Question about American gun laws.

[Big Mac]

The issue I have with current gun laws is the fact it only hinders law-abiding citizens. How often do you see a weapons violation charge get thrown onto a guy who has committed murder with an illegal weapon? Yeah I know court systems don't have time to pick up on EVERY crime a person commits but it seems like gun laws are used to help disarm folks for minor things like carrying a weapon in their car (which is slowly changing due to the fact certain states are letting citizens carry in their vehicles when they travel).

I think there should be only a few simple laws. Background check and stiffer penalties for misusing a weapon like a jackass. Other than that, I think most other gun control laws are about the middle word: control.

 "An armed society is a polite society."

[Tank]

Do I think the founding fathers considered that future baseball bats could cause mayhem, death and injury in singular or riotous cases? No. The idea the FF's had was to protect the people from tyranny. It doesn't matter if you have an armed populace. What matters is that the government outguns it's people so much that an UNDERarmed populace is rendered insignificant.

Understood. If the civilian government of the USA tried to 'pull a fast one' on the population why do you assume (if you do, it sort of looks that way) that the military would automatically assist them? Given the pride the military of most countries take in being the defenders of that country I would suggest that if a civilian leader attempted to seriously undermine the constitution there could well be a coup in America?
 

Take for example...well, your example of Columbine. Let's say the perpetrators were armed as 17th Century pirates. Six primitive grenades, a blunderbuss, four single shot pistols, a large knife, a boarding axe and a cutlass. How much damage could they have done? How many could these asshats kill or severely injure with weapons commonly used in the times of the American forefathers? Quite a few I wager.
How many could they have killed if they had driven trucks through a line of kids walking out of school at the end of the day?
Firearms are tools, useful for protecting lives and recreational use. And I want a high capacity battle rifle when the Canadians decide to invade....*laffin*

Columbine is the root of a fallacious argument used by anti-gun people. I know a lot of people that have firearms. I know several, not in law enforcement, that have silencers and machine guns. None of them have committed a crime with their firearm.

That's about the end of me discussing firearms/politics. All it does is piss me off...*grinnin*

I agree that a gun is in effect simply a tool and it is at the discretion of the owner how they use it. I have mixed feelings about the gun laws in the UK for this very reason. The last labour government was diabolical in its removal of personal responsibility, the 'nanny state' had become the norm. I'm quite looking forward to a term of right'ish government to wash away some of the stupidity associated with a stale careless administration.

However I'm still not comfortable with the idea of firearms being as readily available as they are in the US. When I was over there I went and had a look in  weapons store. I asked if I could buy a short barrelled revolver. The guy would sell it to me but only for cash and I had to wait a week because of the cooling off period in Illinois. Because of the culture I grew up in (and that's a major issue here) I found this quite shocking.

Living in a country where the only place you will ever legally see a gun in public is on a police officer in an airport I personally find it difficult to see the benefit of an armed populous most of the time. The defence argument is a little thin in my opinion as the only reason one needs a gun is to defend against a gun. I believe that a hand gun kept for defence is also more likely to kill its owner or a family member or friend of the family than it is ever likely to be used for its intended purpose. Which, if true, makes gun ownership pretty pointless.

I think the point I'm reaching is that the default condition should be something that is specifically designed to kill should not be readily available to anybody and everybody in a civilised society. Yes guns are fun, they give one an illusion of power, I say illusion because if one ever tried to express that power one would end up in prison or dead, or both.

Interesting and thought provoking discussion.

[Tank]

The issue I have with current gun laws is the fact it only hinders law-abiding citizens. How often do you see a weapons violation charge get thrown onto a guy who has committed murder with an illegal weapon? Yeah I know court systems don't have time to pick up on EVERY crime a person commits but it seems like gun laws are used to help disarm folks for minor things like carrying a weapon in their car (which is slowly changing due to the fact certain states are letting citizens carry in their vehicles when they travel).

I think there should be only a few simple laws. Background check and stiffer penalties for misusing a weapon like a jackass. Other than that, I think most other gun control laws are about the middle word: control.[/qupte]
Fascinating insight. I agree about the law issues as well.

"An armed society is a polite society."

