Latest gun Ban

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Kung Fu Forum
41

[QUOTE=FuXnDajenariht;743299]i dont think the majority of Americans even consider shooting someone as an option to tell you the truth. its atleast highly overestimated. how many NRA members are their actually out of our total population? and the NRA is another lobby just like any other. the only exception is with what in my opinion is an outdated constitutional law backing them. that law was made in a climate of war, with everyone in a revolutionary and rebellious mindstate unsure of what the fuute might bring.

needless to say times have changed. now you have militias thinking they will somehow one day have to overthrow the largest most technologically advanced military in the world with a few hunting weapons. :rolleyes: violent revolutions haven’t worked out to well. check the track record.[/QUOTE]

Surely you are not serious.

We are already eroding our free speech, eroding our personal privacy. By your statements you would rather hand over all control to the government. Let them tell you what you can think, do and go. Cause that is what the Constitution prevents.

Gun rights is there so that no one, not even the government, is to have full control of its citizens. Regardless of the situation. That is the same with all of the ammendments in the constitution.

You check the track record of socialism and complete government control. Dating back to the Midevil days when monarchs banned their subject, yes I said subjects not citizens, their right to bear arms/free speech/right to assemble. Then we move on to Stalins Russia, Communist Germany, and Germany under the rule of Hitler. Going back even to the Roman empire. A society that gives up its rights will no longer have a voice. You become subjects at that point.

The US Constitution is there so that the US citizens do not become subjects ever again. Yet there are people out there that are willing to give that up.

I suggest you live in a third world country for 10yrs. I bet you will learn to appreciate the Constitution so many people have died for so that you can spew this dribble you are spewing now without recourse.

Sad :frowning:

42

i only hunt sharks with rock knives to prove my manhood.

43

[QUOTE=xcakid;743312]Surely you are not serious.

We are already eroding our free speech, eroding our personal privacy. By your statements you would rather hand over all control to the government. Let them tell you what you can think, do and go. Cause that is what the Constitution prevents.

Gun rights is there so that no one, not even the government, is to have full control of its citizens. Regardless of the situation. That is the same with all of the ammendments in the constitution.

You check the track record of socialism and complete government control. Dating back to the Midevil days when monarchs banned their subject, yes I said subjects not citizens, their right to bear arms/free speech/right to assemble. Then we move on to Stalins Russia, Communist Germany, and Germany under the rule of Hitler. Going back even to the Roman empire. A society that gives up its rights will no longer have a voice. You become subjects at that point.

The US Constitution is there so that the US citizens do not become subjects ever again. Yet there are people out there that are willing to give that up.

I suggest you live in a third world country for 10yrs. I bet you will learn to appreciate the Constitution so many people have died for so that you can spew this dribble you are spewing now without recourse.

Sad :([/QUOTE]

oh please…you still have your right to bear arms but yet these things are still happening? the erosion of freedoms is occurring because of our collective stupidity. pointing guns at elected officials wont help that. it’ll probably have a negative backlash to allow further oppression all things considered. but you keep polishing that gun thinking its the solution to our problems.

44

yes. to not be infringed by the British empire. it was a political statement.

There is your error. No it is not. It’s a statement backing our fundamental right to bear arms. The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.

45

[QUOTE=FuXnDajenariht;743318]oh please…you still have your right to bear arms but yet these things are still happening? the erosion of freedoms is occurring because of our collective stupidity. pointing guns at elected officials wont help that. it’ll probably have a negative backlash to allow further oppression all things considered. but you keep polishing that gun thinking its the solution to our problems.[/QUOTE]

That is bull. Our rights have been eroding since the 50’s. I do not have my COMPLETE right to bear arms. I have to be licensed(read written permission) to carry a gun concealed. In some state they restrict ownership of certain firearms. That is NOT “Right to Bear Arms” These are the same states that have more gun violence by the way AFTER these laws were instituted. I lived in CA, and during the 89 Ban and the SB23 ban, the shooting have not decreased. They actually increased. Home invasions and car jacking and more prevelant. Unlike what the media would lead you to believe, gun owners are not violent.

