Only in America...
...What a country!
Max Motors is aware of America's crime problem. And it wants to be part of the solution. With this in mind, the Butler, Missouri auto dealership is offering a free handgun to anyone in the market for a new car or truck. As reported by the BBC, Max Motors recently launched a "Guns and Gas" promotion. If you purchase any vehicle …
So , in case of emergency such as car break down(US built cars that come from the big three makers with numerous defects and fatal user design flaws ) or stuck in the usual Freeway Gridlock , break glass and use to self eliminate the nut behind the wheel deal from the gene pool , is that the case ?
I live just outside of St. Louis, MO and sadly I am not shocked that someone would do this. This is a Concealed Carry state too. On the other hand maybe it would lead to a little more polite driving habits out here, we could definitely use some people with the fear of being shot when they drive like a fool (no offense to professional fools).
(Skull Bones because riding the motorcycle with these crazies will get me that way)
This could totally work. I would take the gun and then not register the car and that way i could get free gas well it would require a stick up or more but still works.
And thanks to Barack "chicken lovin" Obama for continueing the stereotyping!!
>/ Mines the one with the Lynard Skynard emblem on the back and the holster on the inside.
What about the 7 day waiting period? Does the timer start when you put down your deposit or when you actually drive away?
Does the dealership provide its employees with the necessary gear to fend off any "unhappy" customers?
What if the "customer" is a convict, and still insists on the gun?
Does one get to choose the type of gun? because I'd prefer a 50 cal sniper rifle, for those pesky squirrels and my bastard neighbour's toy poodles, that have been trained to shit in my yard.
Do they offer discounts on ammo for repeat business?
Mr. Muller is exactly the type of person that helps propagate the notion of merkins as guntoting jingoistic assholes. May one of the guns he's assisting to peddle end up in a serious crime where it can be traced back to him.
Furthermore, his comments regarding Sen. Obama only goes to prove said senator's point... what a twat.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
I live not too far away from there, and have been there many times. Nice people, actually.
Basically, this is a way of saying "up yours, Obama". I'm tempted to go buy a car there just to make the statement. Man, what an arrogant jerk!
But I wouldn't, because I think the gun is too cheap. I'd rather hold out for a Glock or something better. (Hey, I only own two guns, and don't have bullets for either - time to upgrade!)
""We did it because of Barack Obama," Muller explained. "He said 'All those people in the Midwest, you've got to have compassion for them because they're clinging to their guns and their Bibles.' I found that quite offensive. We all go to church on Sunday, and we all carry guns.""
Thus proving his point, no?
Shitty shitty shitty.
Wouldn't trust my life to a keltec handgun. It's a chunk of what appears to be injected plastic, with a few metallic parts. Small, uncomfortable, inaccurate and unreliable. It's like a Glock, only 1000 times crappier, but only half as cheap. Good idea, poor recommendation.
I'm a gun owner, and agree with Obama completely.
Still $250. A decent Glock is more like $600. hmppf
I live in Arizona BTW. They are trying to pass a state law so that flashing a gun to let someone you know that you have one (not pointing it at someone) isn't aggravated assault, which it is right now, which is kinda' stupid.
People always take sides without having their facts straight. The first thing I noticed in the ad was "Proper background check required". They aren't just giving them away to anyone who wants one...as it should be. We're not talking arming masses of insane, violent, criminals here. Everybody has the right to protect themselves. Sure, it may be a bit extreme and gimicky, but I have no problem with it as long as it occurs through the proper channels. Hell, anything but would be illegal!
I firmly believe in the right to carry arms. I am a normal law abiding citizen. I would never use my guns to commit a crime. However, if you threaten me or my friends and family with intent to cause bodily harm...I WILL shoot you. I would first pursue every less lethal option at my disposal, such as my martial arts
As far as the argument that private citizens do not need guns... I lived in the city of Philadelphia for five years when attending college and currently live in the suburbs. The murder rate has averaged 1+ a day for several years, with bursts of sometimes 3 and 4 a day. That doesn't even begin to count all the other violent crimes. Obviously, the police cannot be relied upon to protect EVERY innocent that is out on the streets. When I travel to the city, my gun is like my American Express card...I don't leave home without it!
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Those who talk about "hey, that way you got something to teach the arseholes on the road some respect":
I suspect that those who feel the need to have a gun in their car and those who succumb to bouts of road rage tend to be the same people.
And yet: $250?! What are they offering? Cheap Chinese made Saturday Night Specials? A decent .45 or S&W will set you back $500 give or take.
Walk softly, and carry a big stick. I'd say this old adage applies to safe and sane gun owners. Judge all you like, but a gun is just a hunk of metal. The problem is, how big a stick do you have to carry when the bad guys are packing guns regardless of bans or confiscations? I will protect myself regardless of the Law for the same reason a criminal will break them. Frankly, either you naysayers can suggest a reasonable and sane way to protect yourself in an unreasonable and insane world, or you can eat a big plate of shut the **** up.
Imagine a world without WWII! Where the victims had the knowledge and ability to kill those who wished to harm them. Compliance is for sheep.
Any wonder most people take the gun? The gas is soon gone but the gun is a gift that keeps on giving.
BTW, initial studies have shown that in states which have passed concealed carry laws, some types of crime have gone down. Criminals appear to be thinking twice, knowing they might get their a**es shot off.
I shot 0.22 as a kid and today shoot for the pot or clays most weekends to keep my eye in. However in order to get a gun license my local superintendent has to approve it, that basically ensures that I have no history of violence and no run ins with the law.
The USAian model where any fuckwit is entitled to a gun, (including or particularly pistols) is quite insane for reasons too familiar to be rehashed here.
Guns are a dangerous weapon and ownership should be restricted, but hey if you think your government is defeatable outside the democratic process by force of arms, why not move to Burma and be a hero?
...to 'Tut-tut' about us Yanks & our guns. There's something you don't get to hear much about overseas, and they don't exactly discuss much here stateside: Yes, we have a high number of firearm murders here. But it's not the gun-toting yokels that are involved in 97% of it. As a matter of fact, having lived in rural Pennsylvania for most of my life, except for my Army days, everybody I know owns a gun, and there has been 2 shootings outside of the cities here in 20 years. They aren't the legally owned guns concealed carried by rednecks that are involved in these crimes. In fact, you'll be hard pressed to find a single murder committed by a concealed-carry licensee.
Nope, the vast majority of gun crime occurs in the inner cities with illegally possessed and carried handguns. But anyone who points that out is automatically 'racist', regardless of color and the statistics, because that's what the Brady Bill crowd want you to believe.
And remember, we loaned y'all a lot of firearms back in the early 40's, just in case Hitler decided to cross the Channel, because, surprise, surprise, nobody being allowed to own guns= unarmed citizenry in time of need. Too bad you didn't learn your lesson, and worse yet, YOU DIDN'T SEND THE DAMNED THINGS BACK!
...mine will be the oddly heavy black trenchcoat that makes the clinking noise.
... regardless of what one thinks of Max Motors' "gas -n- guns" promotion, it has clearly achieved its sales objectives ("sales have quadrupled"). I will charitably assume that Mr. Moore is playing the "I'm SOOOOO offended" card to pull in sales (he can't possibly truly deny the truth of Obama's statement, i.e., that in times of economic trouble ppl cling to whatever gives them comfort, be it finding "solutions" in holy books or finding "scapegoats" to blame), and while it's pathetic that such conspicuous pandering has gained traction, I have to salute his marketing savvy. "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." -- Henry Mencken.
For a start you have to have a FFL Dealers license to dispense guns.
Also, if you are any sort of criminal you can't pass the background checks. ESPECIALLY for carry. The FBI has NO sense of humor about this anymore. This includes taking a poke at your GF or drunk driving.
Lastly I carry a Glock 36, and I wouldn't touch a Kel-tek even for free.
I am glad to be an Australian citizen, a nation that had the sense and courage, to ban assault weapons and massively tightened gun laws nationwide, after a mentally deranged man slaughtered in cold blood 38 innocent strangers in Tasmania.
