Brick
 

I didn't intend to exclude handguns like the 9mm Browning or it's more modern counterparts, just those rapid fire, large magazine machine pistols.

As far as semi-automatic and automatic rifles are concerned they are hardly the weapon for self or property defence are they? My thoughts were that they would only be used on a range so why not keep them there? Don't want to get too deep into this, I'm a gun owner but not an American!:)

Parabellum
"I'm a gun owner"

No, as a gun owner you are a bloody traitor. If you are suggesting this
for US citizens, what are you telling your / our Gov't to do ?

Stop imposing restrictions on gun ownership and what people can
and can't do in the US.

FYI, the majority of people in the US use semi auto M16 type firearms
for HUNTING as well as target shooting so storing them at a range is BS.

I can't believe a gun owner, especially from Victoria actually said that.
We were just talking about other "gun owner" traitors who support the Gov't on another forum, I might just cut and paste your post above into that thread
because 99% of people would say you are a traitor.


BTW, What if someone (like those lovely do gooders out there) started to push for all civvy pilots of civvy planes had to take another pilot along on the basis that "you" might do something stupid when flying the plane, endangering other people ??????? Kind of restrict private flying wouldn't it ?

500N - Uncharacteristically you have gone way, way OTT with your reaction, most unusual and disappointing. All I am suggesting is a change to storage rules, nothing more, you should be very careful with the use of the word 'traitor' too.

So, back to my Q.

How do RAF and other detached military personnel feels about gun ownership when based in the USA?

Do they retain the European attitude or do they feel that they also need a firearm?

"storing on the range " really won't help. I shoot on several ranges, so I could take the weapon out of one range to go to another, or just walk out with it. Whilst I see the need for reasonable controls, it is slightly paradoxical that I had to hand in my Glock 17, good for 50m, and now have a sniper rifle good for 600+

PN

Maybe if you phrased the question properly you might get an accurate response. Not sure that's what you want or if you're simply stoking the fire.

parabellum

OK, central storage is one of the worst ideas around as you effectively
create a supermarket for the thieves of all the nicest goodies.

You are effectively telling the crooks, hey guys, here is all the good stuff
all collected in one location for you. And no way can enough security be provided to keep them secure in all locations.

Plus, the inconvenience to owners who live a long way away and don't
use the range, only hunt with them, what about them ?

Re the T word, well, half the reason we have the stupid laws we have in Australia is because certain firearms groups thought they were OK and so didn't fight, only to be shafted the next time around - and when they were
targeted they asked for help !!!

We don't need fellow gun owners suggesting further restrictions !
It's all in or we will get steamrolled by the do gooders.

Just like Pilots / flyers get targeted by the NIMBY's at Moorabbin
and Essendon, airports that were there a long time before houses
but are now being targeted because of noise, danger, and the "oh a plane
might crash on my house" syndrome !!!

So if we are all happy the "guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people", how do we prevent someone with a gun killing people?

We could educate, or we could legislate, or we could do both.

We could educate gun owners that killing people is bad, educate them to look after their weapons/use them responsibly/store them out of the way of children, all the things that responsible gun owners should do. Societal and peer pressure should be enough to prevent these gun owners from doing the wrong thing.

However, tell me one nation in the world where ALL the citizens obey the speed limit/don't drop litter/hand back their library books on time? education will not work for everyone.

So then we legislate. We bring in laws that try and prevent the bad things, but then the good responsible citizens are lumped in with the bad citizens as laws apply to everyone. So the good citizens can take it on the chin and accept that the laws are there for the minority who can't be educated in order to make the country a safer place (i.e. enforcing speed limits!), or they can immediately get umpty about a tyranical government telling them what to do.:ugh::ugh:

No easy answer, unless more people start thinking about not just themselves.....

Ogre

Don't mind what you wrote in the first part but re the second,
"but then the good responsible citizens are lumped in with the bad citizens as laws apply to everyone. "

You can legislate all you want, all you do is restrict LAFO's
(Law abiding firearms owners). Crims, those with illegal
firearms etc etc take no notice of he legislation anyway.

500N

That's exactly what I was saying. There are those who abide by the laws and those who don't. The answer is not more laws because those who didn't abide by the original ones won't abide by the new ones.

So we go back to education, but some people won't take the learning. Can you make people obey the law, well yes you can but that takes some serious law enforcement / withdrawal of liberties / tyranny.

Would you accept that for the chance to live in a safer society?

Anyone got any better answers?

The same is true of all laws. By that reasoning there should be no laws at all because all it does is restrict those who would obey them.

Simple answer - ban firearms for anyone not police or military. Guns kill people, it really is that simple. So what if a few "enthusiasts" will get upset. Boo hoo, go play paintball or join the army.

Hear hear!!

Yes, it really is that simple. I think it time that the USA really looked at the relevance of the Second Amendment and tried to understand the intent of those who scribed it.

Everyone is free to have his opinion on gun control.

I think the US government should start imposing restrictions on gun ownership and what people can and can't do in the US. It gone out of hand. The evidence is overwhelming.

A majority of the US population is for stricter gun control.
Majority in Poll Favors Stricter Laws for Gun Sales - WSJ.com

The Swiss are astonished by the US gun culture and the Founding Fathers would turn in their graves if they knew how their 2nd amendment is abused by the gun lobby to drown the country with more and more weapons.

I would feel for OutlawPete's solution. The problems doing so can't be worse then were its heading now.

The U.S. Constitution expressly prohibits all governments from infringing upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This permits us to defend ourselves when the police can't or won't, and it permits a residue of firepower in the hands of the people with which to stop any tyrant who might try to infringe upon our natural rights, and it will give second thoughts to anyone thinking about tyranny.
The country is ablaze with passionate debate about guns, and the government is determined to do something about it. Debate over public policy is good for freedom. But the liberal progressives want to use the debate to justify the coercive power of the government to infringe upon the rights of law-abiding folks because of what some crazies among us have done. We must not permit this to happen.
The whole purpose of the Constitution is to insulate personal freedom from the lust for power of those in government and from the passions of the people who sent them there.

The cousins don't like it when politicians get too big for their britches. Course, England had a bit of strife between Charlie and Cromwell a few centuries ago. Wonder if we'll ever see the like again in the west.

Battle of Athens (1946) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Keesje

"I think the US government should start imposing restrictions on gun ownership and what people can and can't do in the US."

Well, why don't you move there and become a citizen and then you can vote for it. In the mean time, why should the US listen to a bunch of Euro's from the Netherlands and the UK who have given away all their freedoms to the EU.

Being from the Netherlands and probably some people their still remember
the suffering under the jack boot, I am surprised.

"and the Founding Fathers would turn in their graves"
How would you know ? Have you spoken to them ?
Are you an expert on the US constitution ?

The intent of the second amendment appeared to be to ensure that the people could resist any attempt by the then-government to push things too far and become tyrannical. People are still debating that this is a valid reason to own an assault rifle.

Does anyone really think that a government, with even partial control over the US Army, USMC and National Guard, would have any issues stopping a handful of wannabe-militiamen with AR15s? It's so far diluted as to be meaningless, that interpretation.

Must say I've enjoyed fellow Brit Piers Morgan's recent work on the subject, so I'd present his main case to you for your opinion. You are not going to take down the government, no matter how many AR15s and their ilk you have in your basement. If you hunt, you are equally effective with a single-shot bolt-action rifle, or a shotgun. If you want to defend your home, you'll find a .45 or 9mm handgun much more effective to use and manoeuvre with in a tight space like your own stairwell.

Shooting for sport, hunting and self-defence is better served with different weapons, and there's no hope of you being able to take on the National Guard as a militia. I live in America and have watched the news reports on the shooting in Albuquerque and Sandy Hook. What possible reason can there be for allowing normal citizens to purchase military-grade assault rifles??

"If you hunt, you are equally effective with a single-shot bolt-action rifle,"

Not so. Big difference between using a semi auto and a Bolt action rifle
or shotgun.