I do agree that the erosion is due to the collective stupidity(can’t believe that with the views you posted you would actually admit that). And yes pointing guns at politicians may not be the answer right now. But granting them and others to further erode our rights and re-write the Constitution to what they “feel” is right to “modernize it” is suicide of what made this country great. And no I do not think guns are the solution. Unbiased education is the solution.

46

yea keep living in a dream world thinking that everyone walking around with a concealed gun will somehow create a societal utopia. sort of like the so called peace we have due to assured destruction that nuclear weapons afford us. im biased becuase i dont think people should walk around my city streets packing large caliber weapons? excuse the **** out of me. as if law abiding citizens and criminals are inherently born that way. the only thing that separates them is will and opportunity.

guns didn’t make our country great. enlightened thoughts and ideals did. you would do well to remember that. our most important and hard fought battles were in Congress and courtrooms, not battle fields with men killing each other.

47

of course, now I feel obligated…

to post these things:

http://www.gunfacts.info/

http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm

Interestingly, reading through this demonstrates a reality about this issue, which is that ideology, on both sides, can skew opinion. So, I like to post these things 1) because it provides at least some published data on the subject and 2) gives all sides something more to talk about than…

A: u-huh, it is so this way!

B: nu-huh, is not

A: is so

B: is not.

etc.

Just a couple comments/observations/opinions:

  • Before anyone goes off saying ‘that’s not right!’ or whatever, do some reading. I don’t have the time to wade through all the citations to check their accuracy and tell you that what they are saying is correct, but I would invite you to do just that if you are concerned about the data presented. If you find an error and have a good data to support something else, please share this with the authors. They are interested in accurate data as well. I also encourage everyone not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. There may be something that isn’t right, or a bad study on something. That doesn’t invalidate everything else (very human way to justify not listening to something because they don’t like it.)

  • Also, a note about statistics: we usually are a few years behind in reported data, just the nature of the beast. Still, what most people are looking at are trends, not absolutes.

  • I think this review of the data (assuming correct or not spun) doesn’t support the large number of assumptions about firearms that are circulated in our modern media and popular opinion.

  • It is amazing that we have relatively few deaths by firearms in our country. Despite the protrayal by popular media of the US as a gun toting free for all bloodbath, there are relatively few given the number of weapons that are out there. Does anyone else find it interesting the data regarding deaths of children by firearms? Accidental deaths? Involvement in preventing violent crime?

  • Interestingly, my anecdotal experience with all the law enforcement folks that I’ve worked with over the years parallels this data.

Anyway, I hope people find this interesting and it can spur on some intelligent conversation, rather than a playground arguement.

48

guns didn’t make our country great.

Let’s say they added to the ability for us to make any kind of enlightened thought on any subject. They are part and parcel of being American.

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”-Thomas Jefferson’s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776

“A free people ought to be armed.”-George Washington: (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent Chronicle.)

49

  • In the United States during 1997, there were 15,289 murders. Of these, 10,369 were committed with firearms. (2)

  • Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year. This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times. (16b)

i would say the benefits (statistically speaking) far outweight the concequences…

nearly a million people defend themselves a year with guns while ten thousand dye by them from a crime.

thanks for linking these sites, its nice to have some facts to deal with on a subject that is so opinion and emotionally driven.

50

Any person who has spent more than three years in prison is automatically banned for life from obtaining a gun licence

Any person holding a gun licence must comply with strict conditions regarding such things as safe storage. These storage arrangements are checked by the police before a licence is first granted, and on every renewal of the licence. A local police force may impose additional conditions on ownership, over and above those set out by law. Failure to comply with any of these conditions can mean forfeiture of the gun licence and surrender of any firearms to the police.

The penalty for possession of a prohibited firearm without a certificate is currently a mandatory minimum five year prison sentence and an uncapped fine.

