FFS: Incest and Guns, only in Utah
Hey Ma, can I shoot something?
Sure honey, don't shoot your sister as she's your Dad's wife
Incest a game the whole family can play, now with added gun powder and velocity!
Utah is poised to adopt the classic Browning M1911 semi-automatic as its official "state gun", in honour of native John Browning who invented the weapon in 1911. The proposal to add the M1911 to Utah's roster of approved symbols, including state cooking pot and state folk dance*, "breezed" through a House Political …
This post has been deleted by its author
Don't forgot Utah is the scam central of the USA (Mormon religion and culture is one giant pyramid scheme after all). Also don't forget Utah doesn't have a state lottery (their God doesn't like gambling) but the casinos on the border between Nevada and Utah do very brisk business. Like they say the best way to keep a Mormon out of your beer is to invite another Mormon over (Utah also has state liquor stores that take down your drivers license when you buy liquor, but of course not to check against the church rooster). After 150 years isn't it no longer a cult especially with a church council composed of lawyers and mbas managing the church's $100 billion war chest (Mormon bishops meet with each member every year to go over how much each member gave to the church).
When they asked me to give tithing... a 10% of my income (for the Lawds Grand Works), when I said, "Why yes - that is a splendid idea - I shall give 10% to the homeless shelter down the road, then I shall give 10% to the Salvation Army, and 10% to the local soup kitchen, and 10% to the community education services etc...."
Well you should have seen these pricks on their mission - have a shit-fit and turn purple... because....
What they really meant was "Giving 10% of my income TO THEM, so THEY can "Perform the Lawds Work".....
It was a fun game of "malicious conformity" and giving to the agents of the Lawd so they can perform their duties and WE CAN ALL SHARE in his blessings... (not just them and their heirarchical bullshit).
Mr. Gunn (Fnarr!) of the Gun Violence Prevention Center is a shill for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (Formerly Handgun Control, Inc.)
We don't need more laws to prevent crime- the ones we have are quite enough already.
Besides the 1911 is a marvel of engineering for it's time. I'm sure if Browning had access to modern technology, we'd see some really neat stuff.
John Browing not only created the 1911 pistol which is a true classic, he later went on to modify it as the Browing 'high power' fixing one of the few flaws in the 1911.
Then there is the BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle) which was supposed to be a 'trench broom' firing .30-06 rounds.
Clyde Barrow sawed down the BAR barrel to make it easier to tote and he used it against the Feds effectively. The BAR was introduced too late to have any impact in WWI. In WWII it was very effective as a squad automatic and was used in generating suppressive fire so that other platoon riflemen could advance and take the enemy out.
So yeah he was a true genius when it came to creating the right gun for the job.
As to the gun laws... remember kiddies, Chicago had/has the strictest gun laws and the highest gun violence because only criminals have guns.
- The 'trench broom' was the Thompson sub machine gun. The BAR is too long for use in confined spaces, and it only has a 20-round magazine.
- The BAR was widely hated by WWII soldiers because of its huge weight, its massive recoil & poor accuracy during automatic fire, its tiny 20-round magazine, and its susceptibility to jamming due to dirt / sand (really handy on D-day and on all those Pacific beach landings).
If you are going to wank yourself stupid thinking about massive weapons, at least get your facts right.
So how many WW2 soldiers did you talk with to get their opinions?
The browning was the SAW used to provide cover fire. A man portable .30-06. Same ammo as the GI toting an M1.
What was their other options? Ma Duce wasn't really man portable. And the .30 cal 'light' machine gun required a crew of at least 2 people to carry plus a third carrying the extra ammo.
As I said the BAR was effective in providing suppressive fire so squads could leap frog and take enemy positions.
Now granted my dad was in the 14th Armored and had a Sherman surrounding him (The brits called it a Tommy Cooker) so he got to see Europe in style...
Oh and yeah I said 'supposed to be a trench broom.' The point was that the war ended before the BAR could get to combat. You'd use the BAR to take out enemy machine gun positions in opposing trenches because it was man portable unlike the heavy machine guns (water cooled) which were fixed positions.
On a side note... The Germans made some pretty nice weapons too. Their machine gun, and the '88s were deadly.
<quote>So how many WW2 soldiers did you talk with to get their opinions?</quote>
I know my history and military tech.
<quote> Now granted my dad was in the 14th Armored and had a Sherman surrounding him (The brits called it a Tommy Cooker) so he got to see Europe in style...</quote>
No, the "Tommy Cooker" what the Germans called the Sherman - because they invariably caught fire after being hit. The British called it the 'Ronson', after the cigarette lighter which had the advertising slogan 'Lights up the first time, everytime!'.
<quote>Oh and yeah I said 'supposed to be a trench broom.' The point was that the war ended before the BAR could get to combat. You'd use the BAR to take out enemy machine gun positions in opposing trenches because it was man portable unlike the heavy machine guns (water cooled) which were fixed positions.</quote>
"Trench broom" is the term that Thompson used to describe his sub machine gun. He designed it to provide soldiers with an easily portable weapon, with a high rate of fire and large ammunition capacity (compared to the bolt-action combat rifles of the day), which would be used to clear an enemy trench once it has been breached. Like the BAR, the Thomson arrived too late in WWI to see service.
The Browning Hi-Power is a double-action 9mm pistol with a double-stack magazine, no grip safety and a different blowback system to the single-action M1911 45ACP single-stack magazine with a grip safety and its famous swivelling-link blowback system. They're two different designs, trading reliability and bullet size in the 1911 for greater magazine capacity and higher accuracy in the Hi-Power.
The few problems with the original Browning M1911 design were fixed by Colt who mass-produced it for the US military as the 1911A1.
The real "trench broom" in WWI was the 1897 Winchester pump-action shotgun, complete in military fitout with a bayonet lug. I heard of a collector using one a while back in a clay-pigeon shoot, blasting away at the clays with the original-issue 18-inch long sword bayonet in place.
Yes, the Hi-Power is a different gun.
I read in one of the gun mags that Browning felt that the 1911 was flawed and went on to create the Hi-Power.
Note: I am a fan of the .45
But living in Chicago, its not really a practical handgun to own. By practical, some would argue that it was an 'offensive' weapon and not a defensive weapon. (Police don't carry .45s). Also the ammo costs more...
The Hi-power was designed in the 1920s in competition with a range of other light 9mm self-loading pistols coming from other manufacturers, adding features as a double-action trigger and John Moses Browning was long dead by the time its design was finalised.
As for defensive/offensive use of handguns the limitations tend to be on physical size and weight for everyday carry. The 1911 is large and heavy for a handgun but its smaller brother, the Colt Commander is within the boundaries for civilian carry and is likewise chambered for the .45ACP round. There are of course a whole range of other calibres the 1911 design has been modified to take, down to .22LR. I don't know the biggest round the Hi-power and derivatives can cope with but most DA double-stack semi-auto designs tend to top out at .40S&W.
"As to the gun laws... remember kiddies, Chicago had/has the strictest gun laws and the highest gun violence because only criminals have guns."
