BS: Guns & laws in the US

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Apr 12 - 06:11 PM

*grin*...except that in anticipation of something new about the topic, pedantic 'ol ME read the last 20-30 posts above to prepare myself.

Yes.. I know I oughta skip to the bottom to see what's going on...but....

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: gnu
Date: 13 Apr 12 - 05:46 PM

I dunno, Bill. What sayest thou?

Personally, I don't think we need one. If anyone wants to know about Canuck gun laws, they can Google em.

All I was doing was reporting what's on the go here at the moment... up to date... breaking news... on an existing thread rather than starting a new one. After all, this thread died about three weeks ago so I can't see my post as an impostion???

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Apr 12 - 05:21 PM

When threads are revived, they go funny places sometimes.

Do we need a thread called "Guns & laws in Canada"?

I do know that I would 'prefer' that firearms 'experts' would start one specifically to trade jokes and repartee about specific makes & models unless it has direct bearing on the topic.

(what?..hmmm? "fat chance"?....oh...)

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: GUEST,hg
Date: 13 Apr 12 - 02:19 PM

My views exactly, Bee-Dubya-ell...

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: gnu
Date: 13 Apr 12 - 02:16 PM

Well, I am torn. I would have been WHOLEheartedly in favour of our "new" gun laws if certain portions of the act were written differently because they abet criminals and put Canucks in danger(and, no, I shant repeat my qualms for the 100th time). I read of yet another violent home invasion in the paper today.

But, I am still 3/4sheartedly in favour of the registry. The other 1/4 is my fear of government. It was to be a one-time registration but twice they have asked me to re-register my guns (five year intervals) and pay them to do it. Each time, I sent a registered letter, witnessed by a lawyer, to them saying there were no changes and the info they had on file should be sent to me for verifiction. I also asked that the next letter they sent to me be signed and dated instead of a form letter with NO signature and NO date. Never heard back.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 13 Apr 12 - 02:00 PM

Ever shoot a 50 barrett, a pleasure it is not ... even with built in recoil spring it kicks like a horse on spurs .. and the boom is no fun either ... and at 10 bucks a round why the hell would anyone want one but I know many who do.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 13 Apr 12 - 01:57 PM

Greg
even better idea I like that

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Apr 12 - 01:53 PM

Why stop there, Dan? I think everyone should have a Finnish 20 mm Lahti L-39 anti-tank rifle, not your little pissant .50 cal.

Plus, it would create jobs if they put the Lahti back into production.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: olddude
Date: 13 Apr 12 - 01:26 PM

I think everyone should have to carry a .50 cal Barrett if they want to carry a firearm. After toting that beast around no one would want to do it. Heaviest damn gun on the planet and no worries about concealing it either :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: gnu
Date: 13 Apr 12 - 01:16 PM

4 hours ago in Canada

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: bobad
Date: 27 Mar 12 - 06:40 PM

"Lachine, Quebec"

That's my home town Rap, quite an interesting history associated with it. Check out how it was named.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: Lighter
Date: 27 Mar 12 - 06:35 PM

With guns not going anywhere, one helpful idea might be vigorous educational campaigns on gun safety, civic responsibility, and anger management.

Not saying it would work, but it's better than continual yelling, on either side, about banning guns.

Real criminals won't care, but they're beyond rational gun control anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: Rapparee
Date: 27 Mar 12 - 05:29 PM

Lachine, Quebec; Dartmouth, NS; Kugluktuk, Nunavut; Cypress Hills, Saskatchewan; Lucan Biddulph, Ontario; Aroostook War; Nicola's War; Courthouse Rebellion; Montreal Riots; Stony Monday Riot; Fraser Canyon Gold Rush skirmishes; Fraser Canyon War; McGowan's War; Pig War; Lamalcha War; Chilcotin War; "Kingfisher" Incident; Upper and Lower Ontario...to last year's Stanley Cup affairs, to name a few (I deliberately chose most from the 19th Century and in which the US was only peripherally involved if at all).