In ten years leading up to the Port Arthur massacre, insane males were regularly, like once a year on average, grabbing their military weapons and slaughtering strangers. Since the bans, no insane male rampages have occurred.
My nightmare would be to wake up and find myself a citizen of the USA and all the risk and injustice that comes with living in that insane society.
USA, your welcome to your guns. Just don't invade my country and try and make us into you.
You fail to mention that the insane male obtained the weapons illegally. What about enforcing the existing laws?
@ anti Kel-Tec --> I agree out of the box it's a little rough, but with a little work it is excellent for times when you have no option to carry anything bigger. It's biggest drawback is that it requires a very firm grip to cycle reliably since it's so light.
@Anti gunners Banning one weapon just provokes a switch to another. Plus banning anything sets a dangerous precedent. How long before they start banning knives (Great Britain). Perhaps automobiles, look at how many deaths are caused by them. Pretty soon you will have the dark ages again with the privileged few oppressing the masses. It could happen easily because you let them take away anything that you could use to stop them. Just look at China and what happens to protesters there.........
When it comes down to it weapons = freedom always has, always will. We need to be able to protect ourselves from people who would oppress us.
The self righteousness on display here is really something. Consider for a moment, my international friends, that a large part of your fear of guns is based upon hearsay, from sources that have already limited your own ability to possess them.
"Guns are very dangerous and evil, which is why the government has decided we shouldn't be allowed to own them."
Isn't this a bit circular in its logic? There are a lot of very dangerous things in the world. Bats, knives, brass knuckles, guitar strings, and so forth. Has banning guns caused murders in Britain or Australia to cease, or simply changed the type of weapons murderers use?
I think a large part of the misunderstanding between the Brits and Yanks in this case is that, aside from a few large cities, the vast majority of Yanks have lived their entire lives in the presence of armed neighbors, without any ill effects.
By contrast, the vast majority of Brits who are so shocked by this fact have lived their entire lives under a weapons ban, with abundant propaganda to justify how important the ban is.
Kind of like how a Dutchman from Amsterdam might think nothing of smoking a cannabis joint, but if you were to offer the same joint to, say, a fellow from Singapore (where they have extremely strict anti drug laws), he'd probably freak out.
As a Yank myself, I'd like to make a couple observations about crime and guns. In my own little city, the last serious shooting crime was where one sixteen year old boy shot another, slightly older boy in the face, for allegedly raping his girlfriend. Some facts of the case:
1) The shooter stole the weapon used by breaking into a house, and prying the lid off the owner's fire safe.
2) The shooter then coerced his Aunt to drive him to the victim's house, ostensibly to by marijuana.
3) The shooter, with his stolen gun, then shot the other poor guy. Badly. The victim survived.
4) Turns out the girlfriend was lying the whole time, and her liaison with the victim was consensual.
Now, examine this timeline-- the kid shouldn't have had the gun, he had to break the law to get it. His family shouldn't have helped enable his psychosis, but they did. And, finally, the girl who lied about being raped greatly contributed to the situation that led to the victim being shot.
The point is, though, that the gun was pretty much neutral throughout. The emotions, the hatred, the desire for revenge, that was the root cause of the violence. Could this same story have happened in Britain, just replacing "gun" with "cricket bat"? You bet it could have.
Finally, a closing thought:
It's a hell of a lot easier to ban guns in Britain and Australia than it is to ban them in America. You have no land borders at all. The border with Mexico is porous to say the least, and the border with Canada is mostly unpatrolled wasteland. It's really easy to get contraband in and out of the US, despite what our customs department would like you to think.
There are over a billion (milliard for the pedants) firearms in the United States. That's enough for everyone to have three each. If you knew that all your neighbors were armed, and all the criminals were armed, and the kid delivering your paper is armed, which makes more sense: Complain to the government, and have them take the guns from everyone not already a criminal, or just arm yourself, so at least you can meet the threat on equal footing?
I agree. In all my years in Australia I have only felt threatened during close encounters with various poisonous snakes and spiders (I grew up in the country), and the occasional rancid right wing government.
In most cases, the situation was handled by calmly walking away / voting appropriately.
I have never been in a situation where I thought someone might shoot me or members of my family, and would not like to live anywhere where I might have that fear.
A couple of things:
1) From what I can see nearly all of the comments here are written by Americans.
2) Thanks very much for loaning us all the guns back in the forties. Just one question: If the British hadn't managed to win the battle of Britain, and the island had fallen to Germany, thus closing the western front allowing the Nazi's to concentrate on Russia whilst simultaniously depriving the US of A a place from which to launch European operations, what do you think the world would look like now?
I am in no doubt that the UK and Europe owes the USA a debt of gratitude for the heroic actions during the second world war. But be in no doubt: the USA furnished us with weapons and later troops as much out of self interest as anything else.
Note that a voucher was issued so the recipient could make up their own mind about which gun to get.
That said, the Keltec has some merit as a self-defense piece:
1. It's affordable, prehaps disposable.
2. All the Keltec pocket models are locked-breech recoil operated. To find this feature in a semi-auto smaller than 9mm is unusual. This results in a reduction of felt recoil. Most other .380s offer the shooting hand some sting.
3. The accuracy is as good as it needs to be for the intended use as a defense gun.
There are all sorts of legal reasons why you can't just walk into a store and buy a gun in most, if not all, parts of the US. First, you've got to buy the thing off a licensed firearms dealer. The car dealer may also have a firearms dealer license, but then you've got a raft of other regulations (that vary from State to State) to negotiate.
The real joke is that if you're experienced with firearms then you're unlikely to want to be given some random (cheap) handgun. You've already got the ones you want and while you probably have some others you've got your eye on they're be relatively expensive. Gun owners (usually enthusiasts) are actually quite picky. If you've never owned a gun before this freebe is worse than useless, its dangerous. Guns are not toys. So I'll list this one as a gimmick.
If you want home protection, a small pump action shotgun's the answer. You don't have to fire it, the noise of racking it usually is enough to persuade someone to go away. (If you do have to fire it then you don't need to be too careful about aiming it.)
Banning guns will not stop violent crime, but removing them makes the battle a little less onesided. Have you ever tried a driveby shooting with a knife? And would the Port Arthur or Columbine gunmen have managed to kill so many if they were carrying knives? And how often do you get collateral damage in a knife fight?
Mine is the non-bullet proof one, because I live in Australia
Did anyone notice the * after "free gun" ? All the dealer did was hand out a certificate that gave you a certain amount of store credit for the local gun store. In Missouri you have to go to your county's sheriff's department and they do a background check there, they give you paperwork that you have to give to the gun store before they can sell you a handgun. As the law stands right now, you do not need to wait 7 days before you receive your handgun.
As an ex-pat USAian living in Germany for a while now, I can assure you that non-patrolled land borders aren't a problem. Looking at the case you so handily provided, the problem with the right to bear arms is immediately evident. Criminals will steal the guns they need, they do not need to go through background checks, because you, the arm bearing, law abiding citizen continue to provide them with the 'tools of the trade'.
As the poster said earlier, If there are three guns per American obviously a lot of profits to be made and made by the gun manufacturers. Let me wonder?
Is there I strong pro gun lobby in Congress by those same manufacturers?
QED - The problem is not about guns, it is about greed and money.
The auto dealer wasn't selling the guns, he was providing a certificate for the purchase of one...presumably redeemable with a local FFL dealer. It becomes the responsibility of the Federal Firearms Licensed dealer to ensure that the firearms sale complies with the appropriate State and federal firearms laws.
Interesting sentiments. I happen to know that it is not shared by all of your fellow countrymen and women. I just spent the last several days as a range officer at the NRA Bianchi Cup National Action Pistol Championship, ironically held just a few miles north of Columbia, Missouri. There were a dozen plus Australian competitors that do not share your happiness with the state of firearms laws down under. And you can be proud at how well your fellow Aussies performed - several trophies and plaques are on their way to Australia today.
For the record, there were also contingents from Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan, and New Zealand this year, and I'm probably forgetting a couple.
@Gun Control in general...
