Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Dumb arses and guns...

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Dumb arses and guns...

Old 18th Jan 2013, 03:48
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Not a huge sand box but very nice winters anymore
Age: 57
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Fk,

Good post. I agree with you completely. Odd that a country which claims to lead the world is afraid of it's own government.
saudipc-9 is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2013, 05:48
  #82 (permalink)  
PTT
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@ Leon
I find this quote from PTT somewhat amusing. Guns, just like cars/aircraft/boats/fireworks/chainsaws/etc... are unsafe if you don't know what you're doing or follow your training (like CCS which the thread is all about).
I wouldn't advocate operating cars/aircraft/boats/fireworks/chainsaws/etc without the proper training either. There's no contradiction. The difference between those items and guns, though, is that guns are intended to cause damage.
Secondly, their sole intent is not just to "kill or injure others", they can be used to:

1. Act as a visual deterrent and sign of authoriity.
2. Put food on the table.
3. Give an advantage to a smaller force threatened by a larger but lesser armed force (a bit like point number 1).
2 requires the use of the gun to kill or injure the intended meal, as does 3 if things get "heated". In the best case of no shots being fired, the use of the gun in 1 and 3 is predicated on the knowledge that the gun is intended to kill or injure others: fear of that capability is what makes it work. Cars/aircraft/boats/fireworks/chainsaws/etc simply don't have that same effect...
If anything, your example 1 is evidence that guns are inherently dangerous.
think whether the nut-job would have used other means to kill/main these innocent individuals - the answer is probably "yes" using arson, petrol bombs, nail bombs, chemical attack, mowing them down in a large vehicle, etc, etc....
They probably would try; thing is, easy access to guns makes it easier for them to do.

Last edited by PTT; 18th Jan 2013 at 06:59.
PTT is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2013, 07:39
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
LJ,

Well done; a reference to Mil Aviation!

Duncs
Duncan D'Sorderlee is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2013, 08:52
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Scotland
Age: 80
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
PTT - I suggest you read my post again as you appear to be under the mistaken belief that the 173 figure for children under five refers to UK figures - it in fact refers to US children under five years of age in 2008 and 2009. In the UK for the last 5 years at least I have not heard of a single shooting death of a child of under five. As far as the 120000 figure is concerned it is quite feasable as in an average year 23000 die from gunshot wounds in the USA.
bcgallacher is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2013, 09:06
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Scotland
Age: 80
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
PTT - I suggest you read my post again as you appear to be under the mistaken belief that the 173 figure for children under five refers to UK figures - it in fact refers to US children under five years of age in 2008 and 2009. In the UK for the last 5 years at least I have not heard of a single shooting death of a child of under five. As far as the 120000 figure is concerned it is quite feasable as in an average year 23000 die from gunshot wounds in the USA. The fact is unlike any other industrialised nation,the citizens of the USA shoot each other and themselves at an extremely high rate. What can be done about it? absolutely nothing as the guns are already in society and impossible to remove.In my little country we suffered one school massacre in Dunblane - we may have another as you cannot account for every maniac in society but at least we have tried to minimise the risk. If we need a gun we can legally get one but we do not have to fear our fellow citizens the way it seems to be in the US.School massacres seem to happen at regular intervals in your country - next time have a serious think about how to reduce them - the solution is not more guns.
bcgallacher is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2013, 09:27
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Scotland
Age: 80
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If you really want a comprehensive account of gun deaths and injuries in the USA the Childrens Defense Fund website is very detailed - the figures given in an article dated January 3rd are from official sources. Any person with a modicum of humanity will be appalled. The price for 'the right to bear arms'. I am glad we do not have the same gun culture - we do not fear our Government and our freedoms are no different.
bcgallacher is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2013, 09:54
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Q. How many NRA members does it take to change a light bulb?

A. More guns.
PeregrineW is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2013, 10:30
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 152
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Well done; a reference to Mil Aviation!

Duncs
Here's another tenuous link. In 1995, I was in Sarajevo doing a military aviation job. Our lot had recently been bombing the other lot on the far side of the city, and we won. As Christmas approached, we started receiving the traditional parcels of goodies from back home. The previous year, most of these had been passed on to the orphanages on our side of the besieged city, so this time we decided to try a gesture of reconciliation. We phoned the Serb colonel in his somewhat damaged barracks over the other side, asking for reassurance that we could safely cross over to visit him and give food parcels for the kids over there. He agreed, and 2 of us set off to deliver seasonal wishes.

We (me RAF and an American colleague) were greeted by the colonel in his colourful purple/blue DPM kit and Nike trainers. He was a well-spoken, well-educated, urbane man, who seemed hospitable and reassuring. After a few cups of coffee and glasses of slivovitz, we were having quite a pleasant conversation, despite recent events. Eventually, we got to the point where I thought that he was making a joke, but then I realised that he was indeed serious. In talking about what our children would be doing back home at Christmas, he suggested that our UK and USA kids would be playing with computers, thinking that these would be the means to control the world in the future. However, he said, his son would be practising with his AK47; that was the real secret to future power.

