PDA

View Full Version : Weapons of War


BUMPFF
24th Aug 2005, 10:52
I'm a simple, law-abiding soul who belives that a fly-swat is the most lethal weapon anyone should possess. Can anyone tell me how the trio who have just been convicted of killing a celebrity minder got their hands on an AK47 complete with armour-piercing bullets?

Dead_Heading
24th Aug 2005, 11:34
Simple enough, through the ring of black market, illegal dealers who sell section 5 weaponry to criminals.

Good to see all the legislation that prevents nutters getting hold of naughty guns works well :rolleyes:

Whenever there is an incident involving illegal firearms, the government puts more and more restrictions on the legal, certificate posessing users of firearms. We are easy targets, all our guns are registered, they know where we are and it's a lot easier to be seen "doing something" by the general public than to address the actual problem, it is decades of this attitude that have led to the increase in firearms offenses. Legislation supposed to solve the problem was, basically, a farce to soothe the minds of the public.

So as it becomes harder and harder to get your hands on a .22-250 for fox control, or your semi-auto for decoying, rest asured that the laws that prevent you from controlling vermin or enjoying a days sport are saving lives everday on the streets!

DeBurcs
24th Aug 2005, 12:26
Apparently the Hells Angels have agreed in principle to turn in their guns, chains, clubs, brass knuckles, etc for fly-swatters.... as long as the Coffin Cheaters do too.

419
24th Aug 2005, 12:34
From the U.K Parliament.

The Home Office does not propose to repeal the ban on the private possession of handguns. Special arrangements will be put in place to allow pistol shooting events at the 2012 Olympics as happened at the 2002 Commonwealth games. These arrangements will include a warm up event if this is deemed necessary.

If anyone from the UK wants to practice pistol shooting for the 2012 olympics, they have to go over to France or Germany to do it. Why not change to event to include Uzi's and AK47's. It would probably be easier for the teams to train in the UK.

BenThere
24th Aug 2005, 12:38
Can anyone show me an instance where the imposition of gun control did not result in an increase in gun crime?

It's a constant battle in the US, where local jurisdictions set firearm policy. Fortunately, the US constitution is quite specific about my right to bear arms, so I do.

Also, newspapers and broadcast news never mention the thousands of cases where households were protected or criminals foiled by private defense using a firearm. The few cases where a child gets into the gun crib, (failure to secure which should be a crime itself in my opinion) and does harm are very well covered.

I'm interested in Canadian, Brit, and Aussie views on how gun control is working now that you've had a few years to deal with it.

One last theory and it's political. Blue states have the toughest gun control. Blue states have the higher crime rates. Is that a relationship?

419
24th Aug 2005, 12:49
It's a bit like the outcry in the U.K about our police being issued with tazers.

You can guarantee that if and when a criminal gets injured by one, it will be front page news, and all the human rights lawyers will be jumping on the bandwagon.
Little if anything will be mentioned about the dozens of crims who were disabled before they managed to harm anyone.

Solid Rust Twotter
24th Aug 2005, 12:57
In SA the legal, law abiding gun owners are being criminalised by ever more restrictive legislation that is nearly impossible to comply with. This is being seen as the authorities getting tough on the issue of violent firearm crime. Unfortunately the new legislation has absolutely no effect whatsoever on the thousands of illegal firearm owners who use their weapons to rob, murder and rape as it doesn't target them.

The police refuse to release the statistics but insist that the system is working. Unfortunately the newspaper headlines say otherwise....:(

Dead_Heading
24th Aug 2005, 13:01
I have no problem with applying for a certificate, and having the police inspect my facilities for storing them, in fact I feel comfortable with the system, but then again, I am fortunate enough to have a rural police force who are used to firearms, and the entire process of applying, vetting and inspecting took 2 weeks, even though at the time I was only 15, and since then there has been talk of more and more measures put in place as hurdles in the certification process.

Compared to some UK forces, where a 1-2-1 variation on someones FAC has been known to take months, this is impressive service indeed, and the police inspection was courteous, and was done by an exceedingly knoledgeable FLO, who was a shooting man himself.

