|
|
|
|
|
| gun control in the USA
Posted: 2/24/2008 8:34:31 AM | | I like my guns and they have never hurt anyone and i have had one for 25 years.. and yes they do protect you.. one rack of a 12 guage with send anyone walking in to your house running.. | |
|
| gun control in the USA
Posted: 2/24/2008 8:43:31 AM | Again, let me remind you of the statistics for Montreal police officers firing their service revolvers (for all reasons) over the course of a five year period - including responding to a mass shooting at Dawson.
The island of Montreal has (roughly) 1.9 million residents, and perhaps 5,000 MUC police officers to protect them. Those officers, on duty, fired only 100 shots (again all reasons, including accidental discharges) while on duty.
An average of twenty shots per year. 
That's not only due to gun control, but also (as I've consistently stated) due to things like cultural reasons. I think even if you were to apply the same standard to a region of the USA with a similar population density, you'd see a far higher firearm use.
That statistic from Montreal is living proof that what the NRA feeds people about gun control is a lie. We have gangs, and crimes, and yet a low level of misuse of firearms in criminal acts. Most of the time , those arms are used against other criminals - and not innocent civilians. The only exception are the very rare occasions when innocent bystanders are shot by accident. | |
|
| gun control in the USA
Posted: 2/24/2008 9:11:46 AM | "Not too long ago, the state of florida was have major issues on their freeway systems. Thugs were attacking vehicles...stealing vehicles...robbing the occupants...assaulting and killing the occupants of these vehicles. It was in all the news headlines. It got to be such a problem, they eventually called out to national guard, to maintain control. The problem persisted, despite more armed police presence. How did they handle it? They passed a law in florida, that allows the owner of a vehicle, to keep a loaded gun, in the front seat of a vehicle, within easy reach. Within a short amount of time, thanks to this enlightened law, the problem entirely went away, and has not returned. The law now remains firmly on the books in florida."
Actually, This says more to me about the enptness of your law enforcement and national guard than anything else. Basically, all citizens who drove that highway had to arm themselves since law enforcement couldn't do their job. | |
|
| gun control in the USA
Posted: 2/24/2008 9:42:29 AM | In europe, one country has the lowest rate of use of firearms for violent crimes. In that country, every man is expected to learn to use a gun...by law...and then by law is expected to have one on his premises. The country...Switzerland...has virtually no usage of firearms by felons for the commission of violent crimes, yet everyone is virtually armed. Does this tell you anything important?
Actually Greece and Ireland both have lower murder rates. | |
|
| gun control in the USA
Posted: 2/24/2008 9:48:27 AM | In defense of law enforcement, U.S. citizens must remember that the police have no legal obligation to protect you. That isn't to say that the police won't respond if you call 9-1-1, it just means that the police can't be held liable for what may happen until they get to you. People really need to get out of this "learned helplessness" mode, take more responsibility in their lives, and stop being "sheeple"...
I'm sure I'm not stating anything new on this thread, but I'll just throw it out there: if you're going to get a gun, get good training on how to use it! OWNERSHIP DOES NOT EQUATE TO PROFICIENCY!!! | |
|
| gun control in the USA
Posted: 2/24/2008 10:06:39 AM | | What the hell are you talking about police don't have an obligation to protect you, they have an obligation to stop any crime as it occures. Police at least up here do all sorts of prevention efforts. | |
|
| gun control in the USA
Posted: 2/24/2008 10:47:35 AM | A few responses...
To Montreal Guy, regarding the number of times police fire their weapons...
I think even if you were to apply the same standard to a region of the USA with a similar population density, you'd see a far higher firearm use. First and foremost, most police officers are not "gun people". Guns were not the reason they joined their agencies/departments. Public Service, and other "noble causes" were their motivation. As a competitive shooter, I'm always dismayed at how FEW LEOs (law enforcement officers) participate in competitions against "mere civilians". The problem is that with department budget cutbacks, little ammo is available for officers to train a department as a whole, and the non-gun-enthusiast officer who carries only because his department makes him does not train regularly on his own. When I attended TDI (Tactical Defense Institute for 3 days of training, John Benner, owner of TDI and a leading law enforcement firearms instructor told those of us in that class that we as students would fire more rounds of ammunition in 3 days of training (1800-2000 rounds), than a Chicago city police officer would fire in an entire 20 year career, both in a training context and "on the street". Most officers (street cops - I'm not talking regional or city SWAT teams), it seems, barely eek by in their recurrent qualifications because of the lack of rounds they fire. Frankly, I wouldn't trust most cops to defend my life with a well placed shot.