As I said before, no nation is without its shames, but the US hardly stands alone as the Vancouver gang wars currently demonstrate.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: Crowhugger
Date: 27 Mar 12 - 03:25 PM

You're all welcome. The long version of that very general synopsis above may be found in the latter chapters of Pierre Berton's The Last Spike. I found that book and his The National Dream both very gripping--I could hardly put them down and I kept wishing I was a screen writer. I kept seeing dozens of TV seasons-worth of material as I read. IMO both books should be required reading for all Canadian school kids, maybe in early high school.

No, meself, not physically. My crow hugging is entirely metaphorical. They're pretty good at raising young in partnership, highly intelligent and adaptable; I find them interesting and in many ways admirable. The name is also a throwback to a time when, as an pre-and early teen sleeping out in the back yard, I really liked trying to follow the conversations within a nearby flock of crows, which back and forth began about 45 minutes before the first speck of daylight and by sun-up was full cacaphony.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: meself
Date: 26 Mar 12 - 08:46 PM

I'll third that - good work, Crowhugger! (Um - do you really hug crows?)

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: gnu
Date: 26 Mar 12 - 08:28 PM

I'll second that.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: Dorothy Parshall
Date: 26 Mar 12 - 07:07 PM

And that is a very interesting chunk of Canadian history. Thank you.

Subject: Speaking of Riel
From: Crowhugger
Date: 26 Mar 12 - 05:29 PM

Sort of thread drift, but sort of not as details are clarified & fleshed out about the differences in settling the Canadian vs US west.

Rap, yes there was Riel. Twice in fact. I'm not saying there was no blood, not at all. But I think the fact that there's one notable resistance story in Canada and many in the US makes my point about the much smaller need for armed militia in Canada; this even though the 2nd Riel uprising was what turned the Canadian political tide in favour of guaranteeing operating loans during the final year of construction of the Canadian Pacific Railroad. [my apology for that verrrrry long sentence!] By early to mid-1885 Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition was vehemently against extending any more loan guarantees (with some good reasons) and it regularly threatened a non-confidence vote against Sir John A's minority parliament.

Were it not for Riel and the need to get an army to Manitoba post haste, plus the experience of Riel's 1st rebellion when it took several weeks to transport militiamen from the east by laker, canoe, on foot and Red River Cart--were it not for all that, the bill in front of parliament to extend the operating loans would almost surely not have passed and MacDonald's 2nd government would have fallen to a non-confidence vote. With all sources of funding exhausted and more, with the Canadian economy doing poorly, with all CPR investor goodwill already over-extended and with most navvies being 2-4 months behind in receiving pay, the CPR almost surely could not have met its debt obligations in the summer of 1885. Both the CPR and probably the Bank of Montreal would have gone bust without the additional loan guarantees.

Had all that happened, Canada's already weak economy would have suffered a vicious blow because in addition to its backlogged payroll the railway owed thousands of suppliers many millions of dollars. If the CPR had gone bust, and if the Canadian government had not moved in to finish the railway, the map of North America would probably look very, very different today; the fertile belt of the prairies nortg of 49 would probably be US territory.

As it happened, of course, all that did not come to pass, the bill for more loans did pass and people of mostly British descent and loyalty settled what is now the Canadian prairies.

Is it possible that those who settled the Canadian prairie, being comfortable with monarchy, were more willing than republicans to the south to be governed by a paternalistic, strong central body? Might that be part of the root of the difference in gun culture? I have no idea.

Aside: I find it interesting to note that the one notable Canadian resistor of European settlement represented people not living a FN lifestyle but Metis farmers? Perhaps thanks to their half-European background they had a better understanding of what the Europeans really intended by settling the west.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: meself
Date: 26 Mar 12 - 11:09 AM

"in the U.S. you have rights until you sign them away or lose them through abuse. Not so in other countries."

Nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: John P
Date: 26 Mar 12 - 10:45 AM

"I read in the paper last week that a gun in the home is four times more likely to be used on a friend or family member that to be used defending the home against invasion."

That specific statement originated in a specific known article by ONE known radical anti-everything NUT. It has been thoroughly disproven by multiple other sources using official data from national, state, and in many cases local levels.

Are these the radical nuts you refer to?

New England Journal of Medicine:
Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home

American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine:
Risks and Benefits of a Gun in the Home

American Journal of Epidemiology:
Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 26 Mar 12 - 05:03 AM

Somewhere above is quoted "I read in the newspapers:"

I read in the paper last week that a gun in the home is four times more likely to be used on a friend or family member that to be used defending the home against invasion.

That specific statement originated in a specific known article by ONE known radical anti-everything NUT. It has been thoroughly disproven by multiple other sources using official data from national, state, and in many cases local levels.

In a recent "news broadcast" a person who was trying to explain the "health act" to a panel of .... who kept trying to outshout him with the usual trite slogans, finally was asked "Why doesn't Obama just explain it."

I thought his answer was quite to the point, as near as I can recall:

"It's complicated, and a two sentence explanation always loses to a one sentence LIE."

I'm afraid he's right.

(So far as I caught, he was a spokesman for one of several agencies involved in implementing the law, but I didn't get the impression he was representing a Party affiliation, for or against either party.)

As to a handgun only being of use for target shooting, I've hunted about as successfully, although less frequently, with a handgun as with a long gun, although I've used both depending on which was appropriate. Longbows (usually compound to meet draw limits) and less frequently crossbows are legal for hunting in many places her.

And those last three times I mentioned shooting within the past dozen years (a long way back in the thread) were with a handgun, because it was most appropriate to the requirement at hand - which had nothing to do with shooting anything but a couple of probably rabid wild animals that attacked our pets and refused to withdraw when given the opportunity and encouragement to do so.

(In one case I had to send the kid (30 years old) back to get the .22 short when he tried to bring me the .357 Mag. I didn't think I needed all that firepower even for a very fierce 'possum.) Even the .22 short has a potential range of about a half mile, and I've seen ricochets of around 100 yards, when fired from a rifle. From a .22 short pistol with a 2-1/4 inch barrel you don't have to worry about going through the boards in the privacy fence even if you shot straight at them. (I've tested it on some spare boards, and on some other "barriers" for every gun I've owned, because you must know the risks involved in every use of any power tool (even a gun).)

John

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: Howard Jones
Date: 26 Mar 12 - 04:11 AM

The English Civil War deposed a monarch who had refused to compromise with the demands of Parliament. The republican experiment failed, for a number of reasons, and the monarchy was welcomed back. However the powers of the monarchy were renegotiated and have continued to be renegotiated ever since, until we reach the present day where the monarch has very little political power.

The UK at the end of the 19th Century was also a violent culture where people often went armed for their own protection. Somewhere along the way that changed (was it perhaps a reaction to two world wars?) and the UK, along with most European countries, allowed themselves to be disarmed. Yes, it's true that some of the criminals still have guns, but they seem to be largely confined to gangs and drug dealers who mainly use them against each other. As an ordinary citizen of the UK, I don't feel threatened by criminals with guns and I don't feel the need to arm myself against them. I think this is the attitude of most people here.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: Songwronger
Date: 25 Mar 12 - 11:04 PM

Interesting digressions. Do they teach in English schools that the lunatic Cromwell was some kind of savior? And if he got rid of the monarchy, how come that old hag is squatting in Buckingham Palace?

The U.S. consititutions' Bill of Rights sets it apart from other constitutions. I'm familiar with Beard's work, and he's right--the founding fathers basically rebelled over taxes, and most of them ended up as the wealthiest men in the new nation. And there was a danger of them becoming a new monarchy, so that's why people like Patrick Henry, George Mason and others insisted on a Bill of Rights. Jefferson. The Bill of Rights limits what government (and the people running it) can do.