But there lies the problem, if every police force is able to process applications with speed, effieceincy and good manners, as well as having FLOs with experiece in the relevant use of firearms, NOT just target shooting, but pest control etc as well (In one case a FLO suggested dispatching a wounded deer with a lump hammer as opposed to letting the deer stalker in question use a pistol), then certificates, including inspection of security facilities, are fine, as no criminal will frankly bother with all that to commit a crime with a 12 gauge, as 1) the system requires a good reason to possess a firearm, and also any criminal records are taken into account, viloent ones will ahve you banned for life, 2) the whole procedure takes time and 3) their firearms would be recorded by the police, as would their adress and photo. If they were suspected, it would be simple to check.


Criminals, by there very nature WILL NOT OBEY FIREARMS LAWS. You can't stop someone wanting to commit a crime with a gun by telling them they can't have a certificate for it.

One route for getting a gun is already closed to them;applying for and getting a certificate. In fact, that route is getting harder and harder for law abiding gun users, let alone criminals.

The only other route for them is to aquire a gun illegally. Very little has been done to combat this way of aquiring guns, at it has far less visible impact, and is harder to implement than simply whacking more restrictions of legal users, although really it is too late; there are far too many guns already in illegal circulation.

Before anyone cites Dunblane, let me point out that that was the issuing police forces fault. They had been approached by members of the shooting community to say that Hamilton was dangerous. He had been banned from all local gun clubs and there was only one range where he could shoot, a police owned range. Despite warnings from many areas, the police allowed him to keep his certificate.

Politics: I am a conservative and live in a conservative area.

BenThere
24th Aug 2005, 13:10
I was in the service department at Motor City Harley-Davidson the other day waiting to pick up my bike.

A county deputy sheriff was there picking up his bike. He was in uniform and packing a taser and we started talking about it. He told me he was actually tased in training, and that it involved no pain whatsoever. It just causes instant spasmodic disability, and when the tasing stops, you get up and walk away, tased, but unphased.

It carries a ton of volts but not even one amp. The problem is that a miniscule subpercentage of perps are susceptible to the shock on their pacemakers or, for some reason, tasing triggers another physiological chain of events.

I might suggest those who aren't comfortable with the dangers of tasing stay out of situations where they might be tased. Dave Martin would be all over me for that, though. It's still much better than taking a round, or even being clubbed to submission.

Onan the Clumsy
24th Aug 2005, 13:33
Fortunately, the US constitution is quite specific about my right to bear arms Well the Second Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) mentions it, but interestingly enough, frames it within the membership of a "well regulated Militia/militia".

Interestingly, it contains no provision for actually firing any arms that are kept and borne. :8

SpinSpinSugar
24th Aug 2005, 13:39
I'm interested in Canadian, Brit, and Aussie views on how gun control is working now that you've had a few years to deal with it.

Please, it's apples and oranges this although it's good propaganda for the NRA to say "look what happens in the UK when you take away all their guns!". There were never that many guns to start with!

We never had the free access to weaponry in the UK that is enjoyed in the US, before or after (relatively) recent changes to the law. As a result the UK has always enjoyed a relatively low level of gun crime, and firearm related deaths have always been rare compared to the US. Long may that continue!

In the case of the UK we're only talking about a small number of licensed sport pistols, shotguns and the occasional hunting rifle here, not the hundreds of thousands of weapons found in US households. Even before Dunblane a gun in a house was a rare thing.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't agree with the changes made in the UK - I used to belong to a rifle team (gorra medal too :) ): as per usual, correctly implementing existing laws would have solved the problem rather than knee-jerk nannying to the extreme and removing all legitimate sporting/hunting pursuits.

However it was never like the US over here!

Regards, SSS

Capt.KAOS
24th Aug 2005, 14:00
Blue states have the toughest gun control. Blue states have the higher crime rates. If you want to talk about gun related crime rates its completely different.

In the top 20 states of Murder and Manslaughter Rates only 5 are Blue States.

Rhodie
24th Aug 2005, 14:16
"If guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns"

"Guns dont kill people, People kill people"

2 of a few stickers I have on my (very big) gun safe...

This here is Africa - I cannot speak for the rest of civilized society, but here you can have yourself and your wife / passenger in a car killed for the vehicle and a cellphone.