Absolutely wrong, clueless crap. Seriously, since you are obviously an uber-ignorant loudmouth, how about hitting at least Wikipedia to check your stupid mantra first?
As for the facts:
1. strictest and BETS gun laws in effect are New York's, no question, everybody & their dog knows this sans idiots and stupid NRA-shills like Gumby, of course.
2. Chicago is a decent place but it's far from being the strictest - you cannot buy automatic weapons, you need a license (cannot be retarded or convicted) and have to register it and until last year they refused to register handguns but it's been thrown out by the SC.
3. State with highest gun violence is BY FAR Louisiana, with Illionois not even being TOP5..
4. Chicago's murder rate in 2010 was the lowest in 35 years, partially due to the ~8k guns they have confisctaed on the streets: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-01-03/news/ct-met-chicago-crime-statistics-20110103_1_superintendent-jody-weis-chicago-homicides-violent-crimes
Stop spewing your dumb NRA-propaganda bS, please.
"Absolutely wrong, clueless crap. Seriously, since you are obviously an uber-ignorant loudmouth, how about hitting at least Wikipedia to check your stupid mantra first?"
So that's were you get your facts?
How about actually living in Chicago and having gone through the process of getting a gun ownership permit? Then there's the bit about registering your fire arms...
But lets correct your wikipedia knowledge.
Lets start off with the fact that the STATE OF ILLINOIS does not allow conceal carry period.
The only other state the doesn't allow conceal carry is WISCONSIN. So if the STATE OF NEW YORK allows conceal carry. That simple fact alone makes IL, not just Chicago stricter than NY City.
For your reference... http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html
Note that the two states in BLACK do not allow CONCEAL CARRY. Since you may or may not be familiar with CHICAGO, it is in the state of IL. (NO CONCEAL CARRY)
Now lets go to the cities that banned handguns outright.
Washington DC and Chicago.
The Washington DC ban was overturned and this gave way to the lawsuit filed by McDonald against the city of Chicago. (McDonald v. Chicago) Since you like wikipedia... you can see it here:
Now NY City never banned handguns. Did they? Didn't think so.
Are there gun dealers/stores within NY?
Wait, why bother to leave your chair? Let Google do the walking for you...
Oh look! There are gun stores in NY.
How about Chicago?
THERE ARE NO GUN STORES INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS OF CHICAGO.
Gee, now why is that?
Oh sure you can say that its because the city's ban was overturned 7 months ago and give it time...
Unfortunately you'd be wrong. There's already a lawsuit against the city because they refused a suburban gun store from opening up a shop within city limits. (You do realize that you need to get city approval for your business storefront, right?) No fire arms instructors in the City, and the only CMP groups are JROTC. (You do know what JROTC is right? or CMP?)
And since you mentioned it... here's the process you have to go through to get a gun permit. Now required for *all* firearms and not just handguns....
1) You are required to go to a certified firearms instructor and take a 4-5 hour course on gun safety. (This does include range time.) This course costs $100.00 or more.
2) You have to then fill out your application on a special yellow card. (You can't use the form on the internet and print it off.) You need the form, and two passport sized photos. The non-refundable fee for an application is $100.00
3) You have to take it to a specific location so you can get processed. (Digital finger and palm prints.) This location is out of the way, and its different from the listed site on the police web site. Luckily its a 2 block walk off a stop on the Orange Line. And the office is only open during the day M-F so you have to take off from work to go.
In about a week or so, you get the bottom third of the card in the mail. Its approximately 3.75" by 7.5". (Mine is the one numbered XXXXX)
Do you happen to have one?
Didn't think so.
Do you even know what the form looks like to register your fire arm(s)?
Didn't think so.
Now lets look at NY's permits:
Please focus your attention on 'Types of licenses'.
Wow. So many to chose from.
They offer only a 'premise' license. Oh and BTW, your garage isn't part of your premise. (Attached or detached garages.) Outside of that... you can't get any other type of license.
So much for your malarky that NY City has more strict gun laws on the books.
So,,, you were saying?
(Uber loudmouth who doesn't know what he's talking about?...)
In my previous post (assuming the mods like it.)
I point out your obvious ignorance of Chicago's gun laws and permit requirements, the state's law, and of course what NYC permits are available.
But you also some factual mistakes.
1) See my previous post which identifies the actual laws...
(Do you live in NYC and own a gun? Clearly you don't live in Chicago...)
2) I'm not sure what point you're tying to make. There are Federal requirements to own an automatic weapon along with some non-transferable tax stamps on Class 3 type of firearms.
Oh and BTW, try getting an FFL in the city of Chicago. (You do know what an FFL is, right?)
3) Chicago isn't a State, although there are many who feel that Chicao should secede from the state of IL. I'm not sure what value you have in trying to compare the state of LA to a city. Oh and yeah I think LA still has IL beat when it comes to corrupt politicians, although IL is trying real hard to play catch up.... ;-)
4) Where did you pull that fact out?
I've actually watched the marches and protests by neighborhood community leaders along with Jessie and Father Michael Pfleger. Oh and even that laughable protest against DSA arms... but I digress. Murders maybe down. Gun violence has been on a rise. But I take it you don't read either the Sun Times or Tribune (As in Chicago Tribune).
I think that about covers it.
So please get your facts straight.
Mine's the coat next to Levente's coat, and helmet he's supposed to wear when he goes out in public and rides that short bus to school. ;-)
Wow, I knew that states had state flowers and state birds and state mottoes and such like, but state cooking vessels and state weapons? That's a new one for me, and I actually live in one of those states (though not the one referenced in this article, thankfully). The gun toters have been spinning that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" line for a long time, and it still doesn't wash with me. People with access to guns are a lot more successful at killing large numbers of other people than people without access to guns are.
Think over in the middle east, where explosives seem to be the massacre device of choice. Remove guns, and homicidal maniacs will simply switch to something else. If not an up-close-and-personal knifing rampage, than a car (or truck) packed with homemade explosives (and since most of the recipes--especially black powder--are common knowledge, good luck getting them out of everyone's hands).
So it's alright to sell guns then. Sorry, this doesn't wash.
Any simpleton can currently buy a gun with great ease. Mixing explosives would likely end in him blowing himself up.
Cutting access to guns isn't going to result in *more* killings! Compare the US to the rest of the (more civilised) world.
The gun massacres of the last twenty years pale in comparison to two or three (IIRC Natural Born) Americans with a truck, access to fertilizer, and enough knowledge on how to improvise ANFO. Plus, like I said, Black Powder has been around for ages and involves just three common ingredients.
Put it this way. Would a homicidal maniac be less inclined to go on a rampage if he/she had less access to firearms? Or rather, does the prevalence of firearms simply make it the implement of choice?
In the UK, a significant percentage of the people that own guns (as opposed to merely handling them as part of their duties) have killed someone, or fired them in anger with the intent to kill someone during a criminal act.
In the US I'd hazard that the percentage of legal gun owners who have killed or attempted to kill someone is very, very low. I'd also guess that most gun crime is committed by people who are already legally barred from owning a weapon, given the highest rates of gun death occur in Washington DC, New York State and California where the gun restrictions are toughest.