Sadly, all these years later, there still seem to be a lot of adherents to this philosophy.

Last edited by noprobs; 18th Jan 2013 at 10:33.
noprobs is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2013, 11:41
  #89 (permalink)  
PTT
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
PTT - I suggest you read my post again as you appear to be under the mistaken belief that the 173 figure for children under five refers to UK figures - it in fact refers to US children under five years of age in 2008 and 2009.
Ah, ok, it wasn't clear to me. In that case the figure is meaningless as it is contextless.
That said, I mistyped the final ratio, which, had my interpretation been correct, should be 173:1116 instead. Thanks for pointing it out though
As far as the 120000 figure is concerned it is quite feasable as in an average year 23000 die from gunshot wounds in the USA.
No source, no belief. I can't find a single source to suggest that almost 2,800 under-5s die a year from firearms related causes. Similar rates are quoted for under-20s, but not under-5's. The only reference I've found to under-5 death rates in 15 minutes of searching is this, which states 73 under-5s were killed by firearm in 1999. Extrapolating that (and we have no reason to accept that is reasonable give that we have only one data point) we would get just over 3,000 deaths in a 43 year period. Not quite the 120,000 you mention.
That said, the US firearm related death rate (source - original source for that article is a pdf from CDC) is 10.2 per 100,000. With a population of 310m that makes for 31,620 deaths by firearm in 2010. The homicide rate is 3.6, making for 11,160 homicides by firearm that year. It's worth noting that the US has the 3rd highest suicide by firearm rate.
The fact is unlike any other industrialised nation,the citizens of the USA shoot each other and themselves at an extremely high rate. What can be done about it? absolutely nothing as the guns are already in society and impossible to remove. In my little country we suffered one school massacre in Dunblane - we may have another as you cannot account for every maniac in society but at least we have tried to minimise the risk. If we need a gun we can legally get one but we do not have to fear our fellow citizens the way it seems to be in the US. School massacres seem to happen at regular intervals in your country - next time have a serious think about how to reduce them - the solution is not more guns.
I don't disagree. All I'm saying is that in order to make the argument and prevent people from picking niggling holes it is wise to shore it up with citations and be aware of the limitations of the stats you quote.

Last edited by PTT; 18th Jan 2013 at 11:51.
PTT is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2013, 14:38
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Scotland
Age: 80
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Nowhere have I said that 120000 under fives have been shot dead - that figure refers to minors. Minors are those under the age of majority.In this country it is 16, in the US I believe it is 18. As far as figures are concerned they are official US government figures - some from the FBI,some from other government bodies.I really think you should stop trying to defend the indefensible and admit that the death rate from guns is an affront to a civilised country - why does this discussion exist?
The last comment on this subject I will make is that 45% of young male gun deaths are of black males who comprise 15% of the population - this also seems to be the case in the UK where the percentage of gun deaths in the black population far exceeds the percentage in society.This is not a racist statement,merely a statement of fact.
bcgallacher is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2013, 15:03
  #91 (permalink)  
PTT
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Understood now, although you weren't exactly clear.
PTT is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2013, 19:19
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
How’s this for an answer!!!!! (emailed to me by a friend.).
For those that don't know him, Major General Peter Cosgrove is an Australian.
General Cosgrove was interviewed on the radio recently. Read his reply to the lady who interviewed him concerning guns and children.
Regardless of how you feel about gun laws you have to love this!
This is one of the best comeback lines of all time.

This is a portion of an ABC radio interview between a female broadcaster and General Cosgrove who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military Headquarters.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
So, General Cosgrove, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?

GENERAL COSGROVE:

We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery and shooting.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?

GENERAL COSGROVE:
I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?

GENERAL COSGROVE:
I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.

FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
But you're equipping them to become violent killers.

GENERAL COSGROVE:
Well, Ma'am, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you?

walter kennedy is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2013, 19:38
  #93 (permalink)  
PTT
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
An oldie but a goodie
FEMALE INTERVIEWER:
But you're equipping them to become violent killers.
This is her logic fails, imo. You're equipping them to be able to safely use weapons (which I advocate). Anyone can be a violent killer, and teaching children how to use a gun responsibly doesn't do that.
PTT is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2013, 16:14
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 57
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think its funny to see how many are focussed on proving in the US its e.g. just 10 times as many people/ kids killed as in the UK, instead of 20 times as much. Shows how deep the problem is..
keesje is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2013, 17:49
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"guns don't kill people - rappers do. I seen it on a documentary on BBC2"


Guns don't kill people - no the idiot behind the gun is the one, as ably demonstrated by the antics of the darwin brigade in the clips.