In the US, law enforcement agents and agencies have a moral and ethical obligation to, they do in fact have NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO PROTECT YOUR OR YOUR PROPERTY. That is case law, look it up. There was a case back in the '80's involving two women that were raped in Central Park in New York City within ear and eyesight of two NYPD officers. The women lost the case. I don't like it, but that is they way the law is.
@Gun buying in general...
Not everyone can purchase firearms in the US. When you go to buy from a dealer, you fill out a BATF form and the dealer then calls the FBI to verify the information on the form. Your identifying information is compared against federal and state criminal databases. That's federal law, some States are more restrictive.
I wait for the day, when someone goes to US Supreme Court with complain about 'government confiscating his 155 mm artillery piece'.
After all, 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about type of armament you are allowed to carry. If the 'meaning of founding fathers' is considered, then it is muzzle-loading muskets which are only allowed weapon. If on the other hand you decide that people are allowed to use something more deadly, then (by US constitution) anything up the the nukes should be fair game. [Which would truly eliminate all the potential problems in the entire country. And the country itself.]
People always show their intelligence when they fail to read an article thoroughly and then start pissing and moaning about it.
First off, as stated above, they arent just handing guns to every buyer who signs a contract, like it were a bag of popcorn. they arent even the ones distributing the guns, they've worked out a deal with a local gunshop, which handles the actual transaction including all screening and reporting requirements.
Second off, they are giving buyers a voucher for $250, which when redeemed will cover the cost of many lower quality guns offered by the gunshop, or that $250 can be applied to the buyers weapon of choice.
Having an armed public does impact the crime rate, in 1992 Arizona passed a "shall issue" concealed weapons bill and targeted the advertising campaign towards women due to increasing violent crimes against women, many women took advantage of the training, got the permit and started packing, by 1996 violent crimes against women had dropped dramatically. recently the state has seen an increase in violent home invasions, so they passed a home defense bill that instituted a shoot first ask questions later policy and placed the burden of proof on law enforcement to prove the shooter has broken the law, instead of the shooter having to prove they were in danger, the bill also removed the requirement to retreat before you shoot. guess what, violent home invasions in Arizona have dropped by over 70%.
I absolutely advocate the second amendment, and i exercise it. As someone stated above, if you put myself, my family or my friends in harms way, i WILL shoot you, there is recovered drug addict missing half a lung somewhere in this state will attest to that statement. 2 years after i pulled the trigger on him as he was beating my sister with a rake, he sent me a letter, he said that incident changed his life, he realized he was lucky to be alive and that on the path he was heading down he probably wouldnt be around much longer. he said pulled his head out of his ass, stopped doing drugs, went through anger management, got a job and became a productive member of society. he also said he didnt think i would actually shoot him, in my reply, i told him, i cant believe i missed, i was aiming for center mass, i must have jerked the trigger. who says guns dont solve anything...
Mines the one with the HK emblem on the shoulder and powder burns on the sleeves...
"And remember, we loaned y'all a lot of firearms back in the early 40's, just in case Hitler decided to cross the Channel, because, surprise, surprise, nobody being allowed to own guns= unarmed citizenry in time of need. Too bad you didn't learn your lesson, and worse yet, YOU DIDN'T SEND THE DAMNED THINGS BACK!"
These sorts of "what about when we saved your butt in the war" posts always bemuse me, partially because they are usually illogically and incorrectly presented, partially because they are irrelevant to anything, and partially because they are a little economical with the truth.
Britain was given huge helping hand with Lend-lease, but it was a loan. It provided a life-line when British industry was stretched. But a stretch it also is to say that Hitler planned to invade the UK because nobody had a gun at home. I'd be keen on seeing some evidence for such a claim, otherwise we'll just accept it for the nonsense it is.
And we'll also note that in rural England guns were, and are, not uncommon, and that secondly the primary weapons of the British soldier in WW2 were the Lee Enfield, the Sten gun and the Bren Gun....all British.
> And remember, we loaned y'all a lot of firearms back in the early 40's, just in case Hitler decided to cross the Channel, because, surprise, surprise, nobody being allowed to own guns= unarmed citizenry in time of need. Too bad you didn't learn your lesson, and worse yet, YOU DIDN'T SEND THE DAMNED THINGS BACK!
Leased, and we only finished paying for them last year. Anyway, we still haven't finished with them yet. We have a nice collection of (deactivated) lend and lease Enfield No.4's sitting in the local cadets armoury for rifle drill.
if it is the people who legally carry firearms in the states who are responsible for the murders and mayhem, or if it is the crazies?
Remember that we also have quite a lot of gun crime over here in England, despite the draconian laws regarding possession of firearms. That being the case, I don't think that we can be as self-righteous and condescending as some people are.
@greg "YOU DIDN'T SEND THE DAMNED THINGS BACK!" - I think you will find that the USA got paid for them. Failing that, I think you can probably accept that the virtual gift of the Jet engine, which our dick-head government of the time sold the patents or licence to the USA for the princely sum of 2m GBP, is more than enough compensation. :)
No icon cos I can't be arsed with them
And remember, we loaned y'all a lot of firearms back in the early 40's, just in case Hitler decided to cross the Channel, because, surprise, surprise, nobody being allowed to own guns= unarmed citizenry in time of need. Too bad you didn't learn your lesson, and worse yet, YOU DIDN'T SEND THE DAMNED THINGS BACK!
First up the Lend Lease Act didnt happen till March 1941. Before that the Brits either paid the USA for weapons in gold or traded permanent leases on military bases for them (like Bermuda).
The terms of the Lend Lease Act specified that the weapons had to be either returned to America or dumped at the end of the war. When the USA terminated the act in 1945 they didnt want the weapons back. The Brits did what they were told under the terms of the act & all those lend lease weapons went straight to the bottom of the sea or were otherwise destroyed in situ.
"Nope, the vast majority of gun crime occurs in the inner cities with illegally possessed and carried handguns. But anyone who points that out is automatically 'racist', regardless of color and the statistics, because that's what the Brady Bill crowd want you to believe."
Did you ever think why it is so easy to illegally possess a gun ? If guns where forbidden it would also be a lot more difficult to obtain them illegally I think.
At those legally bought guns have to go somewhere some day and I doubt they are all returned/decommissioned/melted down.
sometimes it does not hurt to think
there are lies, damn lies and statistics
To be shot, or to be stabbed?
I am told by people from the US that part of the reason we Europeans have so many rude people is that we don't all carry guns here.They live in a polite society and we live in a repressed one.
I would rather deal with bad manners than guns. If someone decides to mug me, I would rather he did it with a knife. Any idiot can kill someone with a gun. Kives take practice or a degree of ability/luck...
Number of people killed by automobiles in the USA: 43,005
Number of people killed by firearms in the USA: 28,663
These are all deaths regardless of intent. Numbers are a little on the stale side, being from 2002, but I think stats for both may exist up to '05. Never the less, it would seem that owning a gun purchased with the certificate might actually prove safer than driving on the fuel from the gas card.
(What follows is a piece of humor, based on an oft referenced but little confirmed bit of history, neither the spelling nor the situation are an attempt at serious historical parody.)
Com down to Arther's Fyne Carte Emporeeum for ourr Crosbowes An Cabages prommotional! Due to a resent decision by the Pope regarding the usse of crosbowes, we havv decided to offer you the choyse of eyther onne free crosbowe or 20 of our fynest cabages with the purchas of any new or usid
carte! Horry, suplys are limted!
(I'm going to hell aren't I...)
If you have a gun, you're not a Christian, end of topic. The founder (you know, that Christ guy) specifically outlawed violence as a method of solving any problem, including very specifically violence itself.
Being a Christian means, amongst other things: not owning guns or other weapons, not being in the military, not using violence in any way against your enemies, forgiving those who attack you. Because, in the end, they're going to Hell and the objective here is not to let them take you with them.
Amazing how a nation so convinced of its Christian values has so few of them.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
Throw back to the times of marauding Englishmen...
Makes me feel a little queasy after thinking about this; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_related_attacks
"In ten years leading up to the Port Arthur massacre, insane males were regularly, like once a year on average, grabbing their military weapons and slaughtering strangers. Since the bans, no insane male rampages have occurred."
Ah, this is true; however, is it really because of the ban?
