Firearms

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Splintered

I think the number of legal hunters within the United States, Canada, Britian, the UK, and essentially every country excluding Africa and parts of South America, far outweighs the number of poachers.

Poaching happens in a lot more places than just South America and Africa, in fact Asia (a rather large landmass that deserves mentioning) would definitely have a shitload more poachers than legal hunters. Don't just exclude whole continents because illegal hunting is rampant within them.

Originally Posted by Splintered

Also, while food can come from other sources, I would like to be in control of where the food I put in my body comes from.

Finally, while hunting has been done without firearms, it has not been done as effectively or as cleanly with a firearm. True, I do love bow-hunting as well, but are they not just as bad as guns in that regard?

You know, if guns could be confined to being in possession of legal hunters with no desire to turn the guns upon anything but their highly-populated and healthy prey, I can't say I'd be against them at all. I'm certainly not a hunter myself (outside World of Warcraft at least =P) but I most definitely support meat coming from places that don't involve torture or cramped conditions for the animals involved. So you bring up a good point there.

Though in that respect bow-hunting is preferable in my view. Bows are a lot harder to use than guns - it's a lot more difficult to shoot yourself with one for a start, they require a lot more practice to aim and shoot properly, they can't be concealed, and they look pretty damn conspicuous on someone walking down the street with one. I can't imagine armed robberies happening with a bow, nor have I ever heard of kids going to school with them to massacre their classmates.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

I didn't say that it wasn't any less scary.

And why do you think Everybody that has a gun is a danger.

Given the family history you just stated,it seems like you have an over riding trust issue.

[Splintered]

Originally Posted by LiUsAiDh

If the guy's shooting at you, taser him, take his gun and handcuff him.

Tazers don't always work, especially on those who are on cocaine or other narcotics. Even 9mm bullets don't always work on those who are on narcotics, which was the whole reason the Colt Model 1911 was created, and the reason the .45 round, and now the .40 round, is so popular.

Originally Posted by LiUsAiDh

If you can't taser him in time, you won't be able to shoot him in time either.

Not always. A tazer has a range of about 10 feet (The furthest I've seen anyway). A shotgun has a range of hundreds of feet, a rifle has even further.

Originally Posted by LiUsAiDh

I think the fertiliser thing we can put to rest, until somebody who knows something about fertilisers crops up. Geddit haha. Wow I made a joke

Just... wow.

Originally Posted by LiUsAiDh

Because of the people who the gun dealers buy off wouldn't be selling them. Also it would be easier for policemen to arrest everyone holding a gun, than to distinguish who is meant to have one and who isn't, in which time said gun dealer/gangmember, has probably fucked off to shoot somebody else.

Guns are easy to manufacture by hand. Like I said, an AK-47 costs $100 can be made by hand in a pinch. So can most zip guns, including different forms of Uzis which can be made with equipment bought at a hardware store. These are more likely to be used in a crime then a professionally made Heckler and Koch USP or a Glock 21, both of which are very common firearms.

In fact, there was a video about the gun market in the Khyber Pass. People were making handguns, literally by hand, and branding it as their own. Not even the United States Army would really dare try and wage a war against them, because you just couldn't confiscate their weapons: They'd just make more.

How would police officers be able to distinguish who is holding a gun if they're not brandishing it? The entire concept of concealed carry revolves around the idea that no one will know you have a gun. For instance, carrying a small Kel-Tec .38 weapon, makes you indistinguishable from the general populace. Even larger firearms like AK-47s aren't brought out until they are about to be used. Criminals aren't dumb enough to walk around with them on the street. (Well, most of them).

Originally Posted by LiUsAiDh

How do you know they're actually going to follow through and kill you though. They might realise their wrongs and stop, and let you live. Therefore they become a good person. Who you'd have just killed. You also don't know the reason that they're doing it, what if their family is being threatened, okay they're weak for giving in to the kidnapper's demands or whatever. But that doesn't remove their right to live, they're just as much victims as you.