Other constitutions "grant" people rights, which is ludicrous. Those aren't rights, they're privileges. The U.S. Bill of Rights says we're born with unlimited freedom, and government can't take that away, except in very narrow circumstances.

Canada's Charter. Pierre Trudeau basically pulled that thing out of his ass, as I recall. It limits individual rights from the outset while it uses words like rights and freedom and democracy in order to make people think it's something it's not. At any rate, in the U.S. you have rights until you sign them away or lose them through abuse. Not so in other countries. And this is why the U.S. is so dangerous to the totalitarian globalization movement.

What else? Do I think guns will stop a shock and awe campaign? Who was that? Richard Bridge. Talks about "survivalist nutters." Boy are you off the mark. Every adult I know has a gun. Women carry them in purses and under car seats, and men teach the kids how to use them. This is a gun culture, not a bunch of survivalist nutters. And crime rates are next to nothing where I live. I pity the chumps who have to use baseball bats for home invasions. Look at the shooter in France the other day. He had 8 guns, in a country where it's DAMNED hard to get guns. Criminals will always have guns, so you need them too.

And yes, I think 200 million guns will make an invading force nervous. More nervous than 200 million baseball bats.

This horse is pulverized.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: Rapparee
Date: 25 Mar 12 - 08:13 PM

Don't forget Louis Riel. US bootleggers supplied whisky from Ft. Benton, MT to Canadians who sold it to the Indians. US and Canadian ranchers worked quite well together in stealing and disposing of stolen horses, some of which were sold to the RCMP. In 1876 it was, for a time, debatable whether or not the Canadian government would allow Sitting Bull and his people to stay in Canada for any length of time, and the same was true when Chief Joseph and the Nez Perce headed north in 1878. No nation on Earth is innocent or even "Not Guilty" of doing bad things to their own or other people.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: Crowhugger
Date: 25 Mar 12 - 02:55 PM

Yes, the Canadian & British gov'ts intended to avoid the degree of violence seen in the USA and used the tools pdq mentions: treaties, programs. Also I think they were actually able to carry out that intention because of the drastically weakened state, by the late 1800s, of the original inhabitants of the areas being settled. Had those communities been strong enough to mount a serious resistance, do I really believe Canada would not have pushed the railway and settlement through, rather that it would have left the west to be annexed by more willing gunslingers from the US? No I don't believe that. So maybe the different gun culture here is a matter of dumb luck, that we were able to settle the west with less violence so it became a different reality? Just musing, not saying it's so.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: Crowhugger
Date: 25 Mar 12 - 02:46 PM

Oops, yup "Charter of Rights and Freedoms." BTW, has anyone else noticed we failed to include "responsibilities" in that title?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: meself
Date: 25 Mar 12 - 10:47 AM

Good summary of a lot of history, Cr. A couple of quibbles/comments:

- What you're referring to as our "constitution" is of course the Charter of Rights. Our "constitution" is the British North America Act of 1867.

- The British and Canadian governments learned from the example of the settling of the American west - they were determined to avoid the kind of violence and lawlessness that had been so prevalent there; hence, the creation of the North-West Mounted Police, the urgency of treaty-making, establishment of administrative bureaucracy and procedure, etc. Without the American object lesson, it all might have been much messier.

- I'm not sure "British assumptions about guns" were vastly different from the corresponding American attitudes in the era in question. Interestingly, in towns like Dodge City and Tombstone - mentioned above - in that mythological Golden Age of American freedom and rugged individualism, there were what would today be considered intolerable restrictions regarding firearms - you weren't allowed to carry them. In fact, that was one of the catalysts of the infamous Shoot-out at the Okay Corral: the 'bad guys' were carrying their guns within town limits. (Caveat: I don't claim to be any kind of authority on any of that Wild West stuff; I've just picked up a bit from reading and watching documentaries).