Think about it. New Zealand, much like Australia, had many gun massacres perpetrated by insane individuals in the late 80s and early 90s. However, like Australia, they have not had a single high-profile massacre since 1996. The thing is, they never banned semi-automatic shotguns and rifles like Australia.
Why, then, were there no more massacres there, despite the fact that they have gun laws similar to some states of the United States?
I'm an Australian, and a shooting enthusiast. I enjoy target shooting, and have membership in a gun club. I am a perfectly sane individual who would never dare turn his firearm on an innocent human being. However, while I do agree with certain aspects of Australian gun law, such as the idea of mandatory licensing, prerequisite safety courses and comprehensive background checks, I do believe the laws here may have gone a bit too far in other areas.
Consider semi-automatic rifles and shotguns. While a number of these types of firearms which were prohibited in 1996 were military-style weapons such as the AR-15 and AK-47, many were sporting-style firearms with perfectly legitimate uses for licensed sporting and target shooters, like the Ruger Mini-14.
These are ordinary-looking firearms with no fancy folding stocks or anything and only low-capacity magazines - it's kind of hard to go on a rampage with 5 rounds, eh? Though I'm not so certain about relegalising military-style firearms any time soon, I honestly would not mind it if sporting-style, low-capacity firearms were relegalised for ordinary target shooters.
As for this story... Eh. It's a pretty good marketing tactic, I'll give them that. While I'd be cautious dispensing guns willy-nilly, I don't have any problems if it is conducted through the proper channels (for example - the advertisement states that a background check will be necessary for the free firearm, so hopefully not too many of these firearms will fall into the hands of vicious criminals).
Even if you have no desire to shoot it for target practice or self defense, people should KNOW how to clear and secure a loaded weapon. I've since sold off all my weapons, in order to pay for my real passion, photography. But, even when I did, my family members (most of whom don't like guns) all knew how to chamber and clear a round, AND make the gun safe, by removing any ammunition clips.
As one poster mentioned, the vast majority of gun crimes are not committed by CCW permitted citizens, or people who are serious about target shooting or hunting. 99% of the time, gun crimes are committed by people who have obtained weapons illegally.
I live in a relatively small community, and have many friends in the local police department. I've been in their evidence vault, working on things and have had quite a number of conversations regarding about the confisgated weapons from drug crimes. And of the relatively few that do have serial numbers, every one has been reported stolen and was in the posession of someone who wasn't the registered owner OR the weapons had their serial numbers removed...
I really don't care what others opinions of firearms are, but people should definitely know how to secure one, until it can be delivered to the proper authorities.
I haven't seen the headline lately
"Insane male goes on murderous stabbing, bat, fist rampage, kill dozens, severely maims dozens" have you?
Insane males still exist, they just find it harder to kill multiple innocents.
Should be obvious, ya numnut.
"You fail to mention that the insane male obtained the weapons illegally."
Your point is? Does this statement have a point? Didn't think so.
Mines the cammo hunting jacket, off to hunt some game to feed my wife and chilun.
It's very nice to see some rational points being made on a thread about guns, usually such an emotive subject.
As a brit I would take exception to us all living during a complete ban on firearms, this is simply not true, however those controlled are slowly being chipped away at even now with bans of certain types of air weapon the most recent (that I know of)
I would like to point out that ALL laws that ban things are usually inaffective at best, have a contrary affect at worst... for example who owns all of the handguns in the UK at the moment? I would suggest criminals and the government (probably in that order) and of course that particular knee jerk law could have been avioded by actually enforcing the existing laws.(often the case, look at mobile use in cars for example, I still see dozens of f*ckwits on their phones every day)
Humans are fairly complex beasts (even the most stupid of us) and simple responses never catch more than a minority of situations wich is probably why huge swathes of us in the UK don't particularly like speed cameras for example.
Any now I suggest you all take a listen to "If you tolerate this" (yes I know the're welsh but...), answers on a postcard to:- The Occupior, 10 Downing Street, London.
Anonymous because I have carried a handgun, legally I might add, so that everyone doesn't have too.(unless they really, really want one)
Here's a little inconvenient truth (one actually backed up by scientific data rather than just dreamt up by a failed VP) - you are more likely to be mugged as a unit head of population in many British towns than ANY area of America. In certain areas of the UK (London, Nottingham, and Manchester) you are MORE likely to be a victim of guncrime as a unit head of population than ANY American city. All this despite a useless piece of New Labour knee-jerk legislation that supposedly banned handguns in the UK, with handgun crime rising THREEFOLD since. As a law-abiding Briton that liked a bit of handgun plinking down at the range I was most annoyed to be labeled a "likely violent criminal" and have my harmless past-time made illegal. Of course, I still have my Shotgun and Fire Arm Certs, both of which allow me to legally keep and use weapons far more deadly than the Kel-Tec .380 mentioned.
Numerous polls of criminals in the States have shown again and again that what criminals involved in violent crime fear most is running into a "victim" with the training and ability to use a gun, as it massively reduces the criminal's chance of getting out of the encounter alive. Having unarmed victims is so much easier for them. Many criminals admitted just an NRA sticker on a car made them less likely to try stealing it. Unfortunately, as the Tony Martin case shows, defending yourself against criminals is more of a crime here in the UK.
And Obama's statement was made to a San Fran "rich club" gathering, where he was trying to drum up campaign cash by playing up to rich Dummicrat perceptions of "poor white trash" in Pennsylvania. Obama was using the statement to label the average rural Pennsylvanian a racist as a means to explain his lack of success compared to Hillary Clinton in such areas, whilst conveniently dodging the fact that his overwhelming success in black areas is even more overt racism. Strange that his team (especially his wife) are so happy to play the race card....
"It's a hell of a lot easier to ban guns in Britain and Australia than it is to ban them in America. You have no land borders at all."
The strength of this argument is born out completely by the fact that neither republican or loyalist paramilitaries were able to get their hands on military grade assault weapons in Northern Ireland. Where there is a will (read profit), there is a way.
I am an Australian ex-pat living in Britain who has travelled extensively throughout the US. In over 10 years of travelling throughout the worl,d only twice have I ever felt truely scared for my life: walking around the streets of New Orleans, and standing in the main corridor of a highschool in Missouri.
I must say I felt completly reassured when the teacher I was visiting there came up with this little bit of trivia after my expressing reservations for my safety: "Oh don't worry, there is only one kid in the school who might go on a rampage. And we expelled him last week."
"guns are fine. ... I've lived in Texas my whole life and I've never been shot."
Who's up for betting that this guy always shot first - a la "..... and let god sort them out" style!
Seriously though, no intelligent person would make a judgement based on a sample size of n=1, that from a population of >>> 1.
Hello, ESR. :)
He's right, though, apart from the usual posturing about martial arts and shooting folk. You do not use guns or martial arts in an attempt to intimidate people and make yourself look superior. Someone needs to read a little more on the traditional martial arts, particularly the usual "Do not try to be humble. BE humble." guidance and variants of the same. Quiet competence and simple humility speak louder than words.
The point is that taking away the right to have a firearm is just creating a disparity of strength between the criminals who don't care (anyone from Manchester here? I worked there for a while and a word of advice: Never use the toilets in Piccadilly station if you want to get home with your wallet) and the general public.
So, to go against true Brit form and whine without a solution, here's mine: Allow householders with no criminal record a permit to have a single firearm in the master bedroom in a locked and sealed gun cabinet after mandatory training (you may want to upgrade that bedroom's door to something a little more substantial with a decent lock to give you time to remove the firearm and load it in a worst-case scenario). Make it an offence to remove it from that cabinet unless you're in fear of your life and promise spot checks on the seal and counts of the ammunition. It's a powerful deterrent, forces the owner to make a judgement call before the firearm is available to use for loss of temper, gives clear rules about justifying use and could save a few lives to boot. Of course, you'd have to return the right of a householder to defend his or her property but that should never have been taken away in the first place.
One minor detail: If your burglars/assailants are fleeing, even if they have something of yours in their hands, it is NOT acceptable to shoot them in the back or cause any other injury. You have repelled the threat to your life. Simple property is not a justification to use lethal force. Protection of life is the extent of the firearm's duty. This should be stressed over and over in the mandatory training.
