I think from the YouTube stuff there are a few close to winning a Darwin award.... :}

Oh wow. I didn't know you could find films on the internet of hot young ladies in skimpy tops firing weapons. Anybody know where I can find other such clips?

And, truth be told, some of those camera persons are very lucky to be still alive. What was that about never getting in front of a loaded weapon? The AK47 at 0.45s is a particularly insane example in a whole bunch of idiocy.

Your wish is my command!

I think the .50 on the humvee just after stands out most for me. I don't know about the yank's version of it (I would assume its fairly similar to ours though), but IIRC you couldn't cock our .50's with the barrel half locked. This means the bloke has more than likely been :mad:ing about with the barrel with ammunition still in the chamber!!

The guy in the first vid that gave the kid a pistol and the kid shot him in the side may have won a Darwin award.

I really hate to enter into this, because I know how it ends, but...

First, almost nobody has 'assault rifles'. An assault rifle, by US federal law is a select-fire, fully automatic, military weapon - commonly referred to by the uneducated civilians as, machine guns. The manufacturers have been barred from producing them for the civilian market since 1986 and didn't make many prior to that. Those that do still exist on the market require an extensive criminal and mental background check and the purchase of a specific license or stamp. Under very stiff penalty of law, the gun may not be transferred to anyone without going through this process or through a specially licensed class II gun dealer. These guns cost $10,000 and up and have never, ever been used in any mass shooting in the USA. Ever.

I think you're referring to 'assault weapons'. The term 'assault weapons' was fabricated by the anti-gun group known as Gun Control Inc in the very early 1980s. They use the term to describe any legal semi-automatic hunting rifle that has one or more physical characteristics such as a folding or collapsing stock, threaded barrel, flash suppressor, heat shield, pistol grip, large capacity magazine, etc. They say these are bad guns because they're scary looking, but their physical appearance has absolutely no effect on their function and does not magically turn them into machine guns. These guns are more properly called sporting rifles. The best analogy I can think of right this moment is the young boy driver who puts wide tires, a wing, a scoop, some flashy paint and a loud exhaust on his hatchback. Yes, it looks like a road-race car, but underneath he's still driving grandma's Nissan.

Nevertheless, some sporting rifles have been used in shootings. How many?

In 2011 (latest year for full statistics from the FBI), out of a population of approx 322,000,000 there were exactly 323 murders and non-negligent manslaughters with rifles of any kind - not just sporting rifles. If you do the math, that's literally a per-capita rate of one-in-a-million. The overall gun murder rate in the US is about 3.2 per 100,000 - admittedly on the backside, but underneath the bell curve for 'civilized' society. If you control for population density, in other words, compare like-city to like-city, we're actually well below average compared to just about anyone. But as much as we'd like, we can't just throw out Chicago, Detroit, New York, Atlanta, Los Angeles, or Miami...(although I know the country would be better off without them, but that's a different discussion).

So, we don't 'go around killing each other' with either assault rifles (never ever) or sporting rifles for that matter. But those sporting rifles make a heckofa news cycle, don't they?

As for our Second Amendment, what you may find 'ridiculous', those who actually understand it label it the 'palladium of rights'. As your mind seems to be made up because you know all things American, I'll not lecture you on it, its purpose, or why you should actually be envious of its inclusion in our Constitution.



To the topic - yes, idiots and firearms don't mix, hopefully, it's a self-correcting problem. :E

Have a great day!

Hi Herk thank your for explaining.

I think the kind of guns for sale in the US are only available for government services in most of the world. Regardless of the technical details.

http://insidetheegg.files.wordpress....pg?w=645&h=429

I think the US has developed a unique gun culture over the last 50 yrs. Tourist get into the shops to amaze themselves. Locals are raised with it (yes movies too) and simply know it's a part of live, a right, you should have one, defend yourself. And play with it (practice).

The resulting number firearm-related deaths is truly astonishing compared to other civilized countries. More then 20 as much as UK, 10 times as Australia, 5 times as Canada.. And the reason behind it is totally clear, to the rest of the world..

List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We have something similar in the Netherlands, though less violent. Nobody wears helmets cycling in our busy cramped old cities. Research shows we should. Scores get killed / wounded, kids eldery, everyone knows. Helmets make a big difference. Campaigns to have people buy them, even giving them all fail. Its simply not done. Only foreigners wear helmets. Why? don't ask, w'll confuse, mislead, misinform you, change the subject, mix in irrelevant comparisons..

US Herk ... Better keep your head down in the Everglades over the coming months as I guess every man and his gun will be out trying to bag some of the Python bounty payments on offer :eek:

keesje

Were you trying to use that photo as an example of the guns
for sale in the US ?

If so, then those guns in that photo are NOT for sale but for hire to shoot at
a range in Las Vegas. They do not leave the premises and you have someone standing by you all the time once you have the firearm in your hands.

Only people with very special licences are allowed to buy full auto
SMG's and MG's of which a fair few of those in the photo are.


