Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
I think we have moved from insightful analysis, to STUNNING analysis.
Is the right to bear arms outdated.
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
I think we have moved from insightful analysis, to STUNNING analysis.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
As I have said before, I believe in the right to bear arms for self protection.
I was bought up on a cattle farm/ ranch and was taught the proper and responsible use of fire arms from the time I was about seven.
But surely the right to bear arms need not include assault weapons and sub machine guns. Maybe there is some middle ground where both sides can come to agreement and limit the use of assault weapons to the military and law enforcement?
I was bought up on a cattle farm/ ranch and was taught the proper and responsible use of fire arms from the time I was about seven.
But surely the right to bear arms need not include assault weapons and sub machine guns. Maybe there is some middle ground where both sides can come to agreement and limit the use of assault weapons to the military and law enforcement?
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Ah -- self protection. Now that is a legitimate goal (rather than this "protect us from the tyranny of the government" nonsense.
There is a balance. Some countries seem to be able to achieve it. Switzerland. Canada. Others go to far one way (Japan) or the other (US).
It's a complicated balance of societal factors, history and governing body documents. But we don't (and you and Keith both avoided this in a way Americans never can seem to do) get anywhere screaming about complete bans on the one side, or on the other acting like we are Minuteman waiting to line up on the village green to stop the Redcoats.
There is a balance. Some countries seem to be able to achieve it. Switzerland. Canada. Others go to far one way (Japan) or the other (US).
It's a complicated balance of societal factors, history and governing body documents. But we don't (and you and Keith both avoided this in a way Americans never can seem to do) get anywhere screaming about complete bans on the one side, or on the other acting like we are Minuteman waiting to line up on the village green to stop the Redcoats.
As said before, if one or more of the teachers were trained and armed, the total number of deaths probably would have been smaller. People need to be trained to use guns and have them available for protection.
I never understand the lock down protochol that we have here in the US. There is a gun man, so lets lock all of the doors with the gunman inside and keep all of the kids in there too. They kill as many as they want until the police arrive and then kill themselves. Is there a problem with getting the kids out, maybe another way, from the gunman? Maybe it is reasonable the way they do it now, but I just don't get it.
Also, I would feel more comfortable flying if there was no TSA to rape and steal from me and have everyone handed a gun as they got onto the plane. No one would try anything!
I never understand the lock down protochol that we have here in the US. There is a gun man, so lets lock all of the doors with the gunman inside and keep all of the kids in there too. They kill as many as they want until the police arrive and then kill themselves. Is there a problem with getting the kids out, maybe another way, from the gunman? Maybe it is reasonable the way they do it now, but I just don't get it.
Also, I would feel more comfortable flying if there was no TSA to rape and steal from me and have everyone handed a gun as they got onto the plane. No one would try anything!
Out of curiosity I would like to see gun crime in the US broke down by race....help us out Jim I'm lazy
Please explain again how we in the US are better off with hand guns.....
Spot on Tom...I've said for a long time, effective self defense is the only possible way to curb these Hanus acts.........it's a silly waste of time talking about how we can keep guns from the bad guy.. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE!!
You have to ask yourself why do these mass murderers always choose to inflect their anger and rage on the unarmed and weak.. WOW wake up people.
Tom, having teachers armed may not be a good idea - anymore than designating a janitor for American Airlines to be a back-up pilot. A better idea is to have a trained professional.e.g., police, doing that job - let teachers teach, let security forces do the protecting. That way a trained person can be at-the-ready full time. A teacher may not have time to react.
Jim, I understand the reasoning behind the chart but it doesn't reflect the average community. Gun violence in inner city neighborhoods, often tied to the drug trade, boosts the number of gun related deaths to an unrealistic number when you spread it out over the nation or even the rest of the community. Suppose there were 3 fatal shootings per night in downtown Bridgeport CT. That figure, when added to similar statistics for New Haven, Waterbury and Hartford, all cities with high drug traffic, give the state a bad rep. In the case of Bridgeport, it makes the neighboring town of Westport, with maybe 2 shootings in 20 years due to domestics, look like Dodge City because of county statistics. Those charts just aren't realistic for the Majority of the country - hell, Chicago is probably responsible for 20% of the total by itself. Speaking of Chicago - how do you explain that, with Illinois not allowing handguns. Chicago has the highest gun crime rate around? The absolute toughest gun laws in the US and the highest gun violence numbers.......gun control won't work. It penalizes the law abiding and gives criminals free license. What about response time to a scene involving violence, like a home invasion. I have seen first hand how long it takes law enforcement to arrive. The old phrase "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away" didn't pop out of thin air. I think some kind of solution is needed but it wil be a complex one and hard to legislate. It will also not please either side of the debate. The high capacity magazine issue warrants attention, but face it, even a single shot weapon is deadly and even one victim is too many, so limiting a magazine capacity from 30 down to 10 is ineffective. My/this post is a bit of a repeat from the other thread but I thought to put it here since Pete was wise enough and considerate enough to carry this debate away from the sympathy thread (good man, Pete).