AC: Could this same story have happened in Britain, just replacing "gun" with "cricket bat"? You bet it could have.
Absolutely. And the point is that the gun made it potentially worse. Maybe not on this occasion, but it's easier to kill with a gun than a bat, and it needs more courage to use a bat because you have to get closer, and it's easier to defend against too. People getting angry and lashing out happens everywhere, but if they have a gun to hand a minor brawl becomes a fatality.
`All those people in the Midwest, you've got to have compassion for them because they're clinging to their guns and their Bibles.'
Well I do have compassion for them. You can put your faith in the Bible and you can put your faith in a gun, you know where you are with both (preferably holding them) unlike Obama and Clinton and the guy on the other side who's going to lose and politicians in general, you have no idea where they will lead you next. In the case of the USA, probably Iran or into an economic depression.
And since when making something illegal actually stop it happening? Murder has been illegal in the UK and it still happens. Handguns are illegal in the UK but gun crime is rampant in parts of the UK. Driving without licence and insurance is illegal, but it still goes on. The attutude in the UK is simply this, "It's only illegal if you get caught" and getting caught is harder to achieve.
"There are a lot of very dangerous things in the world. Bats..."
Here in the UK we have laws that protect Bats against that sort of thing , sniff !
"As a Yank myself " , dont worry , its perfectly natural...
"just arm yourself, so at least you can meet the threat on equal footing?"
Cheers for that "Final Thought" . Fear is the mind killer after all huh?
Don't think Gore Vidal would post as an AC so let me guess ? you're channeling
Brig Gen Jack D Ripper ..........
Please note this is not a criticism of the US of A , its just a general and personal unwillingness to be patronised by crypto fascist psychopaths, who , oddly , always seem to be a bit keen on their hardware , we have plenty of those in the UK already from all sorts of cutural and ethnic backgrounds , .........nice.
To introduce a little "perspective" a culture where carrying a gun is felt to be necessary in order to feel safe , is a culture ILL with fear ( i use "ill" in the medical sense ). There has been NO misunderstanding "my friend" , Salut!
You did sed:
> I seem to remember that while the number of "Gun Crimes" went down, the overall violent crime numbers went up.
You'd do well to get your facts from somewhere other than NRA panhandling videos... I still can't believe the Australian government didn't sue the arse out of them for lost tourism revenue over that one.
Just to remove any ambiguity, yes, that means that violent crime in Australia, much like anywhere else in the developed world, is either flat-lining, or is in a very slow decline, regardless of what the tabloid press shriek about from their front pages.
> we loaned y'all a lot of firearms back in the early 40's, just in case Hitler decided to cross the Channel, because, surprise, surprise, nobody being allowed to own guns= unarmed citizenry in time of need.
Yes, because civilians with double-barrel shotguns and revolvers would've done a hell of a lot of good against tanks and artillery, wouldn't they?
Thanks, however, for reinforcing the idea of gunsturbators as fantasists who subscribe to the idea that governments, both their own and foreign, factor civilian gun ownership into their decision-making and go, "Oh, they have guns. We better not push them around too much or they'll snap and we'll have a guerilla war on our hands." For an illustration of how a hostile civilian populace with pervasive small-arms ownership is treated by a government with a conventional modern army, see Gaza and the impunity with which Israel takes out AK-waving beardos using UAV's and whatnot.
As in any democracy you will find people who object to just about any law. And naturally sports shooters are going to be a little unhappy with the tight restrictions on gun ownership, however, i can tell you the VAST majority of people in Australia are incredibly happy that we have not had to endure any massacres since port arthur.
If a few people have to be inconvenienced (but not actually stopped owning sports weapons) in order to prevent another Port Arthur then i dont think you'll find too many concientious objectors.
As for the states, you havent got a hope in hell of banning guns because you've got too many as it is. About the only way i can see that you would improve the situation is if you made it a) illegal for anyone with so much as a parking ticket to own a weapon, b) anyone who commits any crime whatsoever loses any guns they currently own, c) anyone who has committed a crime and who is found in possession of a gun is locked away for 1 year minimum d) Anyone who has a blood alcohol reading that would make it illegal for them to drive found in possession of a gun is lockied away for 1 year and loses all there guns. Maybe that would get a few guns off the street. Just maybe...
OK, I'm not bagging firearms ownership - I've own a fair few rifles and shotguns in my time and fired pistols at the local range, I live in New Zealand where there is some pretty hefty legislation in place regarding firearms but they are not impossible to legally obtain given a clean record and the ability to pass a firearms safety exam.
I do, however, have to wonder, every time someone in the US trots out the second amendment and says "our government cannot oppress us as we own firearms", exactly what the 2nd Amendment and firearms ownership have done to protect the public of the USA from the Patriot Act and other gross breaches of their Constitutional rights in recent years.
Seriously, guys, by all means buy firearms to protect yourselves and your families from armed intruders if you must (and for fuck's sake don't keep them in a "safe" that some teenager can prise the lid off (what was it made of, marzipan?) or in your side-table drawer) but please stop going on about how they "protect you and your Constitutional rights" from a despotic, corrupt and totalitarian government because evidence suggests they do no such things.
As to the Kel-Tec. Forget it. Use the $250 voucher as a discount voucher on a better firearm. Get $250 off the price your beloved Glock, Colt, S&W, Ruger, Walther or whatever - any brand new gun that's "a bit rough" out of the box and needs modifications is false economy when compared with more expensive, but better-made, firearms that need nothing more than ammunition "out of the box".
Better a $250 discount on a proper weapon than a "free" piece of crap, especially if you're planning on betting your life on it, else it's just like getting a cheap car that's "a bit rough off the showroom floor but just fine once you've fixed up the brakes and replaced the sharp spike in the middle of the steering wheel with a proper airbag"...
I wouldn't buy a crap firearm for hunting or target shooting (the only legal reasons to fire firearms here), let alone "personal protection" - which is why the names associated with my purchases in the past have been Anschutz, Miroku, Mossberg, Walther...
I'll leave you with that thought.
Coat, please... yes, the 3/4-length safari jacket with large-capacity pockets, leather patches on the elbows and Walther patch on the breast pocket...
"no guns, no bullets, no school shootings"
So how come adolescents in Manchester can get guns for £70 and kill fellow 13 year olds?
When you had a firearm certificate for handguns in the UK before His Tonyness outlawed them, the Police had right of access day or night to inspect your weapons, which should be kept in a locked steel gunbox, bolted securely to your house. Ammo to be kept seperately in a locked steel ammo box with rope handles (so you do not burn your hands on the box when removing ammo from a burning house).
At this time, the police knew where about 95% of all firearms were.
Remember that the Hungerford shootings were carried out with (amongst others) an AK47, which always was an illegal weapon, but most of the population went "oooh, Guns. Bad. Nasty. Ban All Leagally Held Guns Now And Stop All Crime".
Now, handguns are illegal, and it has never been easier to get a gun and ammo illegally in the UK, and violent crime with handguns (or other illegal weapons used for hunting or warfare) are on the rise.
oh well. At least His Tonyness got won his first election through this. For all the good it did the rest of the country.
I'm American. I don't have a gun, and don't want one. I've never even shot one. Nobody in my family has, AFAIK.
Guns are dangerous. The statistics say that if you have a gun in your home, you are much more likely to be shot either by accident or by a criminal defending himself from you. Or the kids will find the gun and shoot other kids or the neighbors. I say my TV is not worth getting shot over.
Flashing a gun at someone else on the freeway as a threat is insane. If someone drives offensively, they are probably also stupid enough to take up your threat and take a pot shot. Anyway, Darwin's law should take care of them soon enough.
A nation where everyone has a gun and isn't afraid to use it is not a safer place than one where nobody has a gun. Criminals can steal guns if everyone has one, if nobody has one then criminals will need to use a knife or club. I'd rather be stabbed or hit than shot, any day. And who heard of a drive-by knifing???