See, gun crime in the US follows that sort of pattern. Areas where guns are illegal or highly restricted tend to have the highest rates of gun crime in particular, and the highest rates of crime in general. Where the gun laws are most liberal, crime in general falls dramatically.
This image of the US as a place filled with gun-toting nutcases is largely a creation of the media, which wants to sell stuff and trades on stereotype in order to do so. It's no more fair than their image of us as a land of fruity, plummy toffs in bowler hats and three-piece suits sipping tea and eating crumpets with the vicar in a country cottage whilst cockneys dance and sing about chimneys on the roof.
>This image of the US as a place filled with gun-toting nutcases is largely a creation of the media
No it is not. I lived in Texas for a few months and you can NEVER get used to ordinary citizens walking around with hand guns strapped to their hips. Walking into a bar and seeing the "Check your guns and knives" signs.
The concept that gun crime is inverse to the level of gun law liberalism does not appear to be valid for Texas, it has very liberal gun laws and guns were everywhere, on a quiet evening you could even hear gun fire. The evening news reports always used to report the daily count of the number of gunshot victims.
LA was another place that loved it's guns, traveling in a workmates care and being told that the hand gun was in the glove compartment. Again there was the daily gunshot victim count.
Iowa was one other place in the states where I lived and there didn't appear to be any gun related problems. From what I could see the main reason for that was they were from a totally different ethnic mix.
"In the UK, a significant percentage of the people that own guns (as opposed to merely handling them as part of their duties) have killed someone, or fired them in anger with the intent to kill someone during a criminal act."
Is that true? A significant percentage? What percentage? Cite a reference - its a big assertion after all.
Or did you just pull that little nugget straight out of your arse and hope that no-one would question what is quite plainly complete crap?
That is all, I won't bother with the rest of your post, its drivel and doesn't warrant any attention.
Statistics indicate that a significant percentage of people invent statistics to prove their point :P
Please provide such statistics, origin and measures... I simply don't believe you, and I do believe you are making it up, (the statistics), unless the "statistics" include criminals having unlawful access to guns which would be cheating on the numbers, as criminals will get guns no matter how strict laws are, (take japan as an example) .
That UK problem has a root cause:
Back in the day, an armed villain could be reasoned with along the lines of: "Give it up, you haven't hurt anyone yet, don't make it worse for yourself."
These days, they might as well just try and shoot their way out of trouble as they're in deep shit for having the gun in the first place, whether they use it or not. Thus we now have police in flak vests and armed response units toting carbines instead of an unarmed rozzer in his shirtsleeves with a megaphone. For some reason we seem to have forgotten that the best way to avoid innocents being caught in the crossfire is not to have any bloody crossfire in the first place.
Worse still, the cachet of serious crime around owning one has made the gun the "must have" accessory for any little scrote who wants to look big to his peers. Not so long ago, a scrote with a gun was a scrote with a gun. These days he's an instant outlaw gangsta motherfucker.......
so the quote;
But I do know that if you combine the populations of Great Britain,
Japan, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Australia you've got a population
roughly the size
of the United States. We had 32,000 gun deaths last year and they had 112. Do
you think it's
because Americans are more homicidal by nature? Or do you think it's because
those guys have
gun control laws.
is not correct
(dont worry im sure he never watched the west wing)
Rather than a Browning, maybe they should adopt Jordan Brown's gun, a hunting model specially developed for children, with which it is alleged to have enabled him, at 11 years old, to kill his father's pregnant fiancée. Very possibly he is to be tried as an adult and would face an automatic life sentence with no option for parole (only Somalia has similar legal provision for lifetime incarceration of children with no parole option).
This is a tragedy and a mixed up set of society values which is beyond rational comprehension.
>Very possibly he is to be tried as an adult and would face an automatic life sentence with no option for parole.
Something about the word "automatic"... there's a certain... je ne sais quoi about it, don't you think?
Quote du jour (from the same The Guardian article, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/25/us-boy-accused-murder-appeals):
"But that still leaves about 2,400 prisoners facing permanent imprisonment for homicides committed when they were children."
Time frame? The Guardian doesn't specify. I wonder, though, how things are going - relatively - in every other country on the planet (except Somalia - which is arguably not a country anymore anyway, really).
I didn't buy my gun to kill people. I bought it because it goes "BOOM" with a very satisfying kick. More importantly, it goes "BOOM" with a satisfying kick and then makes holes in things. Usually things like paper targets, clay pots, or other legitimate targets at the gun range. To put it more simply:
Firing off a gun in a safe, controlled environment whilst respecting the appropriate safety rules and bearing in mind you are surrounded by other people firing guns is actually a fantastic way to relieve stress. It isn't the only one; I find my fiancée’s fish tank to be very relaxing. I enjoy a nice glass of The Glenrothes and a fine Cuban cigar. A round of football or even writing.
Different stressors seem to elicit the desire to relieve the stress in different ways. When I bought my firearms, I bought them based on their promise to help allieviate stress via cathartic “BOOM” and associated clay pot destruction.
Killing people though? Was never advertised that I recall. Might be useful for such a thing if necessary, but I can only see that being required when the US invades. For now though, my firearms are definitely fit for the advertised purpose. ;)
I tend to like my 'beanfield' rifle which goes a very loud boom and knocks down a varmit at long distances. Just need to put only 1 shot down field to take care of business.
When I shoot paper, I prefer my .22 pistol or my friend's 9mm.
But I agree that shooting paper targets is a very good stress reducer.
Note: There are only two states that does not have any conceal carry laws. (IL and WI) The rest have some sort of laws on the books.
Also note: most of the gun violence is done with illegal guns, not those owned by licensed gun owners.
To forget that they spent 300+ years raping and pillaging the bulk of the world, shipping their criminals half way around the world, sacking Washington DC in 1812... then in the 20th century calling on the US to help them defeat Germany twice.
Let us forget that Cunliffe wrote "The Nation Takes Shape". Granted its been 30 years since I read this, but one of the basic premises that America became its own nation rather than transplanted Europeans because of the frontier. Its because of the frontier that the gun had become an intrinsic part of the American culture. (Hunting and survival on the frontier.) At this time, what was the gun to Europeans? Nothing more than a way to subjugate and dominate others. How many Brits died in the 1800's in pointless wars w France? (See Napoleonic Wars 200 years ago)
Yeah, lets forget one's history.
I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but what the hell.
You want to talk abotu history?
OK, who was it who raped and pillaged andmasacred the Native Americans?
Ah yes, the good old USA!
You want to talk about subjugation and dominance on pointless wars?
Excellent idea, let's start with the US-lead illegal invasion of Iraq, shall we?
Speak up, troll, you've gone quiet...
No nation has a history of which it can be fully proud, that is true.
Butsome DO have the ability to be proud of how they are seeking to improve things today.
Whereas others, dear troll, simply continue to wor5ship machines designed solely to kill & maim, whilst continuing to push their political will on other nations via illegal invasions.
you were saying, oh trolling one?