An AK47 is available for the equivalent of US$50, on any of our borders, or indeed at the right corner, if you know where to look.

We have just about daily 'cash-in-transit' heists, where AK's and even our own ex-military R5's (based on the Galiel 5.56) are used. IF a firearm is recovered, it will have the serial number filed off, or be some arbitrary ex Russian cheap Africa throw-away gift from the so-called revolutionary days.

Hey - so I sound negative.. well, horses for courses (or something like that). If I lived in an area (see continent) where I could rely on the police force, the law and a civilized society, then sure - you can have my firearms. They are a huge, no, a massive responsibility. I have my lights on bright when I approach the front gate, with eyes on swivels, hit the electric gate opener and accelerate through and watch while it closes. I would like to sit on my porch in the evenings, but instead the security floods go on, the beams go on and the sliding door gates are secured.
If you have never heard the electric fence siren go off at 02h30, and the panel doesn't re-set, then you know that the fence has been cut - if you havn't heard and had to deal with this, then you are lucky.

Yes, I know - I could pack up and move off my land, I could pack up and leave the country. Maybe I would if I really could, who knows, but until then, I dont have weapons of war, I have weapons of preservation.

As for wars, I have served in three - wars to some, something else to others.. Rhodesia, SouthWest Africa and South Africa.

Anyone else feel a revolution coming on...??

Cheers

R

Dead_Heading
24th Aug 2005, 14:22
I thought it was bad having a couple of chooks nicked by gypos...:eek:

Dave Martin
24th Aug 2005, 14:31
While restricted access to guns has coincided with an increase in illegal (duh?) ownership, the correlation does not imply causality.

However, restricted ownership also means that -
a) anyone caught with a gun can be easily charged with an offense (clearly criminal), and
b) more importantly, restricted access prevents the multitude of (and more numerous) deaths resulting from gun assisted suicides, school kids disposing of other students in gun rampages, gun related hostage events, small childeren accidently shooting themselves or others with daddys gun, etc etc.

That someone, somehwere has illegally manged to source illegal possession of a handgun does not necessarily detract from a law that safeguards a great many more lives.

At the other end of the scale, do you really think that free-for-all legal ownership would have saved said celebrity minder?

Oi, Ben! I got no issues with tasers at all!

Dead_Heading
24th Aug 2005, 14:40
It's the fact that the government has made legal possesion of a handgun, ON A CERTIFICATE, almost impossible to hold. I know of only 2 people who hold pistols, 1 is a stalker I read about, who faced a massive legal battle from his Police department, and the second is a friend of ours who sees to our sheep, and uses a .22 pistol for the purpose.

Pistols should be allowed to be held on certificates in the same way as other firearms. The fact that they have been illegal to hold under normal circumstances for years, and yet their illegal use has increased shows just how ineffective that law was.

Solid Rust Twotter
24th Aug 2005, 16:13
It would be a fine thing if police actually made the effort to find illegal firearms but when they come across them they're usually in the process of being shot at and are too busy ducking to do anything about it. Targeting of legal firearm owners is a far easier and safer option.

As for being used for suicides, if only all those holding illegal weapons would oblige. It would remove a good deal of pressure from the law abiding in SA.:rolleyes:

Unfortunately the political agenda behind it all isn't interested in society's safety, merely that of the ruling elite.:(

Hobgoblin
24th Aug 2005, 17:35
When I left SA to do some travelling etc (still travelling,thanks:ok: and not in a hurry to return) I left my trusty little Brno .22 that I inherited safely locked away in my Dad's gun safe. Said safe is bolted into the floor and wall and will probably require a bulldozer to remove it from the premises. My Dad carries the key to the safe on his person at all times and is paranoid about making sure the guns don't get little feet. Every night he takes out the his trusty pump action shotgun to keep under the bed and every morning locks it away again. As a backup he has a pistol in the bedside table that also gets locked away in daytime.

He has a dog that is a cross between a Bull Terrier and a Pit Bull Terrier that he had professionally trained. This animal does not have teeth - what he has looks more like a mouth full of broken swords:E .