"An armed society is a scared society." Would be more appropriate. One doesn't need the immediate threat of death to act in a polite manner (except in the case of the 14 to 16 year old adolescent male). Seriously though I can't think of an unarmed society that isn't peaceful and polite. Consider all the democracies around the world. They tend to be basically peaceful, I can't think of one off the top of my head that isn't . The effective rule of law, a considerate upbringing and an equitable division of wealth is what keeps a society polite, if guns are needed there is something seriously wrong with that society IMO.

[Big Mac]

I agree that a gun is in effect simply a tool and it is at the discretion of the owner how they use it. I have mixed feelings about the gun laws in the UK for this very reason. The last labour government was diabolical in its removal of personal responsibility, the 'nanny state' had become the norm. I'm quite looking forward to a term of right'ish government to wash away some of the stupidity associated with a stale careless administration.

However I'm still not comfortable with the idea of firearms being as readily available as they are in the US. When I was over there I went and had a look in  weapons store. I asked if I could buy a short barrelled revolver. The guy would sell it to me but only for cash and I had to wait a week because of the cooling off period in Illinois. Because of the culture I grew up in (and that's a major issue here) I found this quite shocking.

Living in a country where the only place you will ever legally see a gun in public is on a police officer in an airport I personally find it difficult to see the benefit of an armed populous most of the time. The defence argument is a little thin in my opinion as the only reason one needs a gun is to defend against a gun. I believe that a hand gun kept for defence is also more likely to kill its owner or a family member or friend of the family than it is ever likely to be used for its intended purpose. Which, if true, makes gun ownership pretty pointless.

I think the point I'm reaching is that the default condition should be something that is specifically designed to kill should not be readily available to anybody and everybody in a civilised society. Yes guns are fun, they give one an illusion of power, I say illusion because if one ever tried to express that power one would end up in prison or dead, or both.

Interesting and thought provoking discussion.

Imagine if you were a paraplegic  or someone who was extremely small. Imagine if you have an attacker who is bigger, meaner, faster, and eager to hurt you for your money you earned or just because they have been pumping poison in their arm the past couple of days.

Having a weapon that evens these odds sounds pretty good, doesn't? Police don't stop most crimes, they solve them after the fact. I guess we see it differently because, like you said, you don't see the benefits because guns have been so far removed in your society that it's a foreign concept. Movies/TV/News do not help because they portray guns as inherently evil as if they cause a man to snap and shoot everyone in sight.

I grew up with that stuff being paraded out. Some of the logic never ceases to amaze me. Do I dream of a day where I will blow someone's head off? Hell no!!! Will I do it if push comes to shove and I need to live? I'm confident I could do it if it came to that. Not something I look forward to but life is rough like that.

[Big Mac]

"An armed society is a scared society." Would be more appropriate. One doesn't need the immediate threat of death to act in a polite manner (except in the case of the 14 to 16 year old adolescent male). Seriously though I can't think of an unarmed society that isn't peaceful and polite. Consider all the democracies around the world. They tend to be basically peaceful, I can't think of one off the top of my head that isn't . The effective rule of law, a considerate upbringing and an equitable division of wealth is what keeps a society polite, if guns are needed there is something seriously wrong with that society IMO.

Society/civilization is at times a very harsh illusion, look at riots and social upheaval. People don't mess with venomous snakes because they have a bite to them. Same with other people. You won't see as many criminals eager to attack a victim who might be able to turn the tables on them.

I know plenty of people who are "peaceful" but extremely rude.Hell, I dealt with art dealing hipsters today. Little hippies were rude as shit when I pointed out there mistake. Where I come from, you get your ass kicked for spewing off something disrespectful. How nature works.

I am not scared. I am prepared to meet any challenge to my safety and effectively take it out.

[Tank]

Imagine if you were a paraplegic  or someone who was extremely small. Imagine if you have an attacker who is bigger, meaner, faster, and eager to hurt you for your money you earned or just because they have been pumping poison in their arm the past couple of days.

Having a weapon that evens these odds sounds pretty good, doesn't? Police don't stop most crimes, they solve them after the fact. I guess we see it differently because, like you said, you don't see the benefits because guns have been so far removed in your society that it's a foreign concept. Movies/TV/News do not help because they portray guns as inherently evil as if they cause a man to snap and shoot everyone in sight.

