Jump to content
Andrewr05

2010 Firearms discussion

Recommended Posts

Sheriff revokes license of gun owner and his son in Iowa because he wrote letters to the editor critical of the sheriff. Federal judge orders a reissue of permits and forces sheriff to attend college level course on the 1st amendment.

 

LINK

 

Wow. What an idiot. Hope his career as an elected official is over. That's just... stupid.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But police are our friends. Their judgment is infallible, and they never allow human emotions to interfere with the execution of their duties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But police are our friends. Their judgment is infallible, and they never allow human emotions to interfere with the execution of their duties.

 

Heh, indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canadians what are your opinions on this?

 

Long Gun Registration

 

Debate on the "The Agenda"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strueth !!. America must be a dangerous place to live. All these people needing to keep guns near their bed and on their person "just in case".. Glad I live in Australia. :biggrin:. (ex sporting shooter).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strueth !!. America must be a dangerous place to live. All these people needing to keep guns near their bed and on their person "just in case".. Glad I live in Australia. :biggrin:. (ex sporting shooter).

 

I'd have to argue the opposite. The more law-abiding and responsible gun owners we have I think the safer we are. It's not those of us who follow the law and practice basic common sense and gun safety that you people should be worried about. It's those people who circumvent the measures put in place to make sure that guns don't fall into the wrong hands that you have to worry about. Criminals and those individuals not concerned with following society's rules are the ones you have to worry about. And despite the arguments you may hear to the contrary outlawing all firearms is not the answer. The only thing that accomplishes is prohibiting those of us who do follow the rule of law from protecting ourselves against those who don't. Outlaw guns and the only people who will have them (besides military and "law enforcement") are criminals. Case in point, look at Mexico, where generally speaking citizens are not allowed to own firearms. Has that kept weapons out of the hands of the criminals? Hardly. That place is a freakin' war zone right now and your average law-abiding citizen is left defenseless against a bunch of armed thugs. Their only hope is their police and government, and I think it's fairly obvious at this point that they are incapable (or perhaps unwilling due to the rampant corruption) of protecting Mexican citizens.

 

Again, it's not the people who follow the rules you have to worry about. If anything I hope there is a responsible gun owner with a concealed carry license carrying his weapon anywhere my family goes without me, be it the shopping mall or the grocery store or wherever. Come to think of it, two or three responsible citizens packing would be two to three hundred percent better. It's unfortunate, at least from my point of view, that your country overreacted after a few unstable people decided to go out and murder innocent people and as a response outlawed most civilian ownership of firearms. Can't recall the exact location but I know there was one major incident where an individual went on a killing spree with a rifle and as a response what should be your basic human right to defend yourself was stripped from you. People can argue all they want about how citizens should not be allowed to carry a weapon and I would say their argument might begin to seem logical if one could carry a cop in your pocket. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your personal beliefs) that's not feasible or practical. All it would have taken to stop the killing spree would have been one responsible, trained and willing citizen carrying their weapon in conjunction with the law acting to put an end to the killing, with deadly force if necessary. I can only hope there are multiple people like that should myself or my family ever find themselves in the admittedly unlikely situation where we are in a public space when someone decided to go a little crazy and kill people, be it with a gun or other weapon. It's an unfortunate truth that most media only sensationalize the instances where disturbed individuals lash out at society using a gun. The stories about people protecting themselves, their families or complete strangers because they were legally able to carry their weapon and trained in its use are sadly underrepresented. These things do happen and there is a reason you don't usually hear about them. Because it would contradict the flimsy logic espoused by those who preach that guns are the epitome of evil and there is no reason for their existence (or at least no reason why Average US citizen should be able to own one). The fact of the matter is taking guns away from responsible citizens transfers an enormous advantage to criminals and more or less renders law-abiding citizens defenseless. Sure, I could call the police if my house is broken into, but that cop sure isn't going to be very much help DURING the commission of a crime. By the time an officer responds chances are the perpetrator will be long gone.