My Dad is 70 years young and very, very careful.

He was threatened with legal action unless he handed in my Brno .22 long rifle 1906 model to our great SA Police Force...

I signed the neccesary paperwork giving him permission to sell said firearm rather than give it to the Police.

It is now in a gun shop awaiting its new owner.:{

How does the saying go?

"You can have my gun when you pry it out of my cold hands"

Better yet : " You can have my gun.......one bullet at a time":E

Dead_Heading
24th Aug 2005, 17:40
"If I were locked in a room with you, two tigers and a gun with 2 bullets................ I would shoot you twice"

Anyone know where that one's from?

av8boy
24th Aug 2005, 20:49
I thought this was going to be a thread about bagpipes...

:(

Onan the Clumsy
25th Aug 2005, 02:18
The answer is really very simple and it would be hard to understand how anyone on either side of the debate could argue with it.

Simply make some form of training a requirement and add recurrency too. It's strange, to say the least, that you have to pass a test to drive a car which is designed to be transportation, but the same requirement is not mandated to operate a firearm that was designed to kill people.

Foss
25th Aug 2005, 02:31
Yes I think there should be certificates/licences, but certainly any legislation that is created will simply be ignored by those whose intent is to break the law in the first place.

(Hobgoblin,
you from anywhere near Chimanimani, or Silverstream) by any chance?)

Keygrip
25th Aug 2005, 03:16
I remember, in his concerts, the musician (and fellow pilot) John Denver used to perform a song "What are we making weapons for?". He asked the audience to consider, for a moment, why there actually is a weapons industry.

He used to demonstrate his point with.... (climbs on soapbox)....

Take a sheet of paper (A4 in UK, Letter size in USA) and attempt to fold it into 11 squares by 11 squares.

Two things will stop this; a) you cannot fold the paper that many times, no matter how big it is and, b) the resulting creases will make oblongs, not squares - however, work with it. Fold the page into 11 by 11. 121 "squares".

Then tear off one of the four corner "squares" (oblongs - suit yourself).

Now, using the finest/sharpest pen/pencil you can find, mark a single smallest possible dot on the big sheet of paper (which now has 120 "squares" left).

On the basis of "scale" - the small dot represents the total destructive power of every single piece of explosive used in the entire second world war - all countries combined.. Every bullet, every shell, every bomb, every grenade - you get the picture. The entire destructive power of explosives used in WWII.

The one "square" removed from the big sheet represents - on a scale basis - the destructive power required to destroy the planet Earth. Demolish every single building, tree, plant, animal - destroy all life and structure on the surface of the Earth.

The 120 squares remaining on the big sheet represents - on a scale basis - the destructive power of the nuclear only firepower reserves of the United States of America.

"What are we STILL making weapons for?".

Buster Hyman
25th Aug 2005, 04:00
BenThere In my quiet little corner of Oz, we have some pretty strict gun controls in place. I think all auto & semi auto firearms are banned. We still get the occasional use of weapons in crime, but on a scale compared to the US, SA or anywhere else for that matter, our percentages would be insignificant.

I dont think anyone believes for one minute that a person intending to use a firearm for illegal purposes will be hampered by this, however, the availability of same means it makes the crime somewhat harder to commit.

I once watched a show about a SA policeman & how his home was a virtual fortress. We don't have the need for that here, but I can accept that the world isn't as rosy as Oz & its a necessary evil. For the record, I think he was emigrating to Oz anyway.

Blacksheep
25th Aug 2005, 06:14
Familiarity breeds... what?

My wife's uncle came home from work after the usual long hot day rummaging through people's suitcases at Penang airport. He took off his Sam Brown and jacket and hung them up in the hall while he went into the kitchen to grab a cold drink. As he turned round his five year old son came into the kitchen.

"Look Daddy!"
"Bang!Bang! You're dead!"

and he was... :(

Why does a customs officer need to carry a sidearm? Guns don't belong in the house. They're weapons of war and despite what the NRA says - they do kill people.