Naw we just shot all of the buffalo to reduce their food supply. Slowly starving them to death.
(Yes its the Americans who created the 'borg concept.)
It was really all of those immigrants escaping oppressive regimes in Europe at the time that kept coming to the US and homesteading further West.
Then you had the clash between the Indian nations and the American population who were now homesteading on what was once Indian land. So again, blame Europeans.
And don't feel too bad for those Indians. They got the last laugh... just look at Foxwood
"Its because of the frontier that the gun had become an intrinsic part of the American culture. "
This nonsense is often repeated - but the idea that guns were part of the American culture didn't appear until the 20th century (and the second half, in particular).
Not least because, until the 20th century, most Americans couldn't possibly afford a weapon. Cowboys didn't carry weapons (not least because most of them were black or hispanic, and the white owners would have been apopleptic at such a prospect).
'Intrinsic to American culture' is a myth, partly due to mass production of weapons, and the 'culture' of Hollywood.
'He's right. People kill people. To be more specific, people with guns kill people.'
As do people with knives, people with swords, people with bombs, people with broken bottles, people with metal bars, people with cars, trucks, planes, hands, feet, planks of wood and countless other 'murder' weapons.
Ban them all!
Which is why civilised countries have controls on what you can carry around with you. Take the UK where guns, knives, swords, metal bars planks of wood etc (offensive weapons) have restrictions on when you can carry them - 1.4 murders per 100,000 population.
Compare this to the USA where the restrictions on carrying these things are generally far lower - 5.8 murders per 100,000 population. These numbers kind of speak for themselves really.
Regards you inclusion of hands, feet, cars etc.: you are either a very clever subversive or a kool-aid drinking person propping up the lower end of the IQ bell curve.
Not quite... The UK doesn't have the different degrees of murder like they do in the USA, so we have Murder, Manslaughter, causing death through dangerous driving etc. whereas the stats for the USA murder rate would typically only mention Murder-1 which would approximate to Murder in the UK.
Or lest we forget that people can train themselves to be lethal even while completely unarmed. That's right, the human body can itself become a lethal weapon (from something as simple as the ol' unscrew-the-neck to a martial arts kick placed in just the right spot).
Your viewpoint is skewed towards a US bias. Canada has a higher per capita gun ownership than the US and our rates of gun-related fatalities are significantly lower. From my perspective, the phrase should be:
"Handguns and firearms in general do not kill people. Self-absorbed jackasses who tailgate while applying makeup and yakking on their cell phone driving eight tonnes of metal at 100kph kill people. Please also add corporations who cell carcinogen death sticks (advertised at children.) Additionally corporations that add MSG, trans fats, vast quantities of salt, refined sugar and various addictive substances to foods. Drug lords who cut their street drugs with harder (more addictive and also more dangerous) substances can go on the list. I’d also like to toss on there each and ever person who voted for a government (of any nation) that pursued an unprovoked war of aggression against another country in order to steal their oil that resulted in millions of civilian casualties.”
But hey, sure, blame guns. After all the tool is obviously at fault. Not the fucknuts using them improperly. Guns don't kill people, dude. Social attitudes that promote extremism, selfishness, paranoia and xenophobia kill people. The battle to fight isn’t one of prohibition, but one of education. Start by fighting against the violent polarisation of all debate and graduate into a licensing scheme whereby anyone owning or buying a firearm needs to actually get a damned licence to have one. A licence that needs be renewed every now and again and requires that person to pass various stringent tests about gun safety.
The tool isn’t the problem. Selling it to every Tom, Dick and Harry with a grudge is. If it isn’t the gun they use to solve their violent polarized xenophobic disputes, it will just be a baseball bad or a shovel. Hopefully by throwing some /education/ at the people who are seeking to buy a gun, you might introduce some calm, and possibly even a reconsideration.
I don’t know about you, but I think everyone everywhere should be allowed to own a gun. I also think that they should not be allowed to carry it in public, concealed or otherwise. I believe that it must be stored in a locked container, with it’s ammunition in a separate locked container that uses a separate key (or combination.) Transport within a vehicle must be in a locked container with the ammunition in a separate locked container. That’s called safety. It prevents accidents. It prevents children getting their hands on it. It prevents people who haven’t had gun safety training from getting their hands on it.
Would you leave a plasma cutter completely unattended, plugged in, safety off inside a kindergarten classroom full of kids? Should we ban plasma torches because of the resulting chaos that can ensue? What about laser pointers? You can blind people with those! You can blind PILOTS…you know people flying big stonking planes full of people at hundreds of kilometres per hour they are trying to land at airports filled with tens or hundreds of thousands of people?
Hell, inappropriate administration of nutritional supplements alone kills more people each year than gun violence. By a landslide! Should we ban all stores from selling vitamin K2 because some putz gives his buddy with critical arthrosclerosis a vitamin that promotes platelet formation (and can thusly lead to blood clots?)
If the anti-gun lobby put the time, money, effort and emotional investment into promoting proper education that they do into trying to “ban guns” maybe we’d actually see a notable decrease in gun-related crimes.
But hey, let’s go with the emotive response, and claim that the tool is the problem.
What you are saying is that Canada has a very different gun culture from the US. Indeed there are many nations where the inhabitants own a lot of guns. Where I live (Norway) there is a very high level of gun ownership, shotguns and rifles (max three rounds without reloading, two in the mag, one up the spout) - ie hunting weapons. One of the biggest selling magazines here (the type you read!) is "Jakt og Fiske" ("Hunting and Fishing"). The very idea that it is some kind of human right to own frakking big guns auto or semiauto with humungous magazines and your choice of "special" ammo is regarded as ridiculous and is of course illegal. A totally different cultural attitude towards guns - here guns are a hunting tool first and foremost, not some kind of cultural/political image/fetish gig like you know where.
"I don’t know about you, but I think everyone everywhere should be allowed to own a gun. I also think that they should not be allowed to carry it in public, concealed or otherwise. I believe that it must be stored in a locked container, with it’s ammunition in a separate locked container that uses a separate key (or combination.) Transport within a vehicle must be in a locked container with the ammunition in a separate locked container. That’s called safety. It prevents accidents. It prevents children getting their hands on it. It prevents people who haven’t had gun safety training from getting their hands on it."
Thing is, unlike your plasma cutter or the like, there come times when you need to whip it out on a moment's notice. That's why police sidearms are loaded when they're on duty--safe one moment, facing an armed assailant the next. Now, before you say they're professionally trained and assigned to do their duty, remember that they're only so many of them and so much territory to cover. Thus the several minutes between calling for them and them arriving. I don't know about you, but those few minutes can seem like an eternity if your house has been broken into...or worse, if some assailant has his sights locked on you--IOW, you can face the same problem as the cops. Sure, you'll have accidents, but accidents are a fact of like. After all, you'll also have precocious children who learn about how locks are opened (just as I learned that I could use the chair to climb up to the kitchen counter--I was only five when I learned how to open combination locks and which key to put into the car's ignition).