It doesn't give them the right to take your life either; no person has the right to do so except in defense of their own life, in my opinion.

You don't know that they're actually going to follow through and kill you. However, you also don't know that they are NOT going to follow through either. For all you know, your life is in danger. They could be out to maliciously murder your family: Don't you have a right to protect your life and your family, whatever the cost?

Originally Posted by LiUsAiDh

Why won't a taser won't stop a criminal, taser, then cuff him. Voila, threat gone.

Let's take your example of gangs: Multiple targets, and tazers are single shot weapons. They are therefore not suited to the situation, and not adequate protection. On the other hand, an AR-15 has a 30 round magazine, and can easily deal with multiple targets. So can a Glock 21 with a 14 round magazine.

Also, once again, tazers don't stop a determined criminal who is a sufficient distance away, or in some cases, a criminal on drugs.

Originally Posted by LiUsAiDh

You'd be surprised. I lived in the countryside until very recently and it wasn't that rare I'd see blokes with shotguns and lurchers.

And no, they weren't legit, they were on our neighbour's land.

I know, after 12.5 years of living in the countryside, two legit hunters.

Being where I live in Northern Canada, where gun laws "don't really apply", because there is very little RCMP to enforce them, we see very little poaching, despite the wide open land to do so. It's one statement against the other.

Originally Posted by LiUsAiDh

Buy an apple tree and some local chicken then.

Who knows where wild animals have been and what parasites and diseases they carry.

So my diet then limited to apples and chicken?

Animals can be cleaned and cooked, eliminating the diseases and parasites. It's not like I'm going to go eat the things raw.

Originally Posted by LiUsAiDh

You ever eaten pheasant shot by a shotgun? Regrettably, I have, clean and effective, no.

'Tis why you shoot them with a smaller caliber rifle, like a .22 or a 9mm. However, yes, I have had pheasant shot by a shotgun. It was delicious as well. Much cleaner and effective then bow and arrow.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Splintered

Dung doesn't do as much as you would think it does. Part of the agricultural stability of the United States depends heavily on fertilizers. Many fertilizers are highly explosives, and those that aren't are either a.) Highly expensive or b.) Highly ineffective. (At least, this is colloquial advice. I'm not a master farmer, nor do I have a master list of all fertilizers. In all fairness, neither do farmers).

Fertilizers are explosive, however. They were the main explosive in the Timothy McVeigh bombings, IIRC.

Read the Anarchist's Cookbook and you'll find a lot of ordinary and useful things can also be used as explosives. Just an unfortunate fact we have to live with.

Originally Posted by Splintered

Gun control makes it harder for legitimate citizens to purchase firearms. Why would criminals, who already buy their weapons illegally, be effected by more laws?

As seen in Australia after the gun ban was introduced, the number of criminals owning guns has been decreased HUGELY, and those that still manage to get their hands on them use them to shoot each other a majority of time (gang warfare, etc).

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Cicero....
But it still happens maybe to a lesser extent but it happens,and what about the stray rounds?

What about bystanders being hit by the rival gangs spray and pray?

It might have slowed it down a bit,but wasn't it supposed to Stop it all together?

[Splintered]

Originally Posted by Cicero

Poaching happens in a lot more places than just South America and Africa, in fact Asia (a rather large landmass that deserves mentioning) would definitely have a shitload more poachers than legal hunters. Don't just exclude whole continents because illegal hunting is rampant within them.

They're also nowhere similar to any of the Western World. I'm not excluding them because they have illegal hunting, I'm excluding them because I believe they're not rightfully included in the "Western World", and implementing gun control there would be much different in the United States / Canada / UK / The Like.

Originally Posted by Cicero

You know, if guns could be confined to being in possession of legal hunters with no desire to turn the guns upon anything but their highly-populated and healthy prey, I can't say I'd be against them at all. I'm certainly not a hunter myself (outside World of Warcraft at least =P) but I most definitely support meat coming from places that don't involve torture or cramped conditions for the animals involved. So you bring up a good point there.