Jim, I understand the reasoning behind the chart but it doesn't reflect the average community. Gun violence in inner city neighborhoods, often tied to the drug trade, boosts the number of gun related deaths to an unrealistic number when you spread it out over the nation or even the rest of the community. Suppose there were 3 fatal shootings per night in downtown Bridgeport CT. That figure, when added to similar statistics for New Haven, Waterbury and Hartford, all cities with high drug traffic, give the state a bad rep. In the case of Bridgeport, it makes the neighboring town of Westport, with maybe 2 shootings in 20 years due to domestics, look like Dodge City because of county statistics. Those charts just aren't realistic for the Majority of the country - hell, Chicago is probably responsible for 20% of the total by itself. Speaking of Chicago - how do you explain that, with Illinois not allowing handguns. Chicago has the highest gun crime rate around? The absolute toughest gun laws in the US and the highest gun violence numbers.......gun control won't work. It penalizes the law abiding and gives criminals free license. What about response time to a scene involving violence, like a home invasion. I have seen first hand how long it takes law enforcement to arrive. The old phrase "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away" didn't pop out of thin air. I think some kind of solution is needed but it wil be a complex one and hard to legislate. It will also not please either side of the debate. The high capacity magazine issue warrants attention, but face it, even a single shot weapon is deadly and even one victim is too many, so limiting a magazine capacity from 30 down to 10 is ineffective. My/this post is a bit of a repeat from the other thread but I thought to put it here since Pete was wise enough and considerate enough to carry this debate away from the sympathy thread (good man, Pete).
Last edited:
Hi Pete,
I agree with you.As a young boy I was brought up on a farming property.We lived with our Grandparents who when grandad had just returned from the war with their issued rifle and several sidearms which we used around the property until the ammo ran out.I became a "good shot" so to speak.Guns were generally used to shoot sick cattle or dogs who had started to bite cattle.I have travelled many times througout Australia including all the SEVEN deserts of Australia and had a rifle at all times mainly for Dingoes (feral dogs) when camping.Also I liked to "pop" the Odd feral cat (domestic cat gone feral and eating natural Australian fauna)Gun laws were introduced I think in 1996 after the Port Arthur massacar and it all changed.I became a registered gun owner of a single shot .22 rifle.Australian gun ownership requires the firearm and the ammunition be kept in a seperate locked safe.
During the course of my GT40 build I moved to a very upmarket suburb.I was having issues tuning the Weber carburettors and a lot of "exhaust poping/Backfiring".
Dickhead neighbour rang the "cops" I was firing a gun.Suddenly SIX cops with guns drawn on my property.A search showed I was a registered to own a firearm.Unfortunately the firearm and ammunition were locked in the same steel cabinet.
Law staes TWO x seperate cabinets.
Lost my licence for 10 years and fined $1500.00
I agree with you.As a young boy I was brought up on a farming property.We lived with our Grandparents who when grandad had just returned from the war with their issued rifle and several sidearms which we used around the property until the ammo ran out.I became a "good shot" so to speak.Guns were generally used to shoot sick cattle or dogs who had started to bite cattle.I have travelled many times througout Australia including all the SEVEN deserts of Australia and had a rifle at all times mainly for Dingoes (feral dogs) when camping.Also I liked to "pop" the Odd feral cat (domestic cat gone feral and eating natural Australian fauna)Gun laws were introduced I think in 1996 after the Port Arthur massacar and it all changed.I became a registered gun owner of a single shot .22 rifle.Australian gun ownership requires the firearm and the ammunition be kept in a seperate locked safe.
During the course of my GT40 build I moved to a very upmarket suburb.I was having issues tuning the Weber carburettors and a lot of "exhaust poping/Backfiring".
Dickhead neighbour rang the "cops" I was firing a gun.Suddenly SIX cops with guns drawn on my property.A search showed I was a registered to own a firearm.Unfortunately the firearm and ammunition were locked in the same steel cabinet.
Law staes TWO x seperate cabinets.
Lost my licence for 10 years and fined $1500.00
Mike Pass
Supporter
The answer to this and many other issues in society is education. By education I don't mean training for a job, learning stuff to pass exams or jump hurdles. The value of education can be readily evidenced by looking at many of the posts on this very forum. Perhaps if skilled dedicated teachers and educators were given the value, resources and influence they deserve they may have a beneficial influence on people and give them a better way to live rather than stealing, robbing, raping, murdering etc. etc.