It takes a while to kill with a knife, and it's a mess. A gun is very simple and fast, and you don't have time to think or slow down. This may be a plus when you are fighting with a criminal, but not when you are fighting with your wife or a stupid driver. And how many times have you fought with a criminal and wanted to kill them? With your wife? It's too easy to kill when guns are around. And that's dangerous...
So not all americans are insane... Yes, from California. BTW, I don't live there, I live in Europe. Thank Buddha, or whoever :-)
"As the poster said earlier, If there are three guns per American obviously a lot of profits to be made and made by the gun manufacturers. Let me wonder?
Is there I strong pro gun lobby in Congress by those same manufacturers?
QED - The problem is not about guns, it is about greed and money."
Until gas went past $3/gal, the single SUV assembly plant nearest me had more volume and profit than the entire US gun industry, including ammo and imports. We're not quite to 3 per--If I remember right, it's just under 1 per, with about half of households having at least one.
"It's a hell of a lot easier to ban guns in Britain and Australia than it is to ban them in America. You have no land borders at all. "
Apart from he one with the Republic of Ireland you mean? You know, the one which the IRA smuggled all those weapons those St Paddys Day parades in Boston bought and paid for.across.
Sorry, I believe you are misinterpreting me. I am humble, just not when it comes to someone inflicting harm on myself or those I care about. Martial arts (those of asian origins anyways) also teach you to protect those who are incapable of protecting themselves, as well as to have self confidence and maintain a level head to think through a situation before taking action. My martial arts statement was merely suggesting that I would pursue less lethal options before resorting to such an act as pulling a gun and firing on someone. I believe this should be the thought process of anyone who carries such power. All I'm saying, is that if I came up against someone who obviously had more training than myself, it's nice to know that I have a backup plan.
OK, I've got a fun question for all the folks out there who are absurdly scared of guns for no reason:
Why should a woman be denied the natural right to defend herself by any means possible, in this case with a pistol, if she's about to be raped? What should she do in the UK or Australia? I'm assuming your police haven't mastered the art of teleportation yet, so they're probably at least 5 minutes away. You're saying that she should just accept being raped because nanny government doesn't think she should defend herself? I mean, you've gotten to the point where just beating on someone breaking into your house is criminal. The first poster who can articulate why a woman should be raped rather than carry a gun to defend herself will have the singular honor of causing me to go melt down all of my guns - Glock and AK-47 chief among them - and join a drum circle.
The gun is the great equalizer. How else can an old man defend himself from a gang of youths? You want to know why that whole happy slapping phenomenon hasn't crossed the Atlantic? Because I don't have to sit there and take something like that here. If you try to attack the wrong person, you're going to get shot, which is as it should be. No-one has the right to infringe on another person's daily life through violence or theft. Yes there are bad people with guns, but that appears to still be quite true, and now basically exclusive, in the UK, island and all (I found the argument about no land borders a tad silly, smuggling is like piracy, you're not going to stop it). The difference is that here I can at least defend myself legally. That's all I ask for. I often carry my Glock openly, and I can assure you it's avoided trouble in at least some instances where shady-looking fellows at gas stations have approached me, noticed the gun, and turned right around and walked away. I don't seek to have to shoot anyone, and generally the mere presence of a gun is enough to defuse a situation, but I'm not afraid to either.
It really pains me to see great countries that have been our allies in the darkest moments of history reduced to having populaces unable to defend themselves. I've got a great idea - I don't really have any desire to go somewhere I can't carry a gun, so I'll stay over <<< here and you guys stay over >>> there (or down there, sorry Oz I don't seem to have a down arrow) and we'll see what happens as your countries more and more resemble A Clockwork Orange. I'm not saying all is rosy here, the Patriot Act is a mess, and while I'm generally a Republican (not exclusively, for anyone who knows American politics I'll point out I voted for Republicans, Democrats AND Libertarians in 2006) I do hope the Democrats manage to strike that down, without trying another assault weapons ban (should be possible as many of the recently-elected Dems are of the Southern Democrat, AKA I'm only not a Republican because my grandaddy was a Democrat, variety), when they inevitably win in November.
If you managed to slog through all that, please try to answer my first question.
>I wait for the day, when someone goes to US Supreme Court with complain about 'government confiscating his 155 mm artillery piece'.
I'd like a Civil War 9 pounder, thanks.
>After all, 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about type of armament you are allowed to carry. If the 'meaning of founding fathers' is considered, then it is muzzle-loading muskets which are only allowed weapon. If on the other hand you decide that people are allowed to use something more deadly, then (by US constitution) anything up the the nukes should be fair game. [Which would truly eliminate all the potential problems in the entire country. And the country itself.]
POI - you guys had the smooth-bore muskets, we were the ones with the rifles that could pot a lobster-back at over 100 yards distance, your lot wore bright colors and stood around in nice even lines, our boys stayed out of sight and it would have been a cold day in hell before you got 'em to march around in formations.
Anyone who thinks old tech means toothless is mistaken. I hunt deer during the black powder / Bow & arrow special season and either of my two reproduction 45 cal Kentucky rifles (one cap & ball, the other a flintlock with double set triggers - base load is 180 gr minne ball and 200 gr of FFG black powder) will do a perfectly good job of dropping a buck out around 150 or so yards.
I would imagine that the sticking point on an own-yer-own-nuke would be getting the fissionables - well, and that inconvenient ionizing radiation thingie.
"Even if you have no desire to shoot it for target practice or self defense, people should KNOW how to clear and secure a loaded weapon. I've since sold off all my weapons, in order to pay for my real passion, photography. But, even when I did, my family members (most of whom don't like guns) all knew how to chamber and clear a round, AND make the gun safe, by removing any ammunition clips."
Before handling a new weapon you need a good 5 minutes tuition in the gun on loading, clearing jams, dismantling and reassembling. Not sure if any of your family had a new weapon any of them would be safe in removing the ammunition clip (especially for a revolver).
"Why should a woman be denied the natural right to defend herself by any means possible, in this case with a pistol, if she's about to be raped? What should she do in the UK or Australia? I'm assuming your police haven't mastered the art of teleportation yet, so they're probably at least 5 minutes away. You're saying that she should just accept being raped "
If she produces a weapon then the assillant now has another weapon to use against her. You may not have happy slapping, but you do have drive bys, which are for the most part unknown here in UK.
No-one has metioned Switzerland, where every male of service age, has to be a member of the army (conscription is not voluntary) and then, when the term is finished is allowed home with an assualt rifle and ammunition. Not many crazy shootings in this country. One notice about the school shootings in the US, in a number of the cases there were other people around who were armed, but don't seemed to have stopped the killings. So being armed to stop someone assualting you doesn't seem to work that well, and in a home invasion situation the occupier is more likely to be shot just incase they have a gun.
Speaking as a Brit living in London, I am proud that we have a ban on handguns - it means that every shooting, whether it's a criminal or the police firing the guns, comes under the public scrutiny it deserves.
I'd hate myself if I was confronted with a news story of someone being shot at and I thought, "Everyone's carrying them, so what else is new?" Instead of, "Holy shit, that's terrible, how did this happen?!"
I despair at the thought of living in a society where it is generally accepted that the vast majority of law-abiding citizens can be tooled up - and I'm not just talking about the USA - I include any country where that can happen.
Weapons, whether they are guns, knives, billy clubs, or tasers are not the tools of a civilised society, and if your answer to that question (regardless of where you come from and that includes the UK) is, "our society isn't civilised," then congratulations on your self-damning indictment, now will you kindly piss off.
You're assuming the victim can shoot the assailant first. The reality is that a mugger (or rapist) will almost certainly get you first - every news item I've ever seen said that the perpetrator was lying in wait in an alleyway or bushes. I don't care if you're some highly-trained quick-draw expert - even if you're expecting it and have your gun in your hand, anyone can cross 10ft of empty space and deck you from behind with a baseball bat before you can turn and fire, and if your gun is in a holster under a zipped jacket then your mugger/rapist had better be presenting you with written warning about a week in advance. The mugger/rapist then has a victim *and* a gun, so the victim doesn't just get mugged/raped, they also get murdered. Nice.