Though in that respect bow-hunting is preferable in my view. Bows are a lot harder to use than guns - it's a lot more difficult to shoot yourself with one for a start, they require a lot more practice to aim and shoot properly, they can't be concealed, and they look pretty damn conspicuous on someone walking down the street with one. I can't imagine armed robberies happening with a bow, nor have I ever heard of kids going to school with them to massacre their classmates.

You haven't heard of it, in my opinion, because school shootings weren't prevelant until the 60's, and by then guns were already present.

However, from a certain point of view, bows and arrows are more dangerous then guns:

A compound bow can exert a hundred pounds of force with very little draw. They're also pretty small.

Arrow heads are just like knife heads: They can pierce modern body armor pretty easily. Body armor is bullet proof, not knife proof.

They're collapsible too, and take minimal effort to conceal. An unstrung recurve bow can fit inside a small tube.

Finally, a bow and arrow at close ranges (50 yards or closer), are pretty easy to hit with minimal training, or no training at all. I'm guessing this is the same range most shootings happen at.

Originally Posted by Cicero

As seen in Australia after the gun ban was introduced, the number of criminals owning guns has been decreased HUGELY, and those that still manage to get their hands on them use them to shoot each other a majority of time (gang warfare, etc).

A point I made earlier was that the exact opposite was happening in Britian, and that gun violence was on the rise.

[Splintered]

Damn five minute time limit:

Originally Posted by Cicero

Read the Anarchist's Cookbook and you'll find a lot of ordinary and useful things can also be used as explosives. Just an unfortunate fact we have to live with.

I believe the same applies to firearms: They are ordinary, useful things, that can be used to do harm, and it's an unfortunate fact we have to live with.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

I agree with splintered.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Splintered

A point I made earlier was that the exact opposite was happening in Britian, and that gun violence was on the rise.

Gun violence is falling rapidly in Britain. People are on the news all the time, police officers and such, sayng how elated they are that they no longer have to deal with guns. Knives are the new big thing.

[Splintered]

Originally Posted by JCC

Gun violence is falling rapidly in Britain. People are on the news all the time, police officers and such, sayng how elated they are that they no longer have to deal with guns. Knives are the new big thing.

The last numerical reports I saw showed an overall raise, especially since 1997. However, you could be perfectly right. Didn't Britian purpose legislation to blunt knifes?

[Deadmanwalking_05]

I read somewhere that if a person in the UK used bare hands to defend themselves against attacks on the street,that they would be jailed as well as their attackers,this is the "logic" that escapes me.

What are they going to do next ban fists?

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Splintered

I believe the same applies to firearms: They are ordinary, useful things, that can be used to do harm, and it's an unfortunate fact we have to live with.

With the difference being that firearms are MADE TO KILL STUFF, be it human, animal or an unfortunate lawnmower. Bleach, ammonia, fertilizer... they have uses a fair bit beyond that.

Even explosives themselves have uses beyond killing people that are important to civilisation. Mining, building tunnels, demolishing buildings, etc.

And with regard the bows, I'll admit I don't know much about them, my only first hand experience being from doing archery in PE class (which I was completely hopeless at). But still, they really aren't an obvious choice for killing people, culturally if not practically. And if they work as well as guns... why are guns even necessary?

About gun crime in the UK... what JCC said. Plus this: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-v...ime/gun-crime/

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

I read somewhere that if a person in the UK used bare hands to defend themselves against attacks on the street,that they would be jailed as well as their attackers,this is the "logic" that escapes me.

What are they going to do next ban fists?

Do you have a source for that? It doesn't sound the slightest bit true to me.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Bows are made to kill as well and if you want to look at it in that way yes that's the only use they have,and are meant to do so silently,so why don't we have a nice argument about banning those because with in their range they can penetrate what would stop a rifle round.

So why have bows?

They would also be pretty hard for someone without the upper body strength to pull the string back and use it for self-defense.

(See the holes in your logic)

And no I don't have a source for that it's been along time ago and I forgot the name of the site.

[Splintered]

Cicero, I promise I'll have a response for you in the morning.

