it's really tough to stop. You can talk about psych tests and gun-safety classes all you want. But what good are all those when the majority of the people buying guns legitly aren't committing the crimes? The black market is a BIG place.

[Fashion Lad!]

I think the main problem is, a lot of people are getting guns through illegal means and it's really tough to stop. You can talk about psych tests and gun-safety classes all you want. But what good are all those when the majority of the people buying guns legitly aren't committing the crimes? The black market is a BIG place.

The gun safety classes are helpful for anyone who is going to own a gun. Kids in houses that have guns especially need to go through gun safety. If they don't know about it, it is a toy to them.