To Biker...
I'm sure I'm not stating anything new on this thread, but I'll just throw it out there: if you're going to get a gun, get good training on how to use it! OWNERSHIP DOES NOT EQUATE TO PROFICIENCY!!! You could not be more correct. I've been fortunate to have trained 3 times with TDI (in handgun and knife), twice with John Farnam (handgun and shotgun and carbine), with Freshley, Vickers, and others through my own initiative and through offerings made possible through my local club. And I compete in IDPA and other types of dynamic competitions (I don't do static "bulls-eye" - it's boring to me.) I realize these opportunities may not be available to that degree for everyone, and I realize not everyone can devote that type of money or time to devote to training. But getting involved with a local club and shooting in a structured format as simple as IDPA can be invaluable experience, and is affordable to most everyone. Do what you can to practice as often as possible, learn smart, and shoot safe.
And of course, to CharlesEdm...
What the hell are you talking about police don't have an obligation to protect you, they have an obligation to stop any crime as it occurs. Police at least up here do all sorts of prevention efforts. Since you come from a Canadian perspective, and since this thread is focused on gun control in the USA, I feel compelled to enlighten you on the realities of police "protection" in the United States. Courts here in the US have held that governments are not liable for their failures to protect. Specifically, "A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security . . ." (See the Supreme Court decision DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO CTY. SOC. SERVS. DEPT.)
Ken | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/24/2008 11:27:46 AM | "wake up and smell the kevlar geronimo!
Sorry I do not understand your comment about kevlar. I can only assume that you are referring to the bullet proff vest which will not stop a high power rifle slug. It is only meant for shot guns and lower calibur which you will find with most hand guns. But in that case all you have to do with a shot gun at a distance is aim approx. 1 ft above the head. The spray will hit the individual in the face and probably kill. The vest does not cover the head. The other option is to shot low. You get hit in the legs with a shot gun blast of SSG's you are going down for the count. Again Kevlar does not cover this area either. A kevlar vest which the police uses only covers the chest and back area. Again it will not stop a high power rifle. So when you made the comment of wake up and smell the kevlar geronimo, not sure what you meant by that? Could you explain your comment?"
what was meant by the comment is just a subtle illustration of how outmoded an idea eternal vigilance is now. sure i agree in principle, i think we all should but the reality unfortunately of any resistance to 'the powers that be' were they to repeal any of the freedoms they haven't repealed already... ;-).. would be much like the analogy of geronimo facing a modern soldier equipped with a fully automatic assault rifle, a 30 shot clip, thermal imaging goggles and body armour. he's out-armed, out-trained and sure there is a chance he could prevail (palestinians still do in the rare skirmish with israeli's) .. but i think a swift death is more than likely assured. let's face it, resistance is futile. | |
|
| gun control in the USA
Posted: 2/24/2008 1:17:20 PM | "Since you come from a Canadian perspective, and since this thread is focused on gun control in the USA, I feel compelled to enlighten you on the realities of police "protection" in the United States. Courts here in the US have held that governments are not liable for their failures to protect. Specifically, "A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security . . ." (See the Supreme Court decision DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO CTY. SOC. SERVS. DEPT"
Well, since the above example had been reported to the authorities and they were not able to catch those that were committing the crimes they had to tell the general public to protect themselves. To me this shows ineptness, we can't find those who are doing this so we have arm our citizens because we cannot provide adequate law enforcement to stop such crimes being committed.
So, what does it say about American society that the citizens have to arm themselves in order to provide for there own law enforcement. Doesn't sound like a very safe or secure country to me. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/24/2008 1:23:37 PM | | A couple trained house dogs make me feel much more safe, not only safe but hey they are man's best friend ! | |
|
| gun control in the USA
Posted: 2/24/2008 1:36:41 PM | | ...and both have guns everywhere...including automatic weapons. Again...what is your point? | |
|
| gun control in the USA
Posted: 2/24/2008 1:58:02 PM |
"Courts here in the US have held that governments are not liable for their failures to protect. Specifically, "A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security . . ." (See the Supreme Court decision DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO CTY. SOC. SERVS. DEPT"
Well, since the above example had been reported to the authorities and they were not able to catch those that were committing the crimes they had to tell the general public to protect themselves. To me this shows ineptness, we can't find those who are doing this so we have arm our citizens because we cannot provide adequate law enforcement to stop such crimes being committed.