That is what my flash-bangs and pepper spray are for. They are legal. They also can get rid of a goddamned charging BEAR. I can put enough capsaicin in the air to clear the place for five minutes. I can also make it impossible to see or hear for about as long.
There are non-lethal and less-lethal alternatives to guns for personal defence. I absolutely do not, can not and WILL not agree with you that firearms have any use /whatsoever/ for personal defence. That fallacy is part of your culture. Not mine.
Shocking how mine has so much less crime.
Lock up Celiac disease. It is only one example. There are many people in this world for whom Gluten in any form can be (and is) lethal. It's no different than adding nuts to everything without properly labelling it as such. Some things really, honestly are deadly allergens. The other big one is shellfish. Adding shellfish to something can kill me. I thank $deity I live in a sane country that actually enforces labelling regulations. If I didn’t, I’d probably have died of anaphylactic shock ages ago. (You’d be surprised what products shellfish makes its way into.)
Gluten may not be immediately life-threatening to huge numbers, but it can trigger a chain-reaction of complications for sensitive individuals that ultimately result in their deaths. I had a friend go that way.
It wasn’t pretty.
<QUOTE>"But handguns, and firearms in general, do not kill people."
He's right. People kill people. To be more specific, people with guns kill people.</QUOTE>
*USAians* with guns kill people. Its not only people in other countries who hate the USA; they hate themselves.
As has been pointed out countless times in other discussions, the ownership of guns doesn't lead to shooting people (reference Canada and some other European country whose name I cant remember), but it seems being a USA citizen does.
I talked to a friend who was a former LEO in AZ. I asked him if AZ no longer required a permit for AZ residents to conceal carry, why no one in the crowd fired back to stop the gunman.
He replied: "... because it was a Democratic party event. Had it been a Republican event, then someone would have been carrying..." (And yes, he's still a resident of AZ and when in AZ he says he carries.... )
Those who show disdain for private firearm ownership and carry either are ignorant of or choose to ignore the number of attempted crimes that fail because the intended victim possessed a gun. This kind of event rarely makes the news and almost never appears in police statistics because the gun rarely fired and many incidents are never reported. A good estimate in the US is that this happens from one to three million times per year, and the numbers come from academic statistical studies by people such as John Lott and Gary Kleck who are not part of any gun-oriented organization or movement, either pro or con.
Well done, Utah.
Your argument is both trite and simplistic. Trite, simplistic and not backed up by real figures*. Your argument has 3 flaws: it is trite, simplistic, not backed up by research and obviously fallacious**. 4 flaws, your argument has 4 flaws.
And all the others I cannot be bothered listing.
*You would need to show a net saving in crimes through the possession of firearms. The 1-3 million per year is still a fraction of the crimes that are perpetrated using firearms, and is itself not actually backed up by any non-partisan research.
**Clearly if guns were a deterrent then the crime rate in the US would be lower than comparable countries. Which it isn't. Logically speaking, if everyone was forced to carry a gun then the crime rate would be zero under that premise.
Percent of robberies in US of A involving a firearm: 41%
Percent of robberies in Canada involving a firearm: 16%
Gun homicides US of A in 2005: 8,478
Gun homicides Canada 2009: 179 (with roughly 10% the pop of USA)
If you think your intended victim may be packing heat, it's better just to preemptively put 2 in the chest and one in the melon (might also be wearing Kevlar).
Of course, if you didn't marginalize a huge portion of your population, you might not have as many criminals to worry about.
P.S. WTF is an "attempted crime"?
"academic statistical studies by people such as John Lott and Gary Kleck who are not part of any gun-oriented organization or movement, either pro or con."
Apart from John Lott who is a well known hack, liar and has a tendancy to massage data into intricate little pretzel shapes, you mean?
Lott is to mathematics as Pt Barnum was to truth.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/lott.php gives some of the more egregious examples.
Not every day is a senator (DM or RP) shot in the head. I find it very hard to believe that the shooter did not know who he was shooting at.
I'm in Canada and I freely admit we play it softer, and I think that's a good thing. I've seen some ads from the right wing (Palin can we say) using crosshairs: such would not fly here.
I do not know if the shooter took the cross hairs to heart, but I have to wonder. The shooter may be just a lunatic. The characterization of people with non-agreeing points of view in the USA as being less than human or immoral is worrying: it can incite people.
Politics is ever a blood sport but mostly metaphorically in the western(ized) democracies. The temperature of the game in the USA these past 15 or 20 years has been quite high, and may inspire some people to use real heat. I do not know if this is the case here, but equally can you say it is not the case?
I do think that collegiality has been lost, and that seems to me to be the first thing lost in a downward slide. Example, I really do not agree with the policies of my provincial gov't but I am not about to shoopt the premier, nor are his sympathizers about to shoot me.
There are people in the USA who more or less speak on the airwaves of their opponents as being 'cockroaches', implicitly subhuman.
Where did we last recently see this kind of talk? Rwanda and ex-Yugoslavia.
The USA has had a verbally violent political culture for quite a few years now - is it impossible to believe that some loose cannons would take it to heart?
There are ways of dealing with opposing points of view that do not demonize one's opponents - generically they are called debate - and these methods hold the promise of finding solutions acceptable to both sides of the debate. I just do not see such ways being used by people on the far right in the USA - rather I see some people on the far right cultivating an extreme approach.
That said, the centre/left in the USA, Obama aside (and he is centrist IMHO) have spent the past 20 odd years fearing to speak their mind.
Bunch of historical revisionists! The M1911 design was formally ADOPTED by the US Army in 1911 (March 29th, apparently). But the thing had been in trials against other designs since 1906, and prior to that there had been another set of trials in 1904 in which the requirements for the pistol evolved.
So it is reasonable to assert that the M1911 was "invented" sometime between the 1904 trials and the start of the 1906 contest. So let's say it was "invented" in 1905 (actually, it was just refined from earlier designs).
Certainly, in 1910 it was proving its mettle.
For what its worth, it was adopted by the US Navy & USMC in 1913, So we can do this all over again in a couple of years! (And let's not forget the M1911A1 from 1924...)
"There is nothing about the actions of a madman to change the fact that firearms have been used throughout our history to defend American values and traditions."
must surely have been cut short. It should have read:
"There is nothing about the actions of a madman to change the fact that firearms have been used throughout our history to defend American values and traditions. Yeee-hawr!!!"
LOVE the stopping power of the .45cal 1911A1! Simple, easy to use, and can be dropped in the mud and still operate. Damn fine weapon! Weak spot is accuracy over 50 feet but you can't have everything.
Oh yeah. The weapon uses a 7 round magazine (+1 in the chamber) - not a high capacity one such as the Glock uses.
Another thing is that gets me about the anti-gun crowd, people will kill people with whatever is at hand - rocks, hands, pens, pencils, curbstomping (which I hear is great sport in Britain), knives, double-decker buses (and the blowing up kind too), cars, poison, yada yada yada..... Hell, build a couple of catapults and fling big rocks at a shopping center.
The weapon doesn't matter, it's the asshole using it for the wrong purpose.