Is this another case of you twisting the argument to suit your case
like in the Falklands thread ?

.

No, not true. Sporting rifles are NOT, repeat NOT, government weapons, nor are they law-enforcement weapons.

This hunting rifle:
http://media.liveauctiongroup.net/i/...CDAE02694C8CA0

Is exactly the same as this sporting rifle:
http://thespecialistsltd.com/files/r...i_14_black.jpg

Just as this looks like a race car:
http://daddytypes.com/archive/cervinis_ford_focus.jpg

It's really just one of these with a paint job, a wing, and some fancy wheels:
http://static.cargurus.com/images/si...pic-62144.jpeg

There is absolutely zero functional difference between the two guns. They are both Ruger Mini-14 semi-automatic rifles used for varmint hunting on ranches. They are not 'assault weapons' or 'assault rifles', nor is the bottom one any more dangerous than the top one. They are identical in function, if not form. They fire the same exact round .223 Remington, the same exact way - one bullet each time you pull the trigger.

That's actually a very unrealistic comparison. If nobody else has guns or ready access to guns, one would expect more firearm-related deaths in the society that does have guns. So, not quite an apples-for-apples comparison. It does prove that if you have access to guns, you will likely have people who die from guns. Something to keep in mind is those other countries have restricted access to a limited number and type of guns, yet they still have gun death. And our murder rate is not 20 times that of the UK, it's about 8 times according to the UK home office and the FBI.

Remember that we are over 322,000,000 people, so the total numbers are quite large, yet as a percentage, it's relatively small. 3.2 per 100,000 citizens are murdered (including non-negligent manslaughter) each year. The UK is only about 0.4 per 100,000, so we're 8 times as likely to be killed with a gun. However, in the UK, there are far fewer guns (approx 4,000,000 according to gunpolicy.org), those that do exist are heavily regulated and the overwhelming majority are shotguns as well. Still, with that in mind, when you consider there are about 120,000,000 guns in the US, it would appear that we're actually more responsible overall than the fewer legal gun owners in the UK. While the US has 30 times the number of guns as the UK, our murder-by-gun rate is only 8 times that of the UK. It's not the guns.

If the US access to guns caused the high rate, we should have a murder rate 30 times that of the UK, but we don't. Here's more: Your Swiss cousins are all armed to the teeth, required by the Swiss government to retain their military rifles after their compulsory service. Every single Swiss home has at least one rifle - military rifles. Yet, they have some of the lowest crime in the whole of the western world. My point? The guns are not the problem. Access to guns is not the problem. You've been fed a line of propaganda for so long you cannot even accept any other possibility. Guns are merely tools - they have no moral character - they are not good or evil, naughty or nice - they are inanimate objects.

Since we can prove that neither the number of guns nor the availability of guns is a good predictor of murder, why do you ban them? I guess it must be because it promotes a culture of violence. With that in mind and since it's clear to everyone else in the 'civlizied world' that guns are bad and hence, they've banned them from most folks' access, one should expect that the US would have the most violent crime. The assumption being that guns cause all the violence - or else, why ban them since it's not the murder? That, however, is not the case. The US has lower overall violent crime (murder, rape, arson, aggravated assault, and home invasion burglaries) than a good deal of the 'civilized world' and our murder rate overall, not just firearm-related, is actually reasonably comparable on a per capita rate (which is the only realistic way to compare any crime statistic). Further, the UK is the most violent country in the EU according to the EU and UN statistics.

Quit watching the news. I didn't make these numbers up. Find some reliable data and investigate for yourself (not wikipedia). The US FBI publishes the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) every year available to the public. The UK Home Office does similarly, as do many other the countries. The UN publishes data it collates from various member nations - some of the data is decidedly less reliable than others based on the sources, but they do provide the generic source for their data so you can filter on your own. According to the UN, the USA is #127 on the list of murder by firearm, but now we're competing with countries like Honduras, Mexico (some of the strictest gun control laws in the world), South Africa, etc.

As an end note, my university degree is in Criminal Justice, so I've been familiar with these debates and statistics for over 25 years now.

This is a good video - around 2:30-40 there's a comparison with the UK specifically.

Lets not try to overwhelm/ confuse people with technical details that don't really matter.

http://www.feministe.us/blog/wp-cont...p_1024x768.jpg

You can get bushmasters at Walmart:
http://www.trbimg.com/img-50d0a8b8/t...r-2012-001/600

I'm sure we can look at the gun related killings statistics in different ways. But the writing is on the wall. Unless you don't want to see it. And that's IMO a problem.

My son will never be able to steal a bushmaster from his mother. Nor will his friends, family, neighbours.. A reality.

keesje

As others have pointed out, I notice you are very selective with what you read and respond to.

N500, instead of futile discussions over a single photo (https://www.google.nl/search?num=10&....1.iT9HFwV0070)

others seem to answer your question about the ability to buy assault weapons. The NRA is furious.