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Mar 12 - 10:41 AM

... the US fought a war to throw off the tyranny of the monarchs.

Not quite - See Charles Beard's An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution...

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: Crowhugger
Date: 25 Mar 12 - 09:37 AM

pdq, decimated no decimated offence decimated taken. Decimated.

FWIW, in my post above it'll help to read "decimated" in the colloquial sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Mar 12 - 09:32 AM

Mr Happy - that IS a satire, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 25 Mar 12 - 08:53 AM

My poem on this - "Monopoly ".

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: Mr Happy
Date: 25 Mar 12 - 07:48 AM

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/03/23/indiana-governor-signs-bill-allowing-citizens-to-use-deadly-force-against-police-officer

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 24 Mar 12 - 07:15 PM

""but the main difference between the US and UK is that the US fought a war to throw off the tyranny of the monarchs.""

I guess your history lessons stopped short of the English Civil War and the overthrow of the monarch by Oliver Cromwell, the reason why we are a constitutional monarchy?

So many assumptions, so many wrong.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: pdq
Date: 24 Mar 12 - 11:26 AM

Crowhugger...

No offense, but you use "decimated" way too often, especially since you do not really know what it means. Think 10% and military.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: Crowhugger
Date: 24 Mar 12 - 11:11 AM

With the caveat that this is vast generalization: I think the chief difference between Canadian and American behaviour with gun laws goes back to a difference in what rights are top of the hierarchy. In the US it's individual rights, in Canada, group rights. The Canadian Constitution clearly limits individual rights to what is reasonable in a free and democratic society. Given that the Canadian Constitution is just 30-something years old, the courts are still working out what that means in different situations. But generally speaking they seem slightly more willing to limit personal freedom than courts in the US. It only takes a small difference in wording of laws and their interpretation to have a big effect on society. I say this not as a lawyer but as a more or less informed citizen.

There is an element of chicken and egg in this effect, since it was Canadians who drafted the constitution to begin with and Canadians who interpret it and who are then bound by those interpretations, and write new laws that fit within its framework.

The difference between US and Canadian gun policy may be explained a lot by history. In terms of need for guns in the settlement of the Canadian west there are three factors that created a tremendously different settlement culture here compared to the US.

1. Canada's northwest (what is now Ontario north and west of Georgian Bay & Lake Superior, the prairies, and BC apart from Victoria and Vancouver) was not significantly settled until the Canadian Pacific Railroad (CPR) was built 1880-1885. By that time European diseases brought by a scant population of missionaries and fur traders had decimated the original populations. Enormous buffalo hunts had very nearly decimated that population--buffalo were virtually extinct by the time The Railway (see #2) was completed in 1885. By the time Canada was settling the prairies, original populations were in a weakened state from starvation and European disease; they also knew what usurping of land had occured in the USA but were far less able to resist. Their chief food supply was so vastly dwindled that during the time of railroad building and soon after, many reluctantly but of necessity moved onto reserves where they would at least have basic food and shelter, if not health and dignity--buffalo were no longer a reliable way to provide for one's family and tribe.

2. During railway construction is precisely when Canada's west began to be settled beyond a few bone-mashing cart tracks between fur trading posts and a few adventuresome naturalists, homesteaders especially along the Red River, and wannabe miners. The Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR) controlled the rules within 20 miles either side of the track and they had their own enforcers to limit employees' and service providers' participation in vices. The majority of navvies (labourers) were either recently decended from Europeans, majority from UK, or were directly from the UK. A smaller number were from other parts of Europe.

3. The British ideas of law and order formed the basis for the North West Mounted Police during this era. This force was in place as the west was being settled, with little tolerance for the American style "wild west."

Putting together those three uniquely Canadian conditions of western settlement:
The majority of the End of Track population, as that tent settlement moved across the prairie, would naturally have within it largely British assumptions about guns. Add to that the fact that original populations and their food supply were decimated by that time, there wasn't the extent of warring resistance that marks stories of the "wild west" of the US.