But right now I'm about to collapse. So Goodnight all.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Deadmanwalking_05

Bows are made to kill as well and if you want to look at it in that way yes that's the only use they have,and are meant to do so silently,so why don't we have a nice argument about banning those because with in their range they can penetrate what would stop a rifle round.

So why have bows?

They would also be pretty hard for someone without the upper body strength to pull the string back and use it for self-defense.

(See the holes in your logic)

All I said is bows are preferable to guns as hunting weapons, since in principal legal hunting isn't all that harmful, and bows aren't quite as dangerous as guns (again, since they're more difficult to use and conceal, and not an obvious choice for a highschool massacre, blah blah blah. Plus can you imagine gang warfare with bows? That would be so Robin Hood and... hilarious). I never said they should replace guns for all the purposes you and Splintered have outlined here - self defense is a whole other kettle of fish that's been pretty well covered already.

And I just looked this up and in Australia hunters are allowed guns with a license (I figured that must be the case since kangaroo sausages certainly don't come from farms). Seems to work pretty well. Even if I personally don't agree with the existence of guns at all, it seems it's still possible to uphold an effective ban on guns while keeping legal hunters happy. Yay.

Anyway I highly doubt we'll be changing any opinions here today. I think I've said everything I possibly can about my stance on guns, and so has everyone else. Thus, I am done ranting.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

I was only pointing out that anything can be turned around I didn't start this thread to change anyones opinion just to see how many in the sub-culture were gunnies like myself,and to share pics and talk about the firearms we own,I posted it in politics because I figured it would end up being a political debate,and those that didn't like firearms would post in here to stop any discussion on the subject of ownership,shooting,collecting ect.

[Splintered]

Originally Posted by Cicero

With the difference being that firearms are MADE TO KILL STUFF, be it human, animal or an unfortunate lawnmower. Bleach, ammonia, fertilizer... they have uses a fair bit beyond that.

Even explosives themselves have uses beyond killing people that are important to civilisation. Mining, building tunnels, demolishing buildings, etc.

And with regard the bows, I'll admit I don't know much about them, my only first hand experience being from doing archery in PE class (which I was completely hopeless at). But still, they really aren't an obvious choice for killing people, culturally if not practically. And if they work as well as guns... why are guns even necessary?

About gun crime in the UK... what JCC said. Plus this: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-v...ime/gun-crime/

I didn't know they had published new figures. I'll have to look in to this. I was still going off the 2004/2005 paper. Well, good for them though, glad they've got the crime down. I wonder what caused the change though: Last time I checked the major gun "ban" was in 1997 after the Dunblane Massacre. The 2006 Violent Crime Reduction Act, to my knowledge, only covers imitation weapons.

I believe sporting and competition count as uses beyond being designed to kill people. I also believe that this makes up a greater share of the market: Either the guns are too impractical to be used for killing (.22s, 9mms, any caliber below a .38 really), or they're such overpower that they couldn't have been designed for killing people (.460 XVR, .454 Casull, .50 Action Express), and only serve a purpose for sport. That only leaves a small second of the market (large caliber rifles between 5.56s and 7.62s, and large caliber pistols like .38s, .40, and .45).

Even then, guns serve purposes beyond sport, and can be valuable work tools to rural states. The quickest and best method for removing coyotes and wolves that are attacking livestock is a .223 round. In the same way explosives are tools, guns are tools.

Bows don't work as well as guns, but they're still as deadly. To give you an example of what I mean, say you're out hunting pheasant in the bush. You've got two choices: A 100 pound compound bow, or an 8 round shotgun. If you miss your shot with the bow, you most likely won't be able to get a second shot off. However, with a shotgun, you can get off multiple shots to make sure you take down whatever you're hunting.

However, with people it's different. If you're going after a person, the criminal has a much larger target, and a silent weapon. My point is that bows are as dangerous as firearms, in some cases even more so, yet we don't see a need to ban them as much as we do firearms, and if someone walked down the street with one, we'd most likely not even bat an eye beyond the, "Oh, that's odd".