Lock n' Load
25th Aug 2005, 06:42
SpinSpinSugar, I see you've bought into the orthodoxy of recent years. 20 years ago in the UK, most people were much more relaxed about private gun ownership than they are now.
The original UK Firearms Act was brought in in 1920 (or 1921 - I'd have to check) as a direct response to the perceived threat of communist revolution. Cabinet papers have been released and confirm this. Before then, there were no rules on gun ownership and that included pistols. Machine guns were simply very rare!
In the 19th century, rifle ownership in particular was encouraged by the government, Queen Victoria being a very outskoken proponent of the volunteer movement. The rallying cry was "a rifle in every cottage." The National Rifle Association was formed with government support to encourage civilian marksmanship. It should be noted that in both world wars, it was civilians thrown into uniform who actually did the winning! Those that could shoot were of marked benefit to the army that had too few regulars and which lost much of its strength in the retreat from France in 1940. The NRA of America is obviously a different organisation in many ways.
Until 1968, shotguns were not subject to licencing in the UK. After the 1968 Firearms Act came into force in 1969, a Shotgun Certificate was required (Firearms Certificate for short-barrelled shotguns) but ownership was still a PUBLIC RIGHT. The police, who issue certificates, had no right to ask for a good reason to issue, and had to have a good reason themselves to refuse a Shotgun Certificate.
In the late 1980s, Tayside in Scotland had the highest concentration of legal gun ownership in western Europe outside Switzerland, with 1 in 17 people being licenced. I was one of them, when I was 15 years old.
Since then, the media and government have conspired to change public attitudes towards firearms for the worse, though police forces have generally strived in recent years to improve relations with those to whom they issue licences. For instance, I know of one force that decided a couple of years ago to allow all deer stalkers to be issued certificate amendments allowing sound moderators on their deer rifles, so long as they asked on health and safety grounds. That actually makes very good sense as you can't stalk a deer if you're wearing hearing protection!
The fact is, the UK has every bit as much of a history of private gun ownership as any other country. It's just become one of the most urbanised (and urban driven) countries in the world in recent years, and that has coincided with political and media attacks on gun ownership.
The fact that Michael Ryan of Hungerford infamy did not meet the requirements for the issue of a Firearms Certificate, or Thomas Hamilton of even greater Dunblane infamy for that matter, at the time of their crimes, was conveniently brushed under the carpet by both media and government.
Traditionally, gun control has been a great deal more about achieving a docile, easily controlled populace than about public safety.
In Canada in the meantime, there is plenty of outrage at the expense and lack of results of the gun registry. $2billion and counting, and no reduction in armed crime..... As they say in these parts, do the math people.

BenThere
25th Aug 2005, 11:54
It's a hackneyed phrase, but not worn out:

Freedom isn't free.

Gun control is a government imposition on our freedom. It should only be applied to those who have demonstrated themselves unworthy of the reponsibility in the form of committing a felony.

We are constantly presented with challenges to our freedom whether it is the anti-smoking lobby, gun control advocates, motorcycle safety crusaders, even ambulance chasing lawyers out to sue various and sundry businesses out of existence. I have taken it upon myself to resist them all.

A lot of good ideas are proposed to make life safer and wiser, like motorcycle helmet laws, but they are wrong in that one aspect, they limit freedom. In California, you cannot open a bar hospitable to smokers; it's not allowed. What are they thinking?

When the constitution was written, I think the framers were assuring the right to bear arms because they wanted a populus self-protected from both invaders and an overbearing government. And a government who might face an angry, armed mob if it overstepped its rightful bounds would tend to show the restraint the framers sought to establish. Disarming the public removes that check.

Criminals become very bold if they know they will not face armed opposition. It's common sense.

Finally, I suggest we punish people for the crimes, not the methods. Possessing a weapon should not be a crime. Using a weapon to commit a crime should be an egregious offense carrying a very long sentence. Shooting someone with criminal intent should mean the end of one's life of freedom.

There's not much I respect about Saudi Arabia these days, but I do admire their no-nonsense attitude toward what they regard as serious crimes. If you are caught doing something the state seriously doesn't like, like stealing, it's going to hurt. As a result, you can leave the keys in the ignition in your unlocked car, or ride your bike to the library and leave it outside without a lock. There's a lot to be said in favor of that kind of freedom. It speaks highly for punishment as a deterrent.