Ref: I am/was a state certified weapons instructor - weapons are useful tools, nothing more, nothing less, and in the wrong hands can kill - just like any other tool.
Depends largely on which end of the gun barrel you're facing.
As for the large list of innocent things useful at suppressing human lives, it occurs to me none of them was found in the backpacks of the two highly trained and motivated individuals who wasted an impressive number of young lives at Columbine, Virginia Tech massacre and up to the latest shooting in Arizona.
I admit it's people that kill people but you must concede that a load of heavy weapons with plenty of ammo (useful tools as you call them) makes them way more efficient.
About columbine...one thing I'd like to know is...how did they get into that mental state? why did they hate that much?
I have been a gun owner in the past, (in Spain where the regulation is very strict on guns), and gave up on having a gun because I reckoned that a small flat, guns and curious kids is an explosive combination. We wanted to have a kid, so the gun had to go...that is a consecuence of being a sane gun owner.
(It was a .22, what is it with americans loving large calibers? I was able to hit a target smaller than a human face at 50 metres...why using a .45 if I can hit anything at 50 metres?)
I do belive they have a problem with people in the USA, not merely with guns, maybe checking on gun owner's sanity would do the trick.
I just don't follow the logic used to justify the "honour" of guns. In the linked article the Rep says:
"Republican Rep. Stephen Sandstrom told the committee... Instead of the gun being blamed for killing people, it should be credited for saving lives on the battlefield, .."
I ask, exactly how does the gun save lives on the battlefield? Any life "saved" was done so by taking a life.
"Wimmer responded: "There is nothing about the actions of a madman to change the fact that firearms have been used throughout our history to defend American values and traditions.""
a. doing precisely what you please
b. killing those who disagree with you
c. justifying it
sounds about right
I don't really think the US needs any more gun laws, and while I agree that guns don't need to be demonized, they are hardly something to wank off to either. And that's all that this is coming off as.
That said, the actual or idea I have no real problem with. Might have been smart to have waited a bit so that it might actually be seen as the symbol it's intended to be, and not as a way to piss of anti-gun people.
Iconifying a weapon of war really isn't that big a deal. Swords and shields are stock in trade for heraldry. It's also hard to go anywhere without seeing icons representing one of the most hideous methods of tortured execution conceived by man and it is simply accepted as ordinary. Perhaps other instruments of death should be made symbolic emblems. Cannister of VX nerve gas anyone?
... would NOT lead to a lowering of the murder rate is an absolute, utter fucking idiot.
Conversely, anyone who thinks this is even remotely possible in a country where there are more guns than pebbles on Brighton beach is just as much of an absolute, utter fucking idiot.
Post ends here.
I call you out for BS.
Under Mayor Daley in 1982 it was illegal to own a handgun within the city limits unless you were either a) police, b) active duty military , c) employed by the city or county (Politicians) you could not purchase own or possess a handgun. If you had a registered gun prior to the ban you were grandfathered in. All firearms had to be registered with the city and certain long guns, like air guns aka pellet guns, were deemed illegal as well.
This law wasn't overturned until 2010. Where Mayor Daley (Son of the Mayor who created the ban) created ways to continue to tax and obfuscate the process. (After the USSC overturned the ban, Daley changed the laws such that you had to get a gun permit to own a gun and even then the process is onerous. There are currently 2 lawsuits against the city over Daley's latest actions.)
So that gives you the history.
Now lets talk about the fact that during the close to 30 years that handguns were illegal in Chicago, Chicago had one of the highest rates of gun related death and crimes. So at the same time Chicago had the strictest laws on the books concerning gun ownership, it was also the murder capital of the US.
So I guess you're the fscking idiot who thinks that they know more about guns than someone who's had to live in a city where one can watch a crime take place, call the cops knowing that by the time they get there, the criminals would be long gone and risk getting injured themselves.
At the same time, cities in states where there was carry conceal laws, violent crime rates were down dramatically.
Its time for you to put your pipe down junior and wake up and face reality.
Very good, except you can't cite one city as an example without anything suitably similar to comapre it to so you have a chance of knowing what would have happened had the change not taken place. Also, if the law was only changed in 2010 you don't know what has happened since with any degree of accuracy. Furthermore - if a city has lots of handguns and handguns are made illigal it stands to reason that the gun crime rate is going to go up, because you're never going to get them all back from the owners.
So, don't go about calling people fucking idiots and implying that they're on crack when you've not got a particularly well throught through case yourself.
Cite one city?
I really don't have to. The NRA as well as other researchers in to gun violence have already done that. You can look at large cities in states like FL, AZ, TX among others...
The one reality that sticks out which is fact. Chicago had the strictest gun laws on the books while at the same time had the most number of gun related violence and deaths. That fact alone is a clear indication that gun laws banning weapons means that only criminals will have guns and will in fact use them.
The other issue is that the gun ban went in to effect back in 1982-83 time frame. That was almost 30 years of hand gun ownership being a crime in the city. So for you to even suggest that the gun crimes committed by gang bangers in the past 5 years would be committed by guns in the city from 30 years? Naw. That's laughable.
Also... The police run annual 'cash for guns' programs where anyone can drop off a gun, no questions asked. This gets the guns off the street.
In the past year there were two cases of people who were in illegal possession of a hand gun that shot perps. One male who shot and killed a home invader after he shot first. A second woman who shot a kid who was tossing bricks at her house and then later at her. Neither of them were charged. (Note: The woman shot the kid after the gun ban was struck down, but still didn't have a permit. She broke the law. It was even questionable that she may have used excessive force, yet no charges.)
Just FYI... I live in Chicago.
As to calling the OP a fscking twit, he started it. (re-read his post )
As to knowing about guns, gun ownership, and gun violence... I've seen it first hand. I've had friends mugged because the muggers knew that they couldn't defend themselves. Guns that are in Chicago today that are used in crimes weren't here 10 years ago. They are new and there have been news reports where they traced some of the guns back to straw purchases that occurred in Georgia. (Do you really think that gang bangers only import the drugs they sell here?)
Again... Washington DC... strict laws. High gun violence rate. Their ban was overturned which lead to the Chicago ban challenge. You can see how its impacted them since its been a couple of years.
Oh and one more thing. In Chicago, overall crime was trending down, with the exception of gun violence.
'Removing access to firearms' means both the general public AND the criminals. For blindingly obvious reasons, just making it illegal to own them now and confiscating them from people who legally own them wouldn't...
Oh what's the fucking use. If you're that much of a bellend that you couldn't understand what I was driving at, no amount of explanation of a subject is going to make you comprehend.
... from seeing a hypnotist last night. It was one of those theatre outing things on stage and all that.
Anyway, the hypnotist selected 5 men from the audience, puts them into a trance, clicks his fingers and they obeyed his every command.
Trouble was, the hypnotist tripped up over the mike cord (he was not wifi'ed) and while stumbling said "F*** me!"
What happened next is unforgettable.
Fact: Firearms, hand guns in particular, are generally designed for the purpose of wounding and killing human beings.
So, lets glorify something that has as it's primary purpose the destruction of life.