It's only in the last 30 years or so that Canada has begun to develop a self separate from its British roots rather than exactly in their image. Canada was extremely British at the time the fundamentals of the country were put together and for a long time afterwards. Our gun culture reflects that. And lately, urban gun culture reflects growing drug and gang crime.

I couldn't say which gun policy approach is better, only which one I'm used to and therefore comfortable with: The one in which I grew up.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 24 Mar 12 - 09:51 AM

One more case:

http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/311679/28/Iraq-War-veteran-killed-widow-says-Floridas-Stand-Your-Ground-law-is-free-pass-for-mu

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Mar 12 - 11:17 AM

PS - same as the IRA used against UK military.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Mar 12 - 11:16 AM

Not in their capacities as invading armies - in their capacities as hamstrung peacekeepers. And not with handguns, but with roadside bombs.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 23 Mar 12 - 09:57 AM

Richard Bridge .... the Iraqi and Afghani rebels have given the 'shock and awe' military boys a good run for their money.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Mar 12 - 09:37 AM

A long rifle and an AK47 aren't the same beast...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Mar 12 - 02:27 AM

Songwronger - do you really believe that a bunch of survivalist nutters can outgun the military that gave us the phrase "shock and awe"? Do you really believe that they can outgun any invading military (if the US military has tried and failed)? It would be a romantic but dangerous illusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: John P
Date: 22 Mar 12 - 11:55 PM

Legalizing drugs would go a long toward easing gun violence. At least we wouldn't have gang wars and people who need to raise $100 a day for their habit. Why didn't we learn anything from the Prohibition? Gun violence galore, and we're just doing it again.

Speaking of cops who shouldn't have guns, one of the children that was killed here recently was shot by her brother with their police officer father's gun. The kids and the loaded gun were were in the car. The parents weren't.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: Songwronger
Date: 22 Mar 12 - 10:53 PM

So if law-abiding Americans voluntarily limit their access to guns, will criminals limit THEIR access? We all know the answer to that.

And you have to take into consideration that the criminals in the gun game include Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General. He's been running guns into Mexico in order to demonize the "gun show loophole."

Simple fact is that big government wants to own you. The dead Jews in Hitler's Germany could tell you how that ends up.

An armed America is a safe America. Deny guns to felons, leave the rest alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: olddude
Date: 22 Mar 12 - 09:13 PM

won't make ya safer bro, lots of the bad shooting are done by gangs with the AK-47 or the Bushmaster AR ...

A weapon is a weapon .. we really need a federal carry standard and the gun show limitations. The border agents are getting wacked from Mexico by the drug folks using our own weapons. On 20 20 TV show they showed how easy it was, but them, disassemble, put them in a bag and walk over the border crossing no questions. One lady got caught (one of the few) because she has so much ammo and weapons she could not carry the bag. In Mexico all firearms are illegal ... look how well that works for them

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Mar 12 - 08:56 PM

First of all, I agree with my ol' friend, Beezer... No need for handguns and assault weapons...

As for the government taking away guns??? I seriously doubt that...

I'd like to see the government furnish a long rifle to anyone who is willing to learn how to use it safely and be part of a well regulated militia...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: Songwronger
Date: 22 Mar 12 - 08:34 PM

Long thread, maybe this has been mentioned, but the main difference between the US and UK is that the US fought a war to throw off the tyranny of the monarchs. Then our founders enshrined in our founding document certain protections. One of those protections is a reminder (in the 2nd Amendment to the constitution), that people have the right to bear arms.

The founders knew that another tyranny would spring up in the US if safeguards weren't put in place. Guns in America are to be used by the citizenry against tyranny. Unfortunately that's rarely taught. The dialogue gets refocused on "hunting" and "sport" and things like that. A shame, because our government will cajole us out of our guns if it can.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 Mar 12 - 08:07 PM

In the UK I'm pretty sure that pump action shotguns are off the agenda, and that seems fairly sensible. A double barrel, whether side by side or over and under, should be OK for spiders and snakes.