I grew up with that stuff being paraded out. Some of the logic never ceases to amaze me. Do I dream of a day where I will blow someone's head off? Hell no!!! Will I do it if push comes to shove and I need to live? I'm confident I could do it if it came to that. Not something I look forward to but life is rough like that.

I think part of the issue is the actual level of threat here or in the US. The sort of crime you suggest are very rare here. One would normally carry a gun all one's life and never have cause to use it. If there were a 'clear and present danger' for a significant percentage of the time then what you suggest could be necessary. Personally I have never met anybody who has been mugged or stolen from in the street in any way.

In fact the only example of violence any of my family have ever been subjected to was at the hands of the police. They mistook my daughter for somebody they were looking for and two plain clothes officer jumped out of an unmarked car an the late evening and started to chase her down the street, she ran for it! They shouted 'Stop police' and as my daughter remarked 'Fuck that for a game of soldiers!' They caught her, cuffed her and only then showed her their warrant card. It gave her a good story to tell her mate but she was terrified until she was sure they were police. So if she had had a gun would she have been within her rights to have killed those two police officers if she had felt in mortal danger?

There is no easy answer and what might be right in the USA may not be right in the UK.

[Tank]

"An armed society is a scared society." Would be more appropriate. One doesn't need the immediate threat of death to act in a polite manner (except in the case of the 14 to 16 year old adolescent male). Seriously though I can't think of an unarmed society that isn't peaceful and polite. Consider all the democracies around the world. They tend to be basically peaceful, I can't think of one off the top of my head that isn't . The effective rule of law, a considerate upbringing and an equitable division of wealth is what keeps a society polite, if guns are needed there is something seriously wrong with that society IMO.

Society/civilization is at times a very harsh illusion, look at riots and social upheaval. People don't mess with venomous snakes because they have a bite to them. Same with other people. You won't see as many criminals eager to attack a victim who might be able to turn the tables on them.

I know plenty of people who are "peaceful" but extremely rude.Hell, I dealt with art dealing hipsters today. Little hippies were rude as shit when I pointed out there mistake. Where I come from, you get your ass kicked for spewing off something disrespectful. How nature works.

I am not scared. I am prepared to meet any challenge to my safety and effectively take it out.

Fair enough. I think we hold very disparate views of the world in general and we do live in very different parts of it. I don't think your world view is needed in the UK, it's a very different place. And my world view may be equally invalid where you are.

Would you like to live in a place where you didn't have to worry about having to carry a gun for self defence?

Have to get on and do some RL work now so I'll catch your answer later.

[Big Mac]

Fair enough. I think we hold very disparate views of the world in general and we do live in very different parts of it. I don't think your world view is needed in the UK, it's a very different place. And my world view may be equally invalid where you are.

Ah, my friend you assume I constantly think about weapons and danger. I don't. I do take precautions such as scanning areas at night when I'm walking home from the bus (it gets a bit dark) and other things. I do train with my weapons because I like the skill it takes to effectively use them. You can't just pick up a gun and blast away, you have to actually train with it and be familiar with it to make it an efficient weapon. Your view isn't unnecessary as you would think. The good thing about having a variety of views is the fact you get a bigger picture of what others feel and think.

Would you like to live in a place where you didn't have to worry about having to carry a gun for self defence?

No place like that exists. If you tell yourself there is then you're only deluding yourself. Violence and danger is always present in the world no matter where you are. Just because you weren't robbed yesterday doesn't mean it can't happen today.

Have to get on and do some RL work now so I'll catch your answer later.

Had to catch some sleep last post myself.

[Thumpalumpacus]

That's actually a misunderstanding. They don't tumble like people claim. They will, under certain conditions, yaw and fragment in the body. Depends on the rate of twist in the barrel (1:9 and 1:7 have different affects) as well as length of barrel, bullet weight (62 grain vs 55 grain in the case of 5.56mm) and distance the target is engaged.

Understood, it is the jacketing that helps keep the bullet together in the body, and helps in the conservation of energy, too.  I use the colloquial "tumble" for ease of communication.