What 'weapon' someone chooses to use against someone else is utterly irrelevant as to whether a handgun is something a morally sane human being should hold up as an object worthy of state recognition, or any other kind of glorification.
'You have heard it said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth', but I say to you: love your enemies and do good to those who hate you'. Glorifying any object designed for the purpose of killing our brothers and sisters doesn't seem to sit well with the man's words, now does it?
Here I thought they were wasting taxpayer dollars on pointless frivolity. Now on to serious business; I hereby nominate the potato digger as the Utah State Garden Tool and the ottoman as the State Accessory Furniture Piece. Now Gladys, we already covered the State China Pattern and decided it would be unpatriotic so we're stayin' with paper plates! Now, do I have a second?
Guns don't kill...yes but people would use sticks, knives IEDS.
Sticks, knives, planks of wood, are close up and personal "weopons". This means a) you have to be within a couple of ft, b) the other person often defend themselves (I can disarm most attackers) & c) the killer has to "personalise" themsleves with the action.
IED's are not exactly a precise device i.e. if you want to kill someone 10ft away, then you are likely to kill yourself in the process.
Guns on the otherhand are convienient, easily conceled and are a remote killing machine.
However as pointed out the number of guns does not equal number of deaths, Canada & switzeralnd & the Nordic's are great examples where this is proven wrong.
No it's the ATTITUDE prevalant in society that causes the issue. These countries are as the much of the US press would call them, socialist, commies, lefties. i.e. they give a shit about the poor, the sick and needy and provde good education systems as standard, not to those that can afford it. The US on the other hand is based upon "I" can succeed. It's all about the individual doing well and getting rich quick. If that means killing of someone, so be it.
USA, sort out your social structure and you can have the guns you want.
are not concerned about being one-upped by their neighbours to the southeast in New Mexico, where the first nuclear device was tested. But nuclear weapons, of course, do not kill people ; its the people who launch them - and the ones who order them to be launched - who do. Just ask the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki....
Seems rather silly, if harmless.
To those who would argue statistics:
They are irrelevant.
I am not a statistic, but rather an individual who feels morally justified defending himself and others from those who would do evil. I lawfully carry a firearm in order to defend life. Self-defense is the most basic of human rights. I cannot enjoy my other human rights unless I am alive to do so - I must therefore be allowed to preserve my life from external threats. The carrying of a firearm is an effective way to protect life in an extreme situation. I have never drawn a weapon on another human being, and hope that I never shall.
There are very few tools which will enable a small woman to equal or best a large, muscular man in a violent encounter. A pistol in the hands of a properly-trained woman can be the tool she needs to prevent violation and murder. Of the two outcomes, I find a dead rapist to be vastly superior to a raped innocent.
Those without training should not handle or carry weapons. An untrained person is more likely to have the weapon taken, or to misuse it and injure innocents than a person who has received proper training - that said, plenty of "highly trained" police officers are responsible for negligent discharges and other irresponsible handling of weapons ever year.
It is important to understand the political realities of gun control in this country before condemning the ownership, carry, and usage of arms.
-Weapons lawful in one state may be felonious to own in others - each state has been allowed a great deal of leeway to establish gun laws. The borders between states are not at all like international borders - smuggling items lawful in one state into another is commonplace. Chicago is a prime example - handguns are still more or less illegal in Cook County, which encompasses Chicago and its suburbs. In this situation, those who arm themselves do so illegally, but readily. The government will criminally prosecute an otherwise law-abiding citizen for the possession of a device that is readily obtained by the criminal element and used for harm. This has the effect of tipping the balance in favor of the criminal - he can go armed confident that the majority of the populace he will victimize is kept unarmed by the law of the land. That combination can be deadly for innocents, presented with a criminal element that is readily armed, and prevented on pain of a felony conviction, fines and prison time from being equally armed. Victim disarmament does not work.
-Some will answer that the solution must be to ban the weapons across the country, so that this ready access to weapons disappears. There are many flaws in such a plan - England was largely disarmed of centerfire, semi-automatic rifles and all handguns in a manner that simply will not work in the United States. First, gun ownership required a strictly-controlled license and the registration of each firearm. Then, once the vast majority of firearms were registered, the government had little difficulty confiscating the vast majority of those firearms it had deemed unsafe for possession by the little people. Here, when states introduce registration schemes for weapons, most of the weapons mysteriously fall off boats. California is a prime example - certain weapons were designated "assault weapons" based largely on cosmetic features and required registration in order to "grandfather" those weapons, as thenceforth they were to be unlawful to purchase, transfer, or possess without registration. This backfired. Many people did not want to go through the hassle of registering their weapons. Some simply did not comply, and kept their lawfully purchased weapons. Some, fearing prosecution for illegal possession, sold the weapons to whoever they could in face-to-face cash transactions. As a result there are now a great many such weapons traded illicitly by criminals.
-We will not be easily disarmed. We saw what happened in Britain and will not allow it to happen here. A lot of police, especially in rural areas, are gun-owners and feel strongly about gun rights - they will not cooperate with gun registration and confiscation schemes. Some states have gone so far as to pass laws declaring federal firearms laws invalid and unenforceable in their borders. Federal firearms laws are generally based on the federal government's power to regulate interstate trade, and our Constitution grants all powers not expressly granted to the federal government, to state governments. The federal government does not have the power to regulate intrastate commerce, therefore state governments do - therefore federal law may govern the trade of firearms between states, but not their production, distribution, possession or trade within a given state. If the federal government pushes it, some states with very strong pro-gun culture (Texas is at the top of the list) will very likely secede from the union. Arizona is another likely candidate for this.
There are too many guns in this country to successfully disarm it completely. Such an attempt would be more costly and less effective than the drug wars.
It is a sad thing that people kill each other. It would be very nice to live in a world where it was not remotely likely that I could be robbed at gunpoint or shot at for fun if I walked in the wrong neighborhood. Unfortunately I live in the real world, and along with the saints and innocents, it is populated by violent, amoral scum.
for crack cocaine & prostitution?
there are just too many crackheads/whores in this country. and closing down the dealers and pimps wont work, cos theres so much demand....
so why wast all that govt money of trying to do something about these 'rights'
(28th amendement - i have the right to do what the fuck i like and screw the consequences - only serious)
and as for;
" It would be very nice to live in a world where it was not remotely likely that I could be robbed at gunpoint or shot at for fun "
Just leave the USA numbnuts, THAT is the point the civilised world is trying to make.
We have gun control, and vanishingly small numbers of gun deaths
You have virtually no gun control and *THE* most common cause of death to young black men is GSW (we wont even go to the 'so who cares about that' debate) and on a broader scale gun death stats that put you in the same bracket as Somalia and Afghanistan! FFS
I appreciate the americans are bred/condtioned to avoid critical thinking if at all possible but how can you fail to get it.
we dont have guns and consequently dont get shot much.
it's hardly rocket surgery
"- handguns are still more or less illegal in Cook County, which encompasses Chicago and its suburbs. In this situation, those who arm themselves do so illegally, but readily. The government will criminally prosecute an otherwise law-abiding citizen for the possession of a device that is readily obtained by the criminal element and used for harm. This has the effect of tipping the balance in favor of the criminal - he can go armed confident that the majority of the populace he will victimize is kept unarmed by the law of the land. That combination can be deadly for innocents, presented with a criminal element that is readily armed, and prevented on pain of a felony conviction, fines and prison time from being equally armed. Victim disarmament does not work."