Yes, there is indeed more violent crime in the UK than the US - around 25% more last time I looked, IIRC. It's particularly bad in "tribal" situations - youth gangs, or rival football outfits. But murders are orders of magnitude lower. In the UK, the fact that someone gets shot or stabbed is national headline news. In the US, unless there's a whole bunch of people shot then it's almost business-as-usual. I know which one I'd rather live with - and I'll choose the one where I *do* live.
Of course, I'd rather not be beat up at all, which is why I stay alert on the streets at night and constantly check corners and other people, taking detours or crossing the road if I feel there might be a risk. Most muggings and rapes happen when the victim does something stupid like going on their own through some dark alley; this doesn't make it their fault, of course, but self-defence lesson 1 is to avoid situations that make you a potential victim.
This post has been deleted by its author
gotta love the yanks attitudes to guns. 'i never shot anyone', 'i carry a gun everywhere', 'guns dont kill people', 'right to bear arms'
you still dont realise that places where guns are hard to get hold of dont have much gun crime.
the fact is america manages to kill FAR more people with guns than anyone else. and im not just speaking of the 'shoot first, questions later/oops friedly fire' military
the fact you all seen to carry guns creates a perpetual need to carry guns. i.e. crims have them to protect from the cops, cops have them to protect from the crims and joe bloggs has one 'just in case'
so, you all are armed yet we still see so many cases of shootings etc.
to then rest of the world you do seem nuts.
you are the only place that seems to have college killings, especially at such a level.
@Ah, yes, the Britons turn out in full force... By Greg
1) this is a british website - what did you expect?
2) yes you leant us guns. maybe if you had helped more during the war the world would be a better place? rather than coming late, in injury time, just for the fact that the US can then say they won the war. maybe you would deserve all the war films you make, rather than just pretending the yanks did all those things you seem to take credit for (such as stealing the enigma machine and the apparent 'american only' nature of D-day etc in US films)
and btw - we paid for those guns plenty of times over due to you lending us cash at ridiculous rates.
also you will find out that white guys shoot far more people than anyone else in the USA... unlike the news seems to suggest...
i love your history and news. i would love to see what other wars the US won accoring to your history? 100 years war? crimean?
@ skeptical i -
"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." -- Henry Mencken. - nice quote :)
you lot also dont seem to realise that the illegal guns come from legal ones. how many guns with filed off serials are used by gangs etc? but if nobody could get hold of guns then there wouldnt be so many legal ones waiting to be used for illegal activities.
anyone else think of the family guy sketch where the US gov was writing the constitution and someone says 'do you think they will get this bit about bear arms' , the camera pans and there are a load of arms belonging to brown type bears around the room :) (damn, AC beat me to it!)
im not even going to go into why so many americans feel the need to kill furry animals with big guns ("wow, arent i the man!")... i can only assume it has something to do with inadequacy somewhere :)
Of course people will kill people if they really want to (other one recently killed with a bit of window, ferfucksakes) but there's no need to make it easier for them if there's no other benefit. I suppose you could use a gun to shoot your door open if you lose your keys.
Umm about the UK being safe because of their gun laws?
Have you read this?
It's statistically proven that where more citizens legally own guns, crime rates are lower.
The facts are available for anyone with an open mind to find. Try the Department of Justice website for instance.
And Missouri that's MI not MA, was 20th on the list of firearms related deaths in 2007 according to this..
But hey, it's just eh internet so they could be making it all up anyway, right?
to be honest shooting someone with a gun is pretty easy compared to actually killing someone with a knife. a knife/blade requires an element of skill and balls since you have to be close to shiv someone in the vitals.
now, consider a gun. anyone can kill with a gun as long as they can squeeze a trigger and they can be at a cowardly distance.
of course i can walk up behind someone and stick 'em but guns give psychos access to hurt many more people and from beyond a melee distance away.
and as said before women arming themselves would only have a tiny chance of using their gun to help against an assaulter/rapist and would, most likely, just give the rapist another free weapon. if guns are so safe, and everyone carries them, how come you hardly ever hear about a gunman captured by a redneck/nra member?
cant you just be like good old england and learn to fight like a man :) 20 pints of stella (45 pints of US lager) and violence via the ancient art of fistycuffs - like seen up and down the country on a fri/sat night :( imagine if they had guns! <shudder>
or we look at chris rocks solution. guns can be cheap but bullets cost $1000 each! 'you sure as hell gotta hate a motherfucker to spend $1000 wasting them' or similar :)
RE: Clive Powell
"....One notice about the school shootings in the US, in a number of the cases there were other people around who were armed, but don't seemed to have stopped the killings...."
Columbine and Virginia Tech were both "gun-free zones" where students and staff were not allowed to bring firearms into the area. This concept is supposed to protect the students and staff, but the poor enforcement of the policy in both cases meant all it did was leave them unable to protect themselves despite some of the victims and witnesses being either firearm owners or regular users. Please check your facts before posting more rubbish.
"....I'd hate myself if I was confronted with a news story of someone being shot at and I thought, "Everyone's carrying them, so what else is new?" Instead of, "Holy shit, that's terrible, how did this happen?!...."
In 2003 I was in Atlanta when they had a fatal shooting in the downtown area. This crime was headline news for days, in a Southern State with plenty of guns, there being plenty of hand-wringing and discussion about how it could happen. During the same period in the UK there were several shootings and stabbings which barely made the news. A friend does travel insurance and he can quote you the exact figures for the risk to your person of traveling just about anywhere in the World, and the US is waaaaaay down on the list, actually lower than just about anywhere in Europe, because you are statisticly speaking safer in the States. So put your prejudice aside and help Clive with his fact finding, you probably both need help reading anything other than the Daily Mirror (try doing the reading without moving your lips).
where do you think most illegally posessed guns come from? do you honestly think that anyone that can smuggle 4 million illegal immigrants in two years, tons of pot and millions of dollars of cocaine, would have ANY TROUBLE AT ALL smuggling in a few crates of weapons to PROTECT THEIR BUSINESS?
The AK was illegal to buy/sell/trade for a long time, and still is illegal in CA except for law enforcement. But there are still MORE AK type assault rifles than there were BEFORE the ban. Not the same amount, redistributed, or "stolen" as the anti-gun agitprops claim. MORE. which means MORE came in when they were ILLEGAL EVERYWHERE.
If that isn't enough, the FBI has some excellent statistics based on years of real research into real crimes as they actually happened, not the kumbaya world of what some people think/believe/feel/wish/dream/hope about.
The AK is a status symbol. To posess one in a gang means you have the connections directly with smugglers, or work with someone important enough who can give 'em to his "soldiers". The FBI shows that among criminal gangs the numbers of illegally imported and illegal to own weapons has not been affected by bans-only street price increased, making them "desirable" to the thug set.
Who do bans affect? Law abiding people. Should be obvious now but the anti-gun religion cannot be affected by logic, reason, or even years of research by law enforcement. Nor can it be affected by the admissions of gang members and criminals themselves. They can spit on anti-gun legislation and laugh as they claim all anti-2nd amendment types are their b*tches.
Just some info an American would like to share:
Number of times I've called 911 for a potential violent emergency: 3
Number of police who responded to those three calls: 0
Now you might of recently heard about the murder of a Philadelphia police sergeant. And the following cries for more anti-gun legislation. You might be inclined to think that the crime problem in the U.S. is due to handguns.
Well it's not!
The three men involved in that murder have a combined criminal rap sheet 26 pages in length. The trigger man has 13 accounts of illegal possession of a firearm. The issue is not guns in America. But rather liberal judges & prosecuting attorneys who refuse to keep these criminals in jail.
The question is not, where did these criminals get a gun to shoot a police officer. But rather, why were they not in prison at the time?
> What about the 7 day waiting period?
No Federal requirement for waiting period.
> What if the "customer" is a convict, and still insists on the gun?
Then when they take the coupon to get a free gun. They will fail the background check.
Headstar - "Mr. Muller is exactly the type of person that helps propagate the notion of merkins as guntoting jingoistic assholes. May one of the guns he's assisting to peddle end up in a serious crime where it can be traced back to him." Who's evil here? Mr. Muller or you wishing harm?