 

I'll stop this rant here. I do not mean to offend anyone, this is merely a subject I feel very strongly about. Obviously, everyone's life experiences are unique and each person is entitled to their own opinion. I realize many people's opinions on the matter of gun ownership will not reflect my own, and that is fine. My feathers merely get a little ruffled when it is implied that our country is more dangerous or unsafe because of people who follow the law, use simple and effective gun safety practices and take the time to familiarize and train themselves with whatever weapon they choose to carry. At this point, at least to me, it seems a responsible, armed citizenry is the most effective deterrent to violent crimes. People should consider the implications involved in passing the responsibility of their own and their family's protection to an outside authority, i.e. the local police department. They have their uses and benefits. However, in the unlikely (but nonetheless possible) event that your home is broken into in the middle of the night while those you care most about sleep the local police department is going to be about as effective a defense against someone bent on taking from you and possibly hurting those you love as a water gun. The person most responsible for ensuring the protection of your family and property is, believe it or not, none other than yourself. People should accept a little responsibility and stop expecting other people to do for them what they should do for themselves.

 

Ok, I'll really stop the rant here. Again, if I've offended anyone I apologize. By quoting your last post, Mychael, I am not trying to imply anything negative about you or your believes. I'm just merely using it as a stepping stone to get up on my rickety soap box (doh.gif). Also, just because I believe these things by no means makes them an absolute truth (as if anyone really had to be told as much). Only you can decide what is true for you. I merely hope that people will think nice and hard about it before they come to their own conclusions. As far as I'm concerned guns aren't the problem. They are merely tools and possess no inherent qualities, neither good nor evil, although they can indeed be used to carry out both good and evil acts. They are merely extensions of the person's will who choses to wield them. To end, consider this analogy: outlawing guns because some people choose to use them for evil deeds is like outlawing keyboards because you don't like what someone has to say on an Internet forum. Perhaps not a perfect analogy, but I hope it's good enough for you to at least understand the point I am attempting to make.

 

Edit: Um, yeah, so sorry for the unbelievably long and rambling post. Only when I posted it did I realize how ridiculously long it was. Anyone who actually reads through the whole thing, well, I think you're entitled to a cookie or two. Also, if your post was meant sarcastically, Mychael, then I apologize for using it as the basis for an unsolicited rant. cheers.gif

Edited by Bizzlenitch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just enjoy being free. I never took well to someone with a lower IQ than me, who knows nothing about me, telling me what I can and can not do.

 

But it's all good, at least the law-abiding Australian citizens who fall victim to that gun crime that doesn't exist can exit this world with the full satisfaction of knowing that their motherly government had their best interests at heart when it made them defenseless pawns via legislative fiat.

 

I will choose what is best for me, and others will choose what is best for them. But when government makes it its duty to choose for me what is best for me, I get a little bit pissed... but then again my family has been in the Americas since the Revolution, so I think it's those rebellious genes kicking in. But hey, it's that rebellious, self-reliant nature that made America the most powerful country in the world. :popcorn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But hey, it's that rebellious, self-reliant nature that made America the most powerful country in the world. :popcorn:

 

Indeed. That being said, it probably doesn't hurt that our nation's military spending exceeds something like the next 10-20 nations' spending combined! I kid, I kid... somewhat... ph34r2.gif

 

The moral of the story is, make up your own mind. Government by its very nature is fallible if only for the fact that people are themselves fallible. Getting a big group of fallible people together and charging them with setting policies for the rest of us fallible beings is, at least in my mind, an inherently flawed endeavor. Government is, sadly, a necessary evil but I believe people do themselves a disservice when they transfer so much authority and power to any single institution. In my mind at least, the role of government is fairly simple and two-fold: ensuring the protection of the citizenry from any outside threat to its well-being and ensuring that society operates based on laws enacted with the intention of ensuring equity and safety for each and every citizen. Basically the government should pass and enforce laws designed to protect your basic individual rights as a sentient being as well as make sure no one comes knocking from next door wielding a big stick demanding you subjugate yourself to their will. That's it. It is contradictory to the very idea of a government for that government to exert any real control over it's people merely to serve its own interest as an independent institution. Government should always and only be a tool of the people, an institution with the sole purpose of ensuring the protection and well-being of those people who by the institution's very definition imbue it with any power it may be entrusted with. Somewhere along the way, however, our government (and most governments, I think one could argue) ceased to be accountable to us, the very people who brought them into existence for the benefit of us, the citizens, and began to require that we be accountable to them. It is unfortunate that many times those who refuse to drink the Kool-Aid and follow the party line are labeled dissidents or fanatics or worse. The problem is not the people, the problem is more often than not the institution. At least in my mind I find it a sad truth that most governments long ago ceased to work for the people (if indeed they ever truly did). Just because your President or your Parliament or your Prime Minister or your Congress or whatever tells you something is true most certainly does not make it so. It should be the duty of all responsible citizens to gather the facts the best they can on their own before making an informed opinion on just about anything.