To obtain a firearm certificate, the police must be convinced that a person has “good reason” to own each gun, and that they can be trusted with it “without danger to the public safety or to the peace”. Under Home Office guidelines, gun licences are only issued if a person has legitimate sporting or work-related reasons for owning a gun. Since 1946, self-defence has not been considered a valid reason to own a gun. The current licensing procedure involves: positive verification of identity, two referees of verifiably good character who have known the applicant for at least two years (and who may themselves be interviewed and/or investigated as part of the certification), approval of the application by the applicant’s own family doctor, an inspection of the premises and cabinet where guns will be kept and a face-to-face interview by a Firearms Enquiry Officer (FEO) also known as a Firearms Liaison Officer (FLO). A thorough background check of the applicant is then made by Special Branch on behalf of the firearms licensing department. Only when all these stages have been satisfactorily completed, will a licence be issued.

self defence is no reason to own a gun

we have proved this
we have the stricted gun control laws anywhere
and our gun crime and accidental death relating to are some of the lowest anywhere also

so why is gun control a bad idea
gun control works

its proven

51

In 2005/06 there were 766 offences initially recorded as homicide by the police in England and Wales (including the 52 victims of the 7 July 2005 London bombings),[15] a rate of 1.4 per 100,000 of population. Only 50 (6.6%) were committed with firearms, one being with an air weapon.[16] The homicide rate for London was 2.4 per 100,000 in the same year (1.7 when excluding the 7 July bombings).[17]

By comparison, 5.5 murders per 100,000 of population were reported by police in the United States in 2000, of which 70% involved the use of firearms (75% of which were illegally obtained).[18] New York City, with a population size similar to London (over 7 million residents), reported 6.9 murders per 100,000 people in 2004.[19]

Mexico which has gun control laws as strict as the UK, has homicide rate of 17.58 per 100,000 of population.[20]

Although it is sometimes claimed that since Britain banned the private ownership of handguns, gun crime has steadily increased, there is no evidence of a causal link.[21] Handguns were only held by 0.1% of the population[22], and while the number of crimes involving firearms in England and Wales increased from 13,874 in 1998/99 to 24,070 in 2002/03, they remained relatively static at 24,094 in 2003/04, and have since fallen steadily to 21,521 in 2005/06. The latter includes 3,275 crimes involving imitation firearms and 10,437 involving air weapons, compared to 566 and 8,665 respectively in 1998/99.[23] Only those “firearms” positively identified as being imitations or air weapons (e.g. by being recovered by the poilce or by being fired) are classed as such, so the actual numbers are likely to be significantly higher. In 2005/06, 8,978 of the total of 21,521 fireasrms crimes (42%) were for criminal damage.[24]

Since 1998 number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales has more than doubled[25] from 2,378 in 1998/99 to 4,001 in 2005/06. “Injury” in this context means by being fired, used a blunt instrument, or as a threat. In 2005/06, 87% of such injuries were defined as “slight,” which includes the use of firearms as a threat only. The number of homicides commited with firearms has remained between a range of 49 and 95, standing at 50 in 2005/06 (a fall from 78 the previous year). Between 1998/99 and 2005/06, there have been only two fatal shootings of police officers in England and Wales. Over the same period there were 107 non-fatal shootings of police officers - an average of just 9.7 per year.[26]

52

[QUOTE=FuXnDajenariht;743350]im biased becuase i dont think people should walk around my city streets packing large caliber weapons? excuse the **** out of me. as if law abiding citizens and criminals are inherently born that way. the only thing that separates them is will and opportunity.[/QUOTE]

People already walk around in your city with guns. They are called the Police. They carry concealed on and off duty. Why are they different? Cause they wear a badge perhaps. That is the only they have over me carrying a gun cause their training is a joke(with the exception few officers and SWAT officers). An average of 20hrs firearms training at the academy!!! Then they shoot once a year to qualify, if that. No thanks!!! I would rather depend on MY training. 6yrs Military, I have trained is various tactical and defensive firearms courses(TFTT,Tiger Valler and Thunder Ranch) that police officers and SWAT officer attend. I take classes at least 2-4X a yr, finances permitting. I shoot competitions at least 2X a month. And let’s not forget cops are human and have many documented and reported cases where they have gone bad. Also news of cops shooting the wrong person. SWAT officer entering the wrong house and killing occupants. Sure they are bound by law. But then again so am I as a Concealed Handgun licensee.