So, what does it say about American society that the citizens have to arm themselves in order to provide for there own law enforcement. Doesn't sound like a very safe or secure country to me.
The United States Supreme Court, and many state Supreme Courts, have held that the Police are under no duty to ensure the safety, and security, of the individual, but, are charged with the duty of ensuring the safety, and security, of the community, as a whole. An individual's safety, and security, is the individual's responsibility.
If you call, the Police will come; it's referred to as a "call for service." But, it is up to you, the individual, to survive the time between your making the call, and the Police arriving.
It's up to the individual person, in the United States, whether you want to arm yourself with a telephone, or a telephone, and the firearm of your choosing. | |
|
| gun control in the USA
Posted: 2/24/2008 2:14:02 PM | So, what does it say about American society that the citizens have to arm themselves in order to provide for there own law enforcement. Doesn't sound like a very safe or secure country to me.
I would think that it's exactly the same situation as in every other country. Find me just one country, on any continent, where the only reason there is no crime (and thus no victims) is because the police are always there, always preemptive, and always able to catch the bad guy BEFORE he commits the crime.
The point is, the police are obligated to protect "society as a whole", and can offer no guarantees that for any one particular person, they will be there "in time" to prevent a crime. Likewise, for any citizen of any country, for whom the police were NOT there for the individual, when needed (at the time of the crime, not after-the-fact), please tell me the outcomes of all the thousands upon thousands of lawsuits brought by all those disappointed victims who were let down because the police could not "be there" for that one individual. I'm assuming that if you are right, and the police have such an obligation in those countries, that litigation and lawsuits over "dereliction of duty" must be running governments bankrupt with payouts to citizens whom the police, through negligence, have individually failed to protect.
When populations in the hundreds-of-thousands to millions, are served by police forces with numbers in the hundreds TO thousands, what does that say about any society?
When put that way, I wonder about the British. Their bobbies cant be there to protect individual subjects (they too cannot be everywhere at once, for everyone, and are therefore made are just as immune from sanction for inaction), AND the VICTIM is arrested for attempting to defend him or herself. Now THAT's unthinkable, from an American point of view, that the bad guy is protected, the government is immune, and the victim is punished. | |
|
| gun control in the USA
Posted: 2/24/2008 2:19:39 PM | let there be a hurrican katrina or a power outage that lasts a week and see if you would be glad to own one.. I own one for protection and to hunt if need be.. I've know hundred of people in my life and only two have had problums with guns.. one went off on accident before gun locks and education about that kind of stuff in the late 70s the other was a guy that was a kook ball to begin with and you knew he wasent wrapped right.. however out of them hundreds of people i've known 20 or so have died by car accident, including an uncal and a good friend.. should we ban cars as well.. many people die of drowning.. should we ban boating or swimming?
I like my right to bare arms and i think i will keep it. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/24/2008 3:39:43 PM | Gun control is being able to hit your target! If the citizens aren't armed, then only the criminals will be
guns don't kill, people do!
saying guns cause crime is like saying flies cause garbage or that a spoon caused Rosie O'donnell to be fat! Stop whining & grow up, guns are here to stay....either on one side of the law or both.
It's a fundamental right of American citizens,..if you weren't born here,...my apologizes,...not everybody can be | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/24/2008 4:31:05 PM | You are totally ignorant. Kevlar does indeed stop rifle bullets. There is also no such thing as a bullet designed to pierce bullet proof vests.
You make a ludicrous statement like that and then have the gall to call others ignorant?
Obviously you have never heard of tungsten-carbide or steel core bullets, designed specifically to penetrate body armour (available in several common rifle/pistol calibres).
Oh, and while we're at it, teflon coatings were intended to reduce wear and tear on the barrel from hardened bullets through reduced friction, not to increase the velocity of the round.
You read too much, but understand too little. I believe the saying is..."a little bit of knowledge is dangerous."
But not nearly as dangerous as relying on NRA propaganda for knowledge over the real thing.
Canada right now, is very easy pickings...spell that as opportunity for felons.