Uhm just a correction.
The state of IL and WI are the only two states in the US that do not have conceal carry laws.
You're wrong about Cook County. Cook County does actually have a ban on specific weapons, along with Chicago. While the ban was overturned, if you check to see the gun registration form, you'll see that certain weapons are still banned. So you can get a gun permit (now required for *all* gun ownership, not just handguns)
To take your permit class you have to go to a certified instructor outside of the city. There are a couple of classes if you can find room. You must already have a FOID card. In the burbs you can buy ammo, you can rent a gun at a range. Even outside of the city you can transport a gun in your vehicle provided you are doing it within the law. (Locked gun case, not within reach of driver, unloaded...)
You can not legally carry in IL period. But that is an issue outside of gun ownership...
Got nothing to do with the fact that if you live in Chicago, and want a gun, these oppressive laws require you to drive 40 miles out of town to buy a gun. Onerous.
In the US, gangs all have guns. Gang violence means shooting people. In the UK, guns are expensive, hard to get hold of, and if caught with one, you're in a world of shit. Consequently, gang violence in the UK usually involves just beatings and stabbings, all of which are much more socially acceptable and less likely to lead to fatalities.
Republican Carl Wimmer said of Browning: "He invented a firearm that has defended American values and the traditions of this country for 100 years."
Yep, American values and traditions:
- The right to shoot people
- The right to invade other countries on dubious pretexts
- The right of freedom of speech (unless you don't believe in Christianity, are gay, are a communist or criticise America)
Back @ Paul 172
"'Self-defense is the most basic of human rights. I cannot enjoy my other human rights unless I am alive to do so'
The above is based on the predication that people are trying to kill you... That _is not_ the general feeling over here in the UK, even in the roughest places."
It is not predicated upon the belief that people are trying to kill me, but rather that it is within reason that I may encounter a situation in which my safety or the safety of another is in danger. It is not likely that I will ever encounter a situation like this; but it is possible, and it is prudent to be prepared for the situation. I am also CPR/AED certified and keep a small first aid and trauma kit in my vehicle at all times. So far I have never needed to use these tools and training, and again, I hope that I never shall. Nonetheless, events requiring either set of skills are common enough that it is prudent to be prepared for them.
@ Tom 38
"That's right, hold up Chicago as an example of why gun legislation doesn't work
Got nothing to do with the fact that if you live in Chicago, and want a gun, these oppressive laws require you to drive 40 miles out of town to buy a gun. Onerous."
Your information is flawed. Purchasing a firearm in the state of Illinois requires a Firearms Owner Identification Card - if you do not possess one you cannot legally purchase a firearm. If you obtain an FOID, legally purchase a firearm outside of Cook County, then bring that weapon into Cook County without going through the process for lawfully registering it (last I heard, almost impossible - nearly all applications are denied unless the applicant has connections), you are committing a crime, just the same as purchasing an illegal gun within Chicago. Purchasing an illegal weapon within the city itself is not difficult - no 40-mile drive required.
"In the US, gangs all have guns. Gang violence means shooting people. In the UK, guns are expensive, hard to get hold of, and if caught with one, you're in a world of shit. Consequently, gang violence in the UK usually involves just beatings and stabbings, all of which are much more socially acceptable and less likely to lead to fatalities."
In Chicago, illegal guns are cheap and all the gangs have them, so all of the gangs feel the need to continue to have them. If you are caught with one, you're in a world of shit - Chicago has very harsh laws on concealed carry and unlawful possession. There are a shitload of beatings and stabbings in Chicago - the shootings are just an unpleasant addition. Chicago is a corrupt shithole of a city and I will never live there. It is a very unsafe place to live. There is no single-issue cause. Gun control is only one facet of the climate in Chicago that has led to the status quo. Racism, classism, corruption, and a general disregard for human dignity has led to the Chicago we have today.
I hate to stir the pot, but...
The Model 1911A is no longer standard issue in the US Armed Forces. A couple of decades ago, it was replaced by a Beretta 9mm.
However, John Browning _did_ design a firearm in the WWI-era which is still current issue - the M2 Browning Machinegun. Most of you will know it as the ".50-caliber machinegun". Perhaps that might make a more fitting Utah state weapon?
Now for something completely different. I was born in Texas, I've lived here all my life. My opinions almost certainly do not represent every Texan, nor every US citizen.
Guns are a tool, and in addition to shooting targets for recreation, they can also be used to kill living beings for food or defense. I don't have a concealed-carry permit, but I believe that there's nothing wrong with shooting to kill if a criminal invades my home. By Texas law, I'm allowed that right, and I'm prepared to exercise my right if need be. It may be different in places where there's a cop on every corner. In places where the nearest policeman is miles away, it makes a lot of sense.
I feel sorry for those who fear others because they're carrying a firearm (or an axe, or a machete...). I'd be uncomfortable myself, if they carried those into a grocery store or about town. In the woods, particularly on your own land there shouldn't be anything wrong with it. In Texas, there's not.
....that makes you feel the need to carry a semi automatic pistol around with you?
who are these people that you need to 'defend' yourself from and *have you evere wonderd why no other country has this issue?
I find the american penchant for firearms both amusing and disturbing
*with the exception of countries such as afghanistan, iraq etc
"...that makes you feel the need to carry a semi automatic pistol around with you?"
Precisely my point, even though I do believe in the right to carry guns and to defend myself in force, and I do want to have the right to shoot burglars who get into my house, something is wrong if they feel the need to carry weapons around.
Check Switzerland, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland they do know how to handle weapons.
They are sane and understand when it is required/safe to have weappons.
My dick is bigger than yours...
My gun is bigger than your dick,
My rifle is bigger than your gun,
My shotgun is bigger than your rifle,
My military rifle is bigger than your shotgun..
My RPG is bigger than your military rifle,
My tank is bigger than your RPG,
My tank battalion is bigger than your tank,
My helicopter gunship is bigger than your tank battalion..
My super jet fighter is bigger than your gun ship,
Bullshit.... Bullshit...... Bullshit..
My hydrogen bomb is bigger than your atomic bomb...
I have more bomb's, nukes, guns, germs, nerve gases, ships, subs, helicopters, jets, soldiers, intel and computers, night sights etc., etc., etc., etc., and a horrendous consumption of oil and natural resources, and a HUGE taxpayer funded deficit, no free health care, schooling.... etc.
And if you don't love us, and our traditional American, Apple Pie Loving, Land of the Free, Patriotic, Religious Nut Case Bullshit - we will Kill YOU - just to show you how much Jesus Loves you and how we regard freedom and democracy as an essential part of the American way of life...
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021