For things we don't have in the UK, like big cats or bears or high-foodchain dog variants, a bolt action rifle seems adequate. I'm not a stellar shot (and pretty crap with a pistol) but I used to outshoot on clay pigeon (using a horrid single barrel 12 bore Webley) some people with very expensive over and under cushion butt Japanese things, and I'm trying to remember the "rapid fire" routine I had to do with a bolt action rifle to get my "marksman" badge in the school corps.

Now my nutty mate who used to shoot for the Navy at Bisley - he's different. I think he was 9 when his grandfather took him into the back garden to teach him how to shoot German invaders with a Lee Enfield 303. The war had been over for over 12 years but grandpa forgot that. He later was one of a very select group of special snipers for Mrs Kween, one of those people with a special relationship with wind and temperature variation for very very long range shooting. He was just as deadly with a handgun. His brother in-law was competitive at Welsh national level with a target pistol, but said nutty mate could halve his group diameter with a gun he'd never seen before.

The point of the story is that I'm not kneejerk antigun.

But there is absolutely no legitimate reason for a civilian to carry a multiple-fire weapon or a handgun - or even to have one for use other than a handgun for competition use on the target range (in which case it should be locked up at the gun club) for the very simple reason that their only purpose is to kill people. That in turn can only be justified if you think that might is right.

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 22 Mar 12 - 07:49 PM

That is very sad Richard, no way to go through life, you may want to think about huh ... just a kind suggestion. It is a lot easier and more satisfying doing good for others and being nice

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 22 Mar 12 - 07:43 PM

boy there are more than a few cops that shouldn't own a handgun. Some of those guys are horrible at shooting. I had a gunsmith friend in PA and the only time he ever had problems was when a sheriff came in to get a gun fixed. One guy blew a hole in his counter and other shot out his light.. I use to teach advanced shooting to the sheriff dept. some of the guys couldn't hit an elephant in the ass with a snow shovel. Agree Bee .. shotgun for most is safer

Subject: RE: BS: Guns & laws in the US
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 22 Mar 12 - 04:21 PM

I live in the US and I own a couple of guns (a 12 GA pump shotgun and a 9mm bolt action carbine). I have them because I live in the middle of about 100 acres of woods where there are real dangers that occasionally need to be dealt with. If you are staunchly 100% anti-gun, then you have my permission to attempt to keep rattlesnakes out of my house and various wild and feral animals from eating my pets by reasoning with them or clubbing them with garden implements at close quarters. Personally, I'd rather shoot them from a safe distance.

I do not hunt, but I don't begrudge those who do. I feel hunting is a "necessary evil" to keep deer populations from exploding to the point where they wreak total havoc on both the natural ecosystem and most agricultural land, while on their way to eventual mass starvation. Members of the "no guns for any reason" crowd are welcome to come up with creative ways to feed Bambi and his potentially billion cousins without wrecking the economy.   

I don't see a compelling need for handguns in the hands of most private individuals. If someone feels a real need for a gun for personal protection, a shotgun is a much better choice than a handgun. It's safer in that it's probably not going to be in the drawer of one's bedside table so it's less likely to be grabbed and fired without adequate forethought. It's also far less likely to fall into the hands of children. And the sound of jacking a shell into the firing chamber of a pump shotgun will make most burglars shit their pants with no need to actually fire the thing.

I also see absolutely no need for individuals to own military style automatic or semi-automatic weapons (AKA assault rifles) other than "because they can." Assault weapons are meant to do one thing, and that is to kill human beings as efficiently as possible. They're not meant for hunting or even for personal protection, but to kill enemies.   Owning one must mean the owner thinks someone is the enemy. That equals paranoia, plain and simple, and it's a paranoia that's being fed by the NRA, gun manufacturers, and gun dealers, solely for the benefit of their pocketbooks.