The young teacher at the school who hid some kids in the cupboard and was shot herself shows the kind of fantastic people in educational services who need our support so they can try to develop the kind of people and world that we would all wish for.
Cheers
Mike
The young teacher at the school who hid some kids in the cupboard and was shot herself shows the kind of fantastic people in educational services who need our support so they can try to develop the kind of people and world that we would all wish for.
Cheers
Mike
Pat
Supporter
Actually Jeff, in the oath military officers take, it is to the Constitution, not the "civilian government" for a reason. All members of the U.S. military are duty bound not to comply with illegal orders, even if they come from the “civilian government”. Also, look up the term "militia": as it was used in the 18th century when the Bill of Rights was drafted. (Hint: It didn't mean National Guard.) “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” (George Mason 1788).
It is my opinion that the American citizenry has far less to fear dealing with an M1A2 Abrahams Tank than they do from a Predator Drone wielded by a President that maintains his own extrajudicial "kill list" and has demonstrated a proclivity to use them on Americans (at least three so far). Attorney General Holder, (apparently taking a break from overseeing the delivery of automatic weapons to Mexican criminals), told Northwestern University’s law school, during which he offered a public acknowledgement that the Obama Administration believes it has the right to kill U.S. citizens anywhere in the world without judicial review. “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” George Washington.
Mr. Holder is now calling for a “serious discussion” of the matter. (Not the drone kills or Mexican gun running but individual’s rights to gun ownership.)
I’ve also noticed the government has outlawed drugs for quite some time now, how’s that working?
I find it amusing that the avid supporters of an administration that distributed assault rifles to Mexican drug lords and conducts executions at will is compelled to lecture others on the absurdity of their gun rights.
Can someone explain to me how an assault weapons ban will stop shootings like this that have nothing to do with so-called "assault weapons"?
Sen. Feinstein to introduce gun-control bill next year - latimes.com
Sen. Feinstein to introduce gun-control bill next year - latimes.com
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
We have the most guns per captia
U.S. most armed country with 90 guns per 100 people | Reuters
And we have the most deaths.
You do your best to blame this on anything but guns, but in the end, guns kill people and a lot of guns kill a lot of people!
U.S. most armed country with 90 guns per 100 people | Reuters
And we have the most deaths.
You do your best to blame this on anything but guns, but in the end, guns kill people and a lot of guns kill a lot of people!
Last edited:
The perpetrator used an assault weapon "of the same type as issued to the US Armed Forces in Afghanistan" - I am thinking AR 15 variant.
This weapon was legally held by his mother (also a supply teacher at the same school) who was also an avid shooter and a member of several gun clubs. She was in the habit of taking her son to shooting exhibitions from an early age so not only well versed in guns but brought up in the culture of guns.
No hidden meaning or interpretation, just relaying what is on 'reliable' news elsewhere in the world.
Quote from Wiki :
There are no federal restrictions on the ownership of AR-15 rifles in the United States. During the period 1994–2004 variants with certain features such as collapsible stocks, flash suppressors, and bayonet lugs were prohibited for sales to civilians by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, with the included Assault Weapons Ban. Included in this was a restriction on the pistol grip that protrudes beneath the stock, which was considered an accessory feature under the ban and was subject to restrictions. Some rifles were manufactured with a grip not described under the Ban installed in its place. Those AR-15s that were manufactured with those features were stamped, "Restricted Military/Government/Law Enforcement/Export Only" as well as the accompanying full capacity magazines. The restrictions only applied to guns manufactured after the ban took effect. It was legal to own, sell, or buy any gun built before 1994. Hundreds of thousands of pre-ban ARs were sold during the ban as well as new guns redesigned to be legal. Since the expiration of the Federal AWB in September 2004,[21] these features became legal in most states.[22] Since the expiration of the ban the manufacture and sale of then-restricted rifles has resumed completely.
I'll just leave these here as food for thought:
Israel, like Switzerland, has among highest gun ownership rates, among the lowest crime (Medved) - YouTube
Israel, like Switzerland, has among highest gun ownership rates, among the lowest crime (Medved) - YouTube
Attachments
With respect sir that information is bollocks.
There can be no comparison with those nations.
The UK & Australia is much like the USA, at least it seems that way ever time an urban kid opens his gob, yo!
Why don't you compare the US with two "unarmed" countries as a better comparison?
I am guessing you won't because it shows that an "unarmed" society can actually work.
We have voted time and time again against the death penalty and guns.