Capt.KAOS
25th Aug 2005, 13:14
Criminals become very bold if they know they will not face armed opposition. It's common sense. Noting the Murder Rate figures, I'd rather say violence creates violence.

"The greatest blessing of our democracy is freedom. But in the last analysis, our only freedom is the freedom to discipline ourselves."

SASless
25th Aug 2005, 13:29
Bang on Kaos....."ourselves" and not the frigging guvmint. That is what "freedom" is all about.

I store my guns in a safe manner....in a safe. I shoot my guns in a safe manner at a safe place...and transport them in a safe way. I endorse harsh....more harsh punishment than the liberals do....of those who do not exercise that right to own guns in a legal, safe manner. But....I do not need my neighbor or goverment taking my guns away because they are uncomfortable with my owning them despite being both safe and legal in that ownership.

Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than all of my guns....and I carried guns for 8 years as a police officer in one of the toughest areas of the country.

419
25th Aug 2005, 14:18
Gun control is a government imposition on our freedom. It should only be applied to those who have demonstrated themselves unworthy of the reponsibility in the form of committing a felony.

I disagree totally. Owning any firearm carries responsibilities, and I think that you should first have to prove yourself suitable before being allowed to own one. Following on with your logic Ben, why should anyone have to prove they are worthy to hold a driving licence, as it is also a Government imposition to deny someone the right to drive. Therefore, it should be up to the Government to prove them unworthy first.

There are probably thousands of people who are not suitable to own a gun, (mentally unstable, alcoholics, drug addicts etc), but who might never have committed a crime. Their first felony might be the massacre committed with their gun.

ducks fly higher
25th Aug 2005, 15:14
Guns don't kill people - bullets do. Why don't we just outlaw bullets, and leave the guns alone?

SASless
25th Aug 2005, 17:45
419,

The Bill of Rights trips up those that would ban guns....and place such burdens as you propose.




THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution

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

The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:


Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment II
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.

angelorange
25th Aug 2005, 18:38
My father was out buying food for lunch in Sudanese market back in the 1970s - one of the stall owners was selling all kinds of domestic products including Fly swats - When my father asked the price the seller replied " do you have a licence to kill wildlife sir?"

Hmmm - to think Sudan once had as much wildlife as Kenya

419
25th Aug 2005, 18:58
Sasless,
I wouldn't really refer to it as a burden. Just a common sense step to help make sure that too many guns don't end up in the hands of people who aren't capable of handling them correctly.

Capt.KAOS
25th Aug 2005, 19:34
yeah yeah yeah SASless, the usual Kennedy crap. "If Ted Kennedy Had To Wait Five Days For A Drink, Mary Jo Kopechne Would Still Be Alive". BTW Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my SUV :rolleyes:

Unfortunately many people do not have that discipline. In my country there are strict gun control laws. The last gun I held was my army UZI, 30 years ago. Yet I never felt unsafe in my country without it. Seems you do, does that tell something about you or your country?

SASless
25th Aug 2005, 19:46
KAOS,

How do you deduce from any of my posts that I am "fearful" in my own country?

You make a statement that is completely off base again....care to justify that comment or can we chalk that one up to "style" and not substance.:uhoh:

Capt.KAOS
25th Aug 2005, 22:12
The issue in this thread is the right to bear arms, which usually is to defend ones family and property. Of course with all your guns you don't have to fear anything. You might want to add a Panzer III?

Maple 01
25th Aug 2005, 22:35
Naaah, the armour's too thin, it can only carry a 50mm L/60 main gun and spares are becoming a bit tight

However the Ausf M / (Flamm) comes with a handy 14mm flamethrower

I can lay my hands on some slightly used T-72M1s - 125mm main gun, and as it's a smoothbore you can have one on a shotgun licence

West Coast
25th Aug 2005, 22:51
Kaos

The way things are heading in your country, you might want to start feeling fearful. At least damn sure you know who is walking behind you in certain neighborhoods. Your not immune from violence.

"I remember, in his concerts, the musician (and fellow pilot) John Denver used to perform a song "What are we making weapons for?"