 

Example: While I more than understand the appeal to common sense set forth in arguing that everyone should be required to wear their seatbelt when operating a motor vehicle I believe it is somewhat ludicrous that governments have passed legislation making it required, by law, for everyone to wear their seatbelt. Does it make sense for people to wear their seatbelt when driving? Well, yes, in most instances it definitely does. Does that mean governments should require by law that everyone do so? Not necessarily. If not doing so exposes others to an unnecessary risk of physical harm then you could certainly make an argument that it is the governments role to pass such legislation. In reality the only person you really endanger when you choose to not use your seatbelt is yourself. You getting in a wreck without wearing a seatbelt doesn't harm the person whose vehicle you plowed into (generally speaking). It does, however, increase the risk that you will suffer some sort of physical harm or death. Sad? Yes. But your choice. Is it merely a coincidence that the government (local or state in this particular case) benefits monetarily from passing legislation such as this? Perhaps. If it is then it is a somewhat convenient coincidence for those who enact and enforce such legislation. And no, I'm not some kind of conspiracy theorist who thinks government is out to get everyone. I am merely someone who rather than being force-fed someone else's explanation for why things are the way they are attempts to form his own opinion based on the most objective information I can obtain. I know, what a strange and outlandish idea, right?

 

If people would put a little bit of thought into seemingly insignificant issues such as the above, as well as more important ones, then I think they would find themselves making much more informed decisions. Then, I think, they would find themselves and the rest of society much better off. Don't believe everything you're told. If someone tells you something it probably isn't a bad idea to stop and consider for a moment how their particular view may or may not serve some agenda that they or their affiliates might have. The worst thing one could do is jump right into the middle of the herd with the rest of the sheep without thinking. That's a pretty good way to set yourself up as a target for the wolves out there. Also a real good way to set yourself up for the self-proclaimed "shepherds" who would do you a very large "favor" in making sure you find your way to their path and don't wander off it. You have a brain, use it!

 

 

And again... apologies for the rants. I mean no offense to anyone or their views. In fact, any dissenting opinions are more than appreciated as, believe it or not, people can learn and grow from listening to the experiences and thoughts of others. Amazing! Er, think it's about time for some sleep. Guess I get all philosophical and prone to intellectual musings when deprived of sleep.

Edited by Bizzlenitch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd conjecture that our ability to outspend the civilized world in military power is an indirect result of the freedom that we had for generations, allowing us to develop the infrastructure and amass the wealth to give us the benefit of a large national defense. Anyone who begrudges us for that is a jealous coward who is angry that their collectivist government keeps them poor, defenseless, and reliant on the US for any meaningful international use of force, be it right or wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. It's unfortunate, at least from my point of view, that your country overreacted after a few unstable people decided to go out and murder innocent people and as a response outlawed most civilian ownership of firearms. Can't recall the exact location but I know there was one major incident where an individual went on a killing spree with a rifle and as a response what should be your basic human right to defend yourself was stripped from you.

 

 

 

Yeah, there were a couple of incidents. One was in Melbourne Victoria (the state I live in) the guys name was Julian Knight. It was at night or dusk (cant recall now) he was taking potshots at the public in their cars as they drove by, doubt your concealed weapon would have done you much good then. The last thing the police would have needed whilst looking for him in the park were vigilantes with guns running about at the same time.

 

The other case was Martin Bryant in Tasmania he went on a rampage with high powered semi-auto rifles and you would not have even been in range with your handgun before he popped you off.