I guess that must be why our crime rate is so much lower than the US, especially murder by handgun (there are innumerable single cities and towns in the US, with populations a fraction of Canada's, that have higher handgun murder rates than the entire country of Canada. I'm sure you're right and that has absolutely nothing to do with gun control). | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/24/2008 4:38:13 PM | ImwhatIm - I don't think you've kept up with your technology. The FN (Fabrique National) company came up with the Five-seveN for the express purpose of "Assisting police and military units to combat the increasing numbers of criminals and terrorists wearing Body Armour". Now granted this new pistol costs 1200 bux and the rounds are prohibitively expensive to the average person...but it's nothing your local drug dealer can't afford.
Also, the .223 and other military cartridges regularly pierce Threat level 2 & 3 body armour, this is why the L.A. police started carrying them in their squad cars after that lovely pair of thugs in full body armour (including the head) shot heck out of several officers and civilians.
There are also a few New Tech body armours, such as Dragonskin (ceramic & kevlar combo) , the war between armour & weapon has been going on since mankind figured out that strong hides would turn a spear.
You can't compare Canada with the US...mostly because for four months out of the year it's too bloody cold up there for anyone to do anything that isn't absolutely neccesary for survival...of course their crime rates are lower...a crook would farking well freeze to death waiting for a victim to pass by an alleyway. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/24/2008 4:40:03 PM | >>>It strikes me as odd that Americans, who extole their system of government and way of life as the best in the world, have so little faith in their system of government and those that run it that it must be defended at the point of a gun and as I stated above under the threat of death if one was to step out of line.
Its a reality of all governments, no matter how excellent- and the day these governments try to disarm you is the day they are making a grab at your freedoms- the threat of government attack is far greater than the threat of a criminal- the Government is among the few that demand that its victims disarm themselves willingly before they rob them- and that its their right to do so.
>>> But guess what since banning these things gun crime has gone up. hang on though, if guns are mostly banned where are the gangs and criminals getting them from?
And its my understanding that, since the draconian laws have appeared, that machete crimes skyrocketed.
>>> So what does it say in that only way Americans can truly preserve their freedoms is by threat.
No, all freedoms can only be preserved by threat.
>>>I have recently seen this expression, I dont get it. Will you explain this for me.
Apples and Oranges are not very alike. Thats what the phrase is referring to.....
>>>That's not only due to gun control, but also (as I've consistently stated) due to things like cultural reasons. I think even if you were to apply the same standard to a region of the USA with a similar population density, you'd see a far higher firearm use.
And if we compare Montreal to, say, Toronto?
I think the fact that we do have extremely violent cities despite gun control laws is living proof that gun controls save us is a lie.
>>>Actually, This says more to me about the enptness of your law enforcement and national guard than anything else. Basically, all citizens who drove that highway had to arm themselves since law enforcement couldn't do their job.
And although the failures by law enforcement is certainly terrible, I think keeping people safe takes prominence over your own social experiments and your hang-ups about other peoples political beliefs. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/24/2008 6:02:50 PM | You can't compare Canada with the US...mostly because for four months out of the year it's too bloody cold up there for anyone to do anything that isn't absolutely neccesary for survival...of course their crime rates are lower...a crook would farking well freeze to death waiting for a victim to pass by an alleyway.
That is a good one. I guess that is when we build the igloo's and get around on dog sleighs and snowmobiles. 
Hate to inform you but Rochester Minosota gets a lot colder than where I live right now. Also, New York State and Buffolo is approx. 45 minute drive and if I am not mistaken their weather is colder as well. Not includding Main. Almost forgot Chicargo and Detroit. How is Seattle and Idoho in the windter as well. Understand that North Dokota and South gets pretty cold in the winter. But even with that said, I still like your comment.   | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/24/2008 6:11:28 PM | | hey,here's a crazy idea-how about if we prosecute criminals who misuse guns to the fullest extent of the law-and leave u.s.citizens free to bear arms as our constitution and our founding fathers intended? they don't call this "the home of the brave" for nothin,you know. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/24/2008 6:35:33 PM | I do not keep up with stuf of military importance...just recreational firearms. FN belgium surprizes me though. They went under years ago, and were known for the prized older brownings. I had no idea they were back, but my primary interest is with older recreational guns anyway. A .223 does not have much moxie really. To me it was a big step down from the .308, which excells the popular 30-06 in automatic and semiautomatic rifles...