Were we right? I have no idea but I do not worry about lethal weapons in my daily life (although I do have good reason to - more than most)
I will say again. It would be impossible to ban guns in the US. What is needed is less gung ho and more respect for the sanctity of the individual. As someone pointed out, that will come from education and role models and some soul searching about how profits are made in the "legal killing industry" namely violent games TV and Movies. This is where your notions of disrespect come from (apart from a few that were just born that way, mentally manning barricades all their lives)
It might take one hundred years - but think what a legacy you would leave if you started now?
It's the same here - I hope we are paying attention too, although we only had 14 gun deaths last year - many more were deliberately shot non mortally "to teach Respec bro'" Yo.
There can be no comparison with those nations.
The UK & Australia is much like the USA, at least it seems that way ever time an urban kid opens his gob, yo!
Why don't you compare the US with two "unarmed" countries as a better comparison?
I am guessing you won't because it shows that an "unarmed" society can actually work.
We have voted time and time again against the death penalty and guns.
Were we right? I have no idea but I do not worry about lethal weapons in my daily life (although I do have good reason to - more than most)
I will say again. It would be impossible to ban guns in the US. What is needed is less gung ho and more respect for the sanctity of the individual. As someone pointed out, that will come from education and role models and some soul searching about how profits are made in the "legal killing industry" namely violent games TV and Movies. This is where your notions of disrespect come from (apart from a few that were just born that way, mentally manning barricades all their lives)
It might take one hundred years - but think what a legacy you would leave if you started now?
It's the same here - I hope we are paying attention too, although we only had 14 gun deaths last year - many more were deliberately shot non mortally "to teach Respec bro'" Yo.
Although the interpretation of the original rationale for the right to bear arms may be outdated, from a broader perspective I believe the 2nd
Amendment is still valid. Personal protection, protection of family, protection of community if needed, is in my view a justification. My wife had to use deadly force about a decade ago to protect herself and son from a home invader. Since then, we keep our shooting skills up with target practice at one of my ranches.
I learned firearms safety at a young age. I hunt birds and deer regularly and eat what I kill, no waste, fair chase. I shoot predators on my ranches if needed but will leave some alone. I know what a bullet will do to a mammal. Sometimes I feel that these indiscriminate shooters were brought up with no real knowledge of the consequences of "real" killing....the finality of it all. Add some personality disorder or mental health issues and we all suffer from their actions. It saddens me. But my right to protect my family with my firearms will not change.
I have a gun collection. Some 200 or so. Most are pre-1900 firearms, some have been displayed at a Texas museum. Recently, I've been selling off some of my modern firearms, including many semiautomatic military style firearms, some of which I never fired a round through. I plan to keep a couple for home protection though given our personal history.
As some of you know, I also compete with replicas of some of the pre-1900 firearms and I enjoy the competition....shooting steel targets with others. I also compete with 1911's. "Gun control", ie., safety is paramount at these events. And I guess that is part of what is lacking in our society: knowledge of the true terminal effects of firing any firearm at another human. True "gun control" starts with what's "between the ears". That's what is present in most gun owners but lacking in the criminal element, the mentally ill, etc. Perhaps we will be able to sort out those who can own firearms from those that shouldn't rather than simply abolishing the 2nd Amendment.
Amendment is still valid. Personal protection, protection of family, protection of community if needed, is in my view a justification. My wife had to use deadly force about a decade ago to protect herself and son from a home invader. Since then, we keep our shooting skills up with target practice at one of my ranches.
I learned firearms safety at a young age. I hunt birds and deer regularly and eat what I kill, no waste, fair chase. I shoot predators on my ranches if needed but will leave some alone. I know what a bullet will do to a mammal. Sometimes I feel that these indiscriminate shooters were brought up with no real knowledge of the consequences of "real" killing....the finality of it all. Add some personality disorder or mental health issues and we all suffer from their actions. It saddens me. But my right to protect my family with my firearms will not change.
I have a gun collection. Some 200 or so. Most are pre-1900 firearms, some have been displayed at a Texas museum. Recently, I've been selling off some of my modern firearms, including many semiautomatic military style firearms, some of which I never fired a round through. I plan to keep a couple for home protection though given our personal history.
As some of you know, I also compete with replicas of some of the pre-1900 firearms and I enjoy the competition....shooting steel targets with others. I also compete with 1911's. "Gun control", ie., safety is paramount at these events. And I guess that is part of what is lacking in our society: knowledge of the true terminal effects of firing any firearm at another human. True "gun control" starts with what's "between the ears". That's what is present in most gun owners but lacking in the criminal element, the mentally ill, etc. Perhaps we will be able to sort out those who can own firearms from those that shouldn't rather than simply abolishing the 2nd Amendment.