 

Be that as it may it was a p.i.t.a to have our gun ownership rules changed, I had to hand in one of my shotguns but we did get full re-imbursment.

We've had some police killed by firearms but apart from the to aformentioned examples I cant think of anyone (as in general public) being shot, all gun murders have been gang related with the crims popping each other off.

 

We just don't have street crime with firearms here, plus there's common sense of not putting yourself in harms way, there are places I would not go to at night. Not being where the risks are is better then needing to carry a gun.

 

Carrying guns just escalates things past the point of no return, it only would take one hot head or panicky person and it goes from black eyes and bruised knuckles to bullets flying and risking innocent bystanders.

Take this scenario (happened to me), I was cut off in a round about driving home, just sounded my horn as I just thought it was a lazy driver not paying attention, he took offence to this, stopped his car in the roundabout to block me in then was getting out to have a go at me as he was walking towards me he saw my uniform and stopped, having a small car I was able to just drive around and carry on my way. Incident over.. clearly though he was a hot head.

Now take this same scenario if we both had guns because it's "our right", He might have come over threatening, I might have felt threatened so show my gun to scare him off, he goes back to get his gun because he was such a hot head in the first place it spirals out of control from there.

 

Because I work in the emergency services we did training with police and were shown this experiment (it actually has a name but I cant recall right now). We put on white plastic aprons and the police officer stood about 10 feet away from us with a red marker pen to simulate a knife, we were given holstered toy guns and were pre-warned he would rush us, when he did before we could unholster our "guns" we both got red marker all over us. The point is that even being told we would be rushed and having "guns" not covered by clothing we could not protect ourselves in time before we both got "stabbed". The point of the excercise was to highlight that unless your a police officer your better off remving yourself from a potentially dangerous situation before it reaches that point and that even carrying a handgun would not have saved us. Police are trained regularly in that sort of thing and he told us that even police did little better in that scenario then we did.. now relate that to your average civilian carrying a concealed weapon that's he never had to draw in anger.

 

I'm happy to debate guns as shooting was a hobby of mine but honestly I see it as un-winable debate as (no offence intended) Americans see gun ownership as a right and we see it as a privalige to be earned.

To own a firearm here you must be a member of a recognised gun club, you must first obtain a shooters licence and to get that you have to do a four hour gun safety and handling lecture with an exam at the end. That gives you a shooters licence for long arms. Then before you can buy a rifle or shotgun you have to apply to the police gun control officer in your area for a permit to purchase and you have to specify what exactly you plan to buy.. Cannot recall the waiting time now. You also have to have an approved gun safe in your home which the police can inspect any time without notice.

 

To own handguns is even harder, registered with approved hand gun club, attend a certain minimum number of meetings/shoots per year and there is some probationary period before you can buy a handgun. I'm a little out of touch with all current regs but it gives you an idea.

 

I don't object to any of this, the harder, more tedious/onerous they make the rules the more that only genuine enthusiasts will own guns. The less chance of people buying a gun just because it's the cool thing to do.

I don't have issue with genuine gun enthusiasts wanting to be able to own firearms and I would think that the real enthusiast would take pride in being able to say they met the required standard to be able to be a gun owner.. I have a real problem with easy or almost non existant licence laws. I have no problems with gun practice and shooting competitions of any kind, I do have a problem with the youtube clips I see of a bunch of guys mindlessly blazing away at bottles, drums, fuel cans etc with all kinds of high powered semi auto weapons and more. Sorry if this offends but it just does not give a good image of responsible gun ownership.

 

Someone posted before about people taking responsibility for themselves but given that (and correct me if I am wrong) America is one of the most litigious countries in the world it would seem to outsiders that personal responsibility is not high on the list and making it the other guys fault is a national pastime.

 

My personal observation of the general public here is that a lot of people lack common sense or much insight into the repercussions from their actions, at least our strict gun laws over here filter some of them out but in other countries with more leinient laws welllll, I wonder.

Edited by Mychael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just found this thread. Looks to have some great info, dont have time to read it now. But just thought i'd share a tip i was giving for deterring intruders, take a bird shot shell remove the shot and replace with rock salt, non-lethal and will deter return visits, unless its really humid or it gets wet= salt slug which is lethal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...