HOWEVER - the ease at which lethal weapons can be purchased, or given or whatever stateside is quite worrying......

Would I choose to live in the states - maybe.
would I choose to own a firearm - probably not - I'd like to but with a small child in the house I'd prefer to do my shooting at a licensed range only thanks- and I'm not man enough to do hunting......

I'll stick with my own legal way to eliminate a burgalar - a highly trained wooly alligator, preferably one who is trained to protect the wee un.
cornish-stormrider is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2013, 19:45
  #96 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 81
Posts: 16,777
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
OK, I'll touch an aviation theme and more:

In the 60s it never crossed our mind that we were visiting the wild west. We would visit Omaha, and we even managed Los Angeles armed with no more than a pitiful handful of dollars (no credit cards then). It never crossed our mind that there were gunmen and women around.

We certainly knew that an American guard or policeman that gave you an order was to be obeyed but not that most others were armed too.

Now would innocent visiting aircrew be quite so blasé?

Now, if you decided to buy and live in the US (as permitted) would you consider getting a gun?
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2013, 20:09
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 60
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Interesting how many accents one could hear at the various Vegas gun ranges coinciding with Red Flag, etc.

Same as when I go to the only indoor range here in my new Midwest home. Not unusual to hear one or two of those young men (mostly) with the short haircut and the non-Midwestern accent signing up for a lane.

I would hope that the level of discourse here is a little better than in Jet Blast on the topic.

But basically, we, in America, have the right to own firearms. It is not for the federal government to infringe upon that. Individual states can, and do, what is permissable or not (This discussion is regarding semi-auto, widely in use weapons, not full-auto. Which are legal to own, just enormously cumbersome regarding the paperwork involved). But not the federal government.

We have the freedom to choose to own or not to own.

If one chooses, one has the responsibility that goes along with it. By far, the vast majority do.

Unfortunately, a few idiots don't.

But it is our decision and society. Not anyone else's. You visit other nations and cultures and abide by their norms. Just as we do (or should) when in yours.

Please note, this is dealing with legal gun ownership and use and not criminal activity which I believe is not eradicated on the far eastern side of the Atlantic either.


edited to add: While I wouldn't presume to speak for all gun-owning Americans this

Odd that a country which claims to lead the world is afraid of it's own
government.
has it backwards. Because there are so many gun-owning citizens, there are those in the government who are afraid of us.

Just as the Founding Fathers (who used The English Bill of Rights as one of their research documents, complete with the "right to bear arms" although you wanted only Protestants!) intended.

And we intend to continue.

Last edited by brickhistory; 19th Jan 2013 at 20:20.
brickhistory is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2013, 21:04
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 57
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm not afraid of my government, we have elected them to protect us. And they do or we send them home. I think they have the task to interfere with people that think they have the right to own and play with assault rifles and let their kids do the same.

I think being more tough on gun sales is only the start. The US government should start taking them back, starting the powerfull ones. It's gone out of control. I think it is the right thing to do but takes courage, persistence.

A full blown media campaign presenting the realities of US gun culture is a good start. Anti smoking campaigns should give a good example, educating the population.
keesje is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2013, 22:00
  #99 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,099
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I don't think it would be a good idea to challenge the citizens right to own but one area that can be tightened up without breaching anyones rights is the storage of weapons, I would have thought? How about hand guns, (excluding machine pistols), shotguns and single shot rifles may be kept in the home but semi-automatic and automatic weapons may be owned but must be stored in a secure armoury at the range where they will be used, taken out when required, returned after cleaning?
parabellum is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2013, 22:30
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: USA
Age: 60
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
keesje, good for you and I'm glad you have your opinion. I also respect what your government does or does not to regarding your ability to own weapons.

Why is it too much to ask for the same courtesy?

para, why should I store my weapons anywhere but where I choose? Your scenario presumes some sort of registry, which I, and most gun-owners are against, to ensure compliance with the 'armory' storage. Such a universal register would be, and has been in some locales, the first step in government confiscation of said weapons when it decided those guns were suddently illegal.

Secondly, I and most gun-owners, do take precautions regarding safe and secure storage of my weapons. I do not need the state to tell me what I must do and subject me to their restrictions.

Thirdly, although your intent was clear, when you included 'semi-autos' in your plan, you eliminated the, probably, majority of handguns. Semi sales have far exceeded revolver sales for quite a while now. To the extent where some of the best revolvers are no longer produced due to lack of sales. Semi-auto handguns, on the other hand, sell like mad.

Stupidity by legal gun-owners and illegal activity by criminals is the issue. Human behavior of the relative few, not the reasonable care exercised by the vast majority, is the culprit. Not the implement itself.
brickhistory is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.