Chah H. - "at least here in the uk you only need to be worried about gettng shot by the police, and then, only if your brazillian and skipping paying for the tube." Really, I thought most of your cops were unarmed? I guess you have no murders since you have banned guns for citizens?
Coward - "I am glad to be an Australian citizen, a nation that had the sense and courage, to ban assault weapons and massively tightened gun laws nationwide, after a mentally deranged man slaughtered in cold blood 38 innocent strangers in Tasmania."
And if your people had been armed, there would of been people to stop said mentally deranged man. I will love to know what you'd say when it happens again, and guns are all banned.
Eric - "Is a society in which citizens feel the need to leave the house tooled up a healthy one?"
Nope, ... but in an unhealthy society, I'd much rather have the right to protect myself.
Greg - "Did you ever think why it is so easy to illegally possess a gun ? If guns where forbidden it would also be a lot more difficult to obtain them illegally I think."
Well, you think wrong!!! Because a great number of firearms are illegal to the general public. When gangs are shooting each other with Uzi's. It's clear they got their guns from Walmart, right? No wait, fully automatic rifles are not available to the average public. You need a special license / registration to possess them. They're very well tracked.
Rober Long the Uneducated One - "If you have a gun, you're not a Christian, end of topic. " Right, and he neither commanded his disciples to have a sword. Nor chased out the sleazeballs in the temple with a whip. What he said, was actually in relation to "pride". (ie: if insulted when slapped on the cheek, turn the cheek). He never opposed self-defense nor defending of one's nation. However, he did say "for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." Which does caution on one's end.
Phil Hare - "what do you think the world would look like now?"
About the same. Though I imagine history would record a few additional names along side Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
lglethal - "a) illegal for anyone with so much as a parking ticket to own a weapon,"
Yeah, thanks, I'd rather start a revolution than live under the rule of a Brit like you.
Jon Tucker - ""protect you and your Constitutional rights" from a despotic, corrupt and totalitarian government because evidence suggests they do no such things."
That may be proved out in time. We shall see.
Coward - "The statistics say that if you have a gun in your home, you are much more likely to be shot either by accident or by a criminal defending himself from you."
I've heard that often quoted, but I believe there is no data to substantiate that statement.
"A nation where everyone has a gun and isn't afraid to use it is not a safer place than one where nobody has a gun"
True, but since we're incapable of the latter. The first is far better than a nation where a handful of police too far to reach you in time of need and the criminals are the only ones equipped with firearms.
"It takes a while to kill with a knife, and it's a mess. "
Actually, it is extremely quick if you know how. It's really more the advantage that a knifing tends not to also kill innocent by-standers.
- "2nd amendment doesn't say anything about type of armament you are allowed to carry."
Actually it does. It references arms. This is different than artillary, or squad ordinance (ie: cannons, mortars, machine guns, etc).
- Clive Powell "You have knowledge of every gun....[need to know a gun to check chamber]"
Funny, I just checked the chamber on 1/2 dozen firearms. I neither needed 5 minutes nor training. Mind you this ranged from a number of handguns to SRS & AR-15s. I've never had much experience handling rifles, and definitely not those that most would incorrectly term assault rifles. It was pretty easy to figure them out. I'd say my experience with a pistol carried over to pretty much all the semi-auto pistols and rifles.
"If she produces a weapon then the assillant now has another weapon to use against her. "
How's that? Not if she is properly trained.
"school shootings in the U.S., number of cases people around were armed but didn't stop the killings"
A couple of points. In most of those cases, like Columbine, they were police officers. Further evidence for personal need of firearms. Secondly, there have been cases of school shootings being stopped by law-abiding gun owners. In fact, one was in Virginia around the same time as VirginiaTech. But you don't hear about that. Because liberal media is not keen on showing that law abiding gun ownership does work.
Liam - "also you will find out that white guys shoot far more people than"
Though I am not sure I buy you quote. There are more white guys than any other. So that should be the case statistically.
Lastly, ditch the Keltec and get the Ruger LPC. Ruger is sturdier and has a safety.
The funny thing here is that I suspect many Reg readers would be the tpes to bag the US for cultural imperialism - and what these self same Reg readers are doing is for want of a better term laughin at the US's culture, just because it is not the same as UK culture.
Whats more amusing is that the Reg and its readers are known to be anti Nanny state - but when a non nanny state doesnt behave the same as their own nanny state they moan.
I wish I could say incredible, but its not, its totally credible and pedictable.
"Coward - "I am glad to be an Australian citizen, a nation that had the sense and courage, to ban assault weapons and massively tightened gun laws nationwide, after a mentally deranged man slaughtered in cold blood 38 innocent strangers in Tasmania."
If he had not have had access in the first place to "military style weapons", legal or illegally, he wouldn't have caused the carnage he did. He used "military style weapons", weapons designed to kill, kill lots and lots, or severely maim humans in close quartets etc, not drop a beast with a single accurate shot from long range.
Even after the bans, buy-back and destruction of guns, we still have some types guns legally available here in Oz. I am fine with that. It is just a lot harder to get a license and you have to prove a legitimate need to own one to the law, to weed out the phyco's.
So far an overwhelming majority of Aussie's fell the new guns are just brilliant!
One thing I know for sure. A lot of you gun nuts would have trouble getting a gun license in my country. Your attitude to weapons is scary to a lot of peace loving folk. I am just glad that there is a country like the USA where all the gun fantasists can get off on your weaponophillia and leave the rest of us to live in peace, without the constant threat of drive-bys etc.
Also locking them up in "crime college" is just plain stupid, stupid, stupid!!
How about spending some time and money on REHABILITATION while you have them inside? Sorry rehab is only for naughty drug-upped celebs, not for disadvantaged, dangerous criminals, in a USA context.
Paris, cause she would always know I wouldn't have a gun in my pocket, I was just glad to see her.
........if the offer of a handgun or free fuel was the better option? We seem to have gone off on one, so to speak.
That never, normally happens on The Register.
Here's another angle - Which will kill more people? Burning the free fossil fuel or cousin Enus and his 9mm going on a rampage?
There we haven't ranted about the green issue yet.
Before you go accusing me of being prejudiced, note that I was referring to anywhere in the world, not just the USA - try doing the reading without moving your lips - to quote some witty chap you may know.
Oh, and you wanted some facts, didn't you? Ok, here you are:
Gun homicide rate per 100,000 people each year:
USA - 3.92
England and Wales - 0.10
Source: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, from the most recent year available, via gun-control-network.org
Now there are lies, damn lies, and statistics, so I won't go relying too much on them, but I was pleased to find a source that was neither the UK Home Office nor the US Department of Justice.
Still, what these particular figures indicate is that statistically you are more likely to be killed by a gun in the US, than in England and/or Wales.
Is your travel insurance friend aware of this?
All this aside, I've been to the USA (albeit pre-9/11 by about a month, and I don't know how much life in the country has changed since then, if at all) and I can honestly say I didn't feel any less safe than I do in the U.K., although seeing hunting rifles for sale in WalMart creeped me out a bit.
Eric claims that he never goes into the city of Philadelphia without his gun. The only time I ever found myself on the wrong end of a gun I was stopped at a traffic light in Philadelphia when two guys jumped out of a car behind me and pointed their guns at the car next to me. It turns out that they were plain clothes cops, but I hate to think what might have happened if anyone had started shooting.
The city of Philadelphia is currently trying to pass laws requiring that gun owners report when their guns are lost or stolen (you know, some responsibilities to go with the rights?) The NRA have taken the city to court to prevent this.
I have on my desk a copy of a page from a "coupon magazine" published by a company called "Hometown American Values", for a town just outside Philadelphia (a major East Coast city, not the Mid West).
The page has 3 ads:
1) a quarter page ad for "Jamisons Beverages", with 3 $2 coupons for Bud Lite, Miller Lite and Coors Lite.
2) a quarter page ad for "In Site Fireams and Law Enforcement Supplies" for $20 off any shotgun
3) a half page ad for the Riverside Cemetry offering "two Grave Lots - side by side" for $27.70/month, and $150 a monument.
Beer, guns and graves - real Hometown American Values!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020