One less musician/wannabe politician who feels the need to pontificate when I'm paying him to perform. He should have spent a little more time on aircraft systems than his pet cause.

SASless
25th Aug 2005, 23:10
Funny thing....in the States...I know one guy with a car burglar alarm and we tease him horribly....and few of us lock our car doors.....here in the UK...everyone locks the doors...and most have car alarms. Hail storm came through today....and off went several car alarms.....must be all those guns about the place or something.:O

Darth Nigel
25th Aug 2005, 23:26
Depends where you live, mate. My son lives in Philadelphia, and anything that's not nailed down gets knicked (and not by him either).

While US citizens may have a right to bear arms (although FindLaw (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/) cites US v. Miller as an example where the Supreme Court ruled to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force), they should also damned well have a responsibility to handle their weapons safely.

Other than a photo of Ted Kennedy in Speedos, nothing frightens me more than an amateur with a gun. I would argue strongly that, if you are going to be allowed to carry a firearm in a public place, or to discharge it somewhere the general public may be at risk, then you should have some sort of mandatory weapon safety training.

You got 40 acres (and a mule) out in the back of nowhere, feel free to plink away at tin-cans... I don't give a damn.
But if you're pottering round town (or living in the next house over -- bear in mind up in the North east, a lot of the houses are wooden, and yer avaerage slug-thrower will put a bullet through a thin wood wall), I want to be :mad: sure that you are not going to "accidentally" send a round down-range in my direction because of some negligent discharge.

I'm nervous around an armed police officer/LEO, especially if I'm looking at the unfriendly end of the gun. But I know I'm dealing with a trained person, who is also probably a little on the nervous side. So we can defuse the situation together, and the odds are really really good that I won't get a .38-size hole in me by accident.
I'm scared shitless around some local woodsman (or townie) showing off with his new shotgun/handgun/AK-47 replica ... because I have no way of knowing whether he has a clue or whether he's just exercising his God-given right to drink beer, chase women and own guns. (I know I'm painting with a very broad brush here --- many gun-owners are responsible people).

con-pilot
25th Aug 2005, 23:36
"a photo of Ted Kennedy in Speedos":)

God I love it!

Quote of the week!:ok:

West Coast
26th Aug 2005, 00:22
"a photo of Ted Kennedy in Speedos"

A whole new meaning to pork barrel politics.

"Depends where you live, mate. My son lives in Philadelphia, and anything that's not nailed down gets knicked (and not by him either)"

I'm not sure what the point is. You could replace Philly in your post with any large city in any country and its still a truism

Blacksheep
26th Aug 2005, 02:10
I remember thumbing through a copy of Guns & Ammo a year or three back. There was an article in there about some guys in Texas who were exercising their right to bear arms under the second amendment by engaging in competitive field gun shooting. They had their own range and were firing solid shot at targets. The guns were towed to the event behind the customary pick-up truck. Interesting stuff and definitely related to "a well ordered militia".

Bizarre as it looked, the reporter found them a level headed, responsible group but the mind boggles at what might happen if they weren't. Anyone know the extent of competitive field gun (25 pounder) shooting in the States or were these an isolated group of eccentrics?

Capt.KAOS
26th Aug 2005, 09:07
Maple; the PzIII is very usefull against a thug with a riot gun and did fine in the early Blitzkrieg. Armour indeed was thin but the APCR ammuniting, speed and range extended the life-span of this obsolete tank and gun long after it should’ve been abandoned.

A King Tiger would do nicely, but spares for that are even worse to get, so the PantherF or the T34 is fine for me... ;)
The way things are heading in your country, you might want to start feeling fearfulWC: pls tell me, is there something I don't know? The atmosphere of fear hasn't arrived here yet. Chances I'm killed by lightning are far greater than by a terrorist attack.

Darth Nigel
26th Aug 2005, 14:23
WestCoast -- I agree that the truism applies to most large cities.

I was responding to SASless' comment above about how "in the States... few of us lock our car doors" with an observation that such things may be true in Spoon Lake, Minnesota (population 12), but are not universally true.

Not intended as a dig.

Keygrip
26th Aug 2005, 15:47
Interesting timing for the last posting.