Muzzle Velocity isn't the same as the actual velocity of the bullet once it has left the barrel. Given that down range it will lose its energy (some rounds doing so very rapidly depending on the weapon and type of ammo used) and make the muzzle velocity a moot consideration.

Other considerations being equal, muzzle velocity has a direct effect on impact velocity.

[Tank]

Would you like to live in a place where you didn't have to worry about having to carry a gun for self defence?

No place like that exists. If you tell yourself there is then you're only deluding yourself. Violence and danger is always present in the world no matter where you are. Just because you weren't robbed yesterday doesn't mean it can't happen today.

Sorry the question was sort of hypothetical in the 'would you like to live' in such a place. Beg pardon if we have ended up discussing across each other and you were referring to the situation in the USA. I would contend that 99.9% of the UK population never even consider the the need to carry a gun in self defence. It's simply not necessary. I would say that would also be the case in most of Europe. And I don't think I'm deluding myself either as I've lived here for 50 years and never even heard a gunshot outside of a range.

[Gawen]

No, but blindly following something laid down a few hundred years ago makes it worth reconsideration.

If the constitution is changed so much from the original intent of the framers, then one does not have the country in which they envisioned.

Just a thought but if one applied the logic of what our ancestors wanted for their country was what it should be now then there would be no progress as such would there?

Well, the Constitituion doesn't say anything about 'no progress'. That's one reason free Americans can have high capacity firearms and why we're not driving horse and buggy's.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Would you like to live in a place where you didn't have to worry about having to carry a gun for self defence?

No place like that exists. If you tell yourself there is then you're only deluding yourself. Violence and danger is always present in the world no matter where you are. Just because you weren't robbed yesterday doesn't mean it can't happen today.

Sorry the question was sort of hypothetical in the 'would you like to live' in such a place. Beg pardon if we have ended up discussing across each other and you were referring to the situation in the USA. I would contend that 99.9% of the UK population never even consider the the need to carry a gun in self defence. It's simply not necessary. I would say that would also be the case in most of Europe. And I don't think I'm deluding myself either as I've lived here for 50 years and never even heard a gunshot outside of a range.

And at the same time, it is easily demonstrable that some areas are statistically safer than others.

[Big Mac]

Sorry the question was sort of hypothetical in the 'would you like to live' in such a place. Beg pardon if we have ended up discussing across each other and you were referring to the situation in the USA. I would contend that 99.9% of the UK population never even consider the the need to carry a gun in self defence. It's simply not necessary. I would say that would also be the case in most of Europe. And I don't think I'm deluding myself either as I've lived here for 50 years and never even heard a gunshot outside of a range.

Well obviously yes. I would love to live in a place where I would not need a weapon. But to me there is no place in the world where that exists. You may think you're safe but really you have yet to run into a reason why you need a gun. There are plenty of them walking on two legs (and if you're out in the country, 4 legs) that are likely to just about to bump into you on day.

Do you study martial arts at all?

[Gawen]

I think the point I'm reaching is that the default condition should be something that is specifically designed to kill should not be readily available to anybody and everybody in a civilised society.

Then, that raises the subject of what and who is civilised and assuming that a civilised people are capable of right thinking, obeying laws, etc.

Yes guns are fun, they give one an illusion of power, I say illusion because if one ever tried to express that power one would end up in prison or dead, or both.

I don't agree with that. It's not an either/or scenario.

Interesting and thought provoking discussion.

I've been arguing this crap for the last 40 years. It gets old.

[Tank]

Sorry the question was sort of hypothetical in the 'would you like to live' in such a place. Beg pardon if we have ended up discussing across each other and you were referring to the situation in the USA. I would contend that 99.9% of the UK population never even consider the the need to carry a gun in self defence. It's simply not necessary. I would say that would also be the case in most of Europe. And I don't think I'm deluding myself either as I've lived here for 50 years and never even heard a gunshot outside of a range.

Well obviously yes. I would love to live in a place where I would not need a weapon. But to me there is no place in the world where that exists. You may think you're safe but really you have yet to run into a reason why you need a gun. There are plenty of them walking on two legs (and if you're out in the country, 4 legs) that are likely to just about to bump into you on day.

Do you study martial arts at all?

No. I have never studied martial arts other than watching 'Enter the Dragon' when I was a kid.  

Have you ever been to the UK?