You have bought into the medias biased view that a gun is only used for violence and mischief. You said it yourself, it is a persons will and opportunity that will cause him for violence. I would like to be able to fight fire with fire. So until, the MILITARY and POLICE and the entire world bans guns for EVERYONE and not just select few. I will keep mine.

[QUOTE=FuXnDajenariht;743350]
guns didn’t make our country great. enlightened thoughts and ideals did. you would do well to remember that. our most important and hard fought battles were in Congress and courtrooms, not battle fields with men killing each other.
.[/QUOTE]

No guns did not make this country great. I agree. But it sure helped and continues to help. And armed citizens help secure this country so that we can be independent. Otherwise, we would not have out Constitution. We would still be griping about being British subjects and bowing our head to the Queen Mum.

“most important battles were fought in Congress and courtrooms” Hmmm.

Guess we sued the pants out of Japan after the bomb Pearl Harbor and they just gave up huh?

Guess Russia got scared when we threatened to send subpoena’s and cease and desist order to remove their missiles in Cuba?

Guess we helped halt the German’s Armies conquest of Europe by having our Congress crank call Hitler daily.

Sure there are diplomatic ways to solve a problem. But there are certain problems that require force and tools to enforce it. Much like a guy breaks into your house, and you just yelling get out!!! Pointing your finger to the door. Even if he did not have a gun, I doubt that would work. :smiley:

53

sort of like the so called peace we have due to assured destruction that nuclear weapons afford us.

Reply]
The ability to totally anihalate your attackers prevents them from attacking in the first place. It’s not different than a fist fight. If you had reason to attack someone, and you had a reasonable chance of kicking his ass and winning, what’s to stop you? BUT, if he was 7 foot 5, weight 450, and could bench 850, I bet you wouldn’t even try.

Now, on the world scene, especially with Terrorists nations wanting to wipe us from existance, who do you want to be, the guy that is beatable, or the one with the nukes instilling so much fear into yur enemies that they tremble at the thought of a confrontation with you?

The same goes with Guns. We live in a country where criminalls are armed to the teeth. They will get gunns no matter what laws we passon ourselves. Do you want to be home with your wife and children when a criminal who has nothing to fear comes for your wife’s jewlery, and your 16 year old daughter’s body?

Or would you prefer the criminals in this country to never know if breaking into a house will meet them with armed resistance, and death?

I don’t know about you guys, but I want the legal ability to shoot back…and maybe more important, i want the criminals to know I have that ability, motivation, and no legal issues to make me hesitate.

54

So the web page said that the Clinton law was let to expire because the guns in banned were very seldom used in crimes. Now this new potential law is going to ban even more guns that are seldom used in crime.

Let’s ban the assault rifle.
Why?
Well, because it will prevent crime.
But there are no crimes that have been commited with an assault rifle.
Don’t bore me with your common sense and convincing details.

55

self defence is no reason to own a gun

As already stated over and over again, yes it is. I can showcase a vast amount of material on people saving there lives with the use of a firearm. One of them is already on this thread topic. The horrible rising crime rates in Britain are due to there draconian anti-self defense posture and it is shocking for anyone willing to do a little research.

If you are asking me what I mean about anti-self defense, well that would take some time, but go ahead and look at Tony Martin in your own country for a good example. Your country in its quest for perfection sold you down the river and your buying it hook, line and sinker.:rolleyes:

Next, whoever listed gunfacts, put down one of the best links on the web to dispel the myths of gun violence and its a great link to go through. What this ban is for anyway, is just another wrap around attempt to get at the .50 caliber weapons, which is not the prime tool of choice for street criminals anyway.