I've lived in Florida for a fraction short of 8 years now - VERY rarely lock the car door, often leave it running (for air conditioning) whilst in a shop - very rarely lock the house front door - never lock the house back doors (direct entry from the pool).

All very safe and secure.

Last week - a woman was assaulted by a gun carrying criminal who dragged her from her car, in daylight, and drove off in the vehicle. This was in the car park of the nearby Wal-Mart (Asda - depends which country you are in).

There's an audio book available - "I'm a stanger here myself" by Bill Bryson. Talks about his experiences of returning to America after 20 years in a sleepy English village. Very funny.

Says, "NO crime here in New Hampshire - for two reasons. First, if you walked up to somebody and said, "Do you want to buy a car stereo", the answer would be, "No - I already have a car stereo". Then, secondly, that person would call the police - and the police would come round and shoot you".

Every single night, our local television station reports another gun murder somewhere in the viewing area.

There's very little crime in our immediate home area - but all that there is seems to be supported by gun carrying "bad people".

West Coast
26th Aug 2005, 16:34
Kaos

Perhaps you might feel a bit more concerned if you were to speak out on immigration issues or radical Islam. You know your in trouble when your having to lean over to read the note stuck in your chest with a knife. Perhaps you indeed don't feel fearful, doesn't mean you shouldn't. Europe in general and especially those with liberal immigration policies will be the next front of Islamic terrorism. The lightning analogy may hold true today, but watch out for tomorrow.

419
26th Aug 2005, 16:45
Chances I'm killed by lightning are far greater than by a terrorist attack.

Are you sure about that? On average, how many have been killed by terrorists in the UK and the USA over say, the past 10 years? Without a doubt, it will be a hell of a lot more than by lightning.

"In Britain, on average, three may be killed. This compares with about 75 deaths in the much larger USA. The number of people killed by lightning each year has varied markedly"

Blacksheep
27th Aug 2005, 07:03
The pen is mightier than the sword.

You should be careful how you handle any weapon West Coast Ignore the basic precautions and they can sometimes go off in your face. :hmm:

SASless
27th Aug 2005, 08:14
What time period you care to use....past three years....225 killed by lightning by your numbers....none by terrorists in the US.

Nine in the UK....56 by terrorists in the UK.

Either position is supported by those numbers...thus the pen strikes again I guess.

Stats can be manipulated to support any argument.

:uhoh:

West Coast
27th Aug 2005, 16:40
Blacksheep

Do tell, what is the basis of your cautionary tale with regard to this thread?

BenThere
27th Aug 2005, 22:04
Why does Switzerland, with compulsory gun ownership, have low crime and murder rates?

Why does Mexico, with total gun control have high crime and murder rates?

www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds39.html

Capt.KAOS
27th Aug 2005, 22:23
BenThere, must have something to do with mentality and temperament?

BTW changes that I'm killed in an road accident are higher too. Do we ban cars? Death is part of our life, so is the risk we have every day.

BUMPFF
28th Aug 2005, 05:56
My simple question was answered in part by an article in yesterday's 'Times' which showed the likely origin of the weapon and its route to Hoddesden.

Former Colonel Tim Collins' fascinating book ('Rules of Engagement') mentions AK47s quite a lot. When he was being investigated for alleged war crimes, one of his interrogators asked, "Is it true that you were in possession of an AK47 rifle?" "No," replied Collins, "It is not. I had three AK47s because the SA80 is [email protected] useless."

West Coast
28th Aug 2005, 06:27
"must have something to do with mentality and temperament?"

Threat as well.


"that I'm killed in an road accident are higher too. Do we ban cars?"

Your beliefs about being fried by lightning rather than terrorism are under fire, so you may want to be a tad more selective in forecasting the method of your demise.

Blacksheep
29th Aug 2005, 06:12
so you may want to be a tad more selective in forecasting the method of your demiseI see you're beginning to grasp the idea already.

War always starts with words - for words have a way of getting out of hand and taking over. An old sociologist sat in a museum reading room and wrote an obscure book on industrial economics. Just look what that led to.

Be careful with words. They are more powerful than we think.

Peace be with you.

West Coast
29th Aug 2005, 13:36
aah, ok...