New York enacts gun-control law, first since Newtown attack | Reuters

Lanza, like every single other mass shooter in the last thirty years, was on psychotherapeutic drugs. He did not have 'ready' or 'easy' access to guns, they were his mother's guns. Did you know he killed his mother to get the guns and her car?

I think we should ban alcohol because some folks don't use it responsibly, get in their cars, and kill people. Or maybe we should ban cars instead. Or maybe we can be sensible, punish those who use either of these tools abusively, and allow the responsible, law-abiding people to go about their lives unfettered from restrictive laws.

For what it's worth, the other 68,000,000+ legal gun owners, owning 120,000,000+ guns killed nobody yesterday. The guns, access to guns, types of guns, or anything else about the tools of the criminally insane are completely irrelevant. Yet you fail to grasp that very simple and basic concept.

According to the EU, the Netherlands has 111,888 violent crimes, which works out to a per capita rate of 676 per 100,000 people. The US has 466 per 100,000 people. If you don't know what that means, allow me to explain it - you are nearly 1.5 times more likely to be the victim of violent crime in the Netherlands. If you have such sensible gun laws, why do you have more violence and violent crime? Go get your house in order before you start telling others how to run theirs. And quit watching the news.

Your ability to selectively pull individual sentences from major media who are not factually reporting, but sensationalizing facts speaks volumes to the extent to which you are already brainwashed, ignorant, or both. You refuse to listen to reason, so I'm assuming your ignorance is willful. The brainwashed part is obvious, but I was hoping there was still logic and reason within you. My mistake.

I'm done.

Pigs can't sing and I'm only getting muddy.

More people per capita in the US die from gun injury than in any other developed nation.

Violent crime is not death by guns, so please don't try to equate the two. First, there is the matter of what gets recorded as "violent crime", which differs enormously by nation. Then, while you are more likely to be involved in a violent incident in the UK than in the US, that same violent incident is 15 times more likely to end in the death of one of those involved. So yeah, there may be more "violent crime" in the UK, but the level of violence is far, far greater in the US.
I can dig up the reports on those numbers if you want.

Question for US Herk, forgetting all the arguments about what kills what, why do you feel you need to own a gun?

Without wishing to stifle debate; what has this got to do with military aviation?

Even the info regarding the new UK Glock 17 (yes, I contributed!) was a bit spurious. This is way out in left field.

Duncs:ok:

That said, it's this first time that I have been even remotely in agreement with anything keesje has said!:E

I think guns are for people that are well trained, not only in how to handle them but also when to use them, make quick risk assesments when not to use them and being authorized to use them as a last, to be avoided option.

In my book that is police and militairy. We pay them train them and arm them in the best possible way for that difficult responsibility. We keep their weapons safe for them when they go home.

Not that grown up kid down the street, raised with Gears Of War 2, that heard he has rights to buy that awesome Bushmaster.

The Congressional Research Service in 2009 estimated there were 310 million firearms in the United States. What's the number you have!? If you can't convince them, confuse them?

Herk, the numbers you name, and the conclusions you get out of them.. amazing.

I think its rather unfair to law abiding gun owners in the US that they are all tarnished by the actions of the odd lunatic. People ask ''whats the need to own a gun?''. One could say that about anything, ''whats the need to own a sports car or a speed boat or a second home? Maybe simply as the person in question enjoys owning the item, thats all.
To punish the majority of the law abiding due to the actions of the odd person just seems so wrong. Following that logic we could ban all alcohol. Most people drink alcohol in a reasonable way, a minority do not. Maybe for the greater good to prevent drink driving and alochol related violance (common in our cities at night) we could ban all alcohol. As someone who does not drink I don't see why my life should be at risk by those who do. We have all the situations of football hooligans which often involve drink aswell. So maybe for the greater good a total ban on alcohol should take place. What purpose does alcohol serve? Why do people need to drink it? Its a drug and a dangerous one at that, many other drugs are banned so maybe alcohol should be added to the list!!! I don't see that drinking serve any worthwhile purpose at all.
I would not support such a ban though, I hate alcohol but that does not mean my opinion should force others to do the same. Not to think of the major economic disaster such a ban would cause, the same applies to the large gun industry in the US, all the gun shops, manufacterers, shooting clubs would all be gone, with the economy as it is all they need are yet more job losses. But for me the big issue is the freedom of Americans to own a gun or not.

This wasn't addressed to me, but I'd like to answer anyway.

I don't "need" a gun.

I can simply because I can. It is an inherent right for simply being alive as an American citizen that I can. It is enshrined in the the founding charter of our nation, the U.S. Constitution. That remarkable document, for us, states some remarkable rights that are ours simply for being.

They are not for the government to dole out or restrict.

It is ours. It may not work for others and I do not wish to inflict upon others.

The beauty for us is that you can decide for yourself to own or not.

I, and tens of millions, if not a hundred millionor more, did nothing wrong with our firearms.


edited to add: the morons highlighted in this thread on video are well on their way to gene pool clean-up. As it should be; stupid should hurt. :E