56

I can showcase a vast amount of material on people saving there lives with the use of a firearm.

Reply]

I read one study once stateing that many guns used in selfdefense are never even fired. The brandishing of the weapon was enough to stop the attackers.

What this ban is for anyway, is just another wrap around attempt to get at the .50 caliber weapons, which is not the prime tool of choice for street criminals anyway.

Reply]
Can you explaine this? I don’t quite get what your are saying here.

57

Can you explaine this? I don’t quite get what your are saying here.

Royal,

Don’t get me wrong, there is more here than getting back to banning what misinformed people term assualt weapons but it always seems to go back to that terminology and the dishonest presentation of the .50 BMG caliber rifle.

Dedicated gun prohibitionists use the .50 caliber to help further there agenda towards total American disarmament. They call it a tank buster weapon, a military armour piercing sniper round, that they are terrorist weapons of choice, all sorts of unfactual, off the wall jargon to help showcase that in their view this rifle has no legitimate use, and that this among other calibers falls into a “assualt weapon” context.

Here is the reason why they do this. If they can get one caliber out of the way, then its easier to move on to the next, from there its on to the .458, then the .375, then the .308, etc. Sneaky…huh;)

For the record, though I have never had the pleasure to shoot one, sport shooters across the country use the .50 BMG caliber rifle to participate in offical competitions and professionally-sanctioned recreational sports shooting events.

58

when i was 19 i lived with a friend. he owned a gun. legally.

one night there was a break in, i was being attacked by 3 armed robbers.

my friend busted out of his room and had a bead on the one closest to him yelling “who fukcing wants to die”

at that the 2 closest to the door ran immediately, the 3rd guy closest to him, who had ME in his sights said “fukc it” and ran.

I quite possibly owe my life to that gun my friend held, AND no one was shot, the mere presence of death was enough to cause the assailents to leave, all parties unharmed.

luckly, my friend had a gun and saved my life.

i dont own a gun, but i sure as hell owe guns some gratitude and possibly my continued existence

59

[QUOTE=Black Jack II;743544]

For the record, though I have never had the pleasure to shoot one, sport shooters across the country use the .50 BMG caliber rifle to participate in offical competitions and professionally-sanctioned recreational sports shooting events.[/QUOTE]

If you are an afficionado like myself, I would highly suggest you not shoot one. Cause you will have a grin from ear to ear and would start saving up for one/maxing out a CC. Or if you already have the cash, you won’t soon enough. I got the opp of shooting a couple. A Barrett and an AR50. Now I am saving up for an Accuracy Int’l .50 BMG(those who don’t know, they start around $7K). Plus the rounds are like $1.25-1.50 ea. Expensive hobby long range shooting. :cool: If you’re married, try explaining that to the wife.

Key is to shoot often. Get good enough to get a sponsor. Knew a guy that was sponsored by Armalite. They GAVE him a .50cal and funded his ammo purchases. Not sure he competes any longer, lost contact with him.

I never had the discipline to learn long range shooting. Too mathematical. Bullet vs powder vs distance vs barrel twist, etc. Maybe when I get older. Or when I can finally take home an AI50

If you ever get to TX, lemme know. I know a couple of people that will be more than happy to let you shoot a 50. We even have a couple of ranges that go out to 1000yds to test your skill. :slight_smile:

60

Cause you will have a grin from ear to ear and would start saving up for one/maxing out a CC

LOL, I would not doubt it. Those puppies are monster expensive. What would I tell the wife since I don’t do long distance shooting…ummm honey…yeah…don’t worry I am going to use it incase we ever have a ufo invasion…owwww…will you stop hitting me with the paper:D

http://www.50bmgstore.com/50bmgcurrentprices.htm

If you think that is some scary shiznit. Check out this custom .60 caliber handgun…LOL.

It’s a .600 nitro express.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS8LT9xkOnE