[Raptor]

I wasn’t going to post here, but I’ve been reading from the start and now I’ve changed my mind.
First of all I know this is a bit old in this thread but:

Originally Posted by LiUsAiDh

Then why have a gun if you're gonna have your finger permanently outside of the trigger guard.

This seems a bit silly to me. There’s no point attacking a safety precaution, having a finger off the trigger prevents you firing by accident and doesn’t increase the time it takes to fire on purpose by much at all.

Next, the figures posted by various people do show less gun crime in countries without firearms compared to those with them like the US. I know someone said it could be because of the larger population in the US, but actually we have a greater population density in the UK (and many other countries have greater density than the US too).

In the UK the police don’t carry firearms, they aren’t needed here. I’m pretty sure they carry a baton and spray. Only specialist teams carry firearms, and they only deal with situations when a firearm is involved.
If firearms were legal here, I wouldn’t mind having one to shoot targets, but I’m happier for it to be illegal and feel safer. Actually you can still target shoot or hunt legally with some weapons, if you don’t mind going through the process of getting licenses. I’m just not that fussed about it. There are also some weapons I quite like for their aesthetic appeal, but I wouldn’t spend the money just for that. Plus if I did want to, there are always deactivated weapons. And there are airsoft replicas, which I do have.

Those don’t really help with self defence of course, except perhaps the hunting weapons. I feel safer without a weapon for self defence knowing that there are fewer firearms in the country than there would be if I did have one. Obviously either way some criminals will get their hands on firearms, but figures seem to show a lot more of them do it when the weapons are more available legally.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Raptor you have your stance and opinion on the matter and I respect that.

I'm an American you're a Brittian,we can agree and disagree on many things,and more often than not we will,you feel safer without guns I feel safer with guns (Grew up around them all my life).

I've seen situations where a gun was used to hurt,and I've seen situations where having them prevented harm from being caused.

I don't think guns are for everybody but I don't we should outlaw the private citizen from having a firearm (It comes down to Individual choice).

As long as the weapon is carried and used properly (Not wandering into a crowd and opening fire on everyone they see),and as long as proper and safe handling are used.

[Raptor]

Yeh, I wasn't really trying to convince you otherwise. Just my thoughts.

So a bit more like what you wanted here: If deactivated weapons were cheap and easy to get hold of, I'd probably get real steel versions of some of the airsoft weapons I've owned. Most likely an M14 and P226.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Nice selection,the M-14 has a pretty good record (In semi-auto mode) for U.S. Battle Rifles,and the shortest length of service,it also has some of the lines of the M-1 (A classic).

The sig 226 is a fine pistol. (I lean more toward revolvers,still a nice pick)

Thanks for posting and being civil.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

This one of the things that piss me off when macho assholes "Try" to teach women how to shoot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glCFf...eature=related

(I know the other vids show women in bikini's firing guns,while the women are nice to look at they will run the risk of hot brass falling into their attire and get a lesson on why you should wear a shirt that isn't low cut,and a dress,pants,or shorts)

The young lady in the vid wasn't taught the right stance,plus she didn't have the body mass to put behind the 12 guage pump (A 20gauge or a 410 would've been fine)

This is NOT the way to teach ladies how to shoot.

[Raptor]

No problem. On the political side, I'm sure you can see why people don't want anyone to have the choice to own firearms, as it has the chance of going to someone crazy, and probably increases the size of the blackmarket for them. Using your choice to not buy a weapon doesn't disarm the crazy people and criminals.

Yup semi-auto, and it was intended to look more like the M21 that's still in use. I go airsofting partly for the paintball kind of fun, but partly for the guys-that-never-grew-out-of-playing-army side lol. And I ended up hanging around with a team that does modern US loadouts. It is a very nice looking rifle though. I should have pictures of the things I've owned but I don't know if you're interested as they aren't real.

[Deadmanwalking_05]

Raptor...
It's still cool,and a good tool for force on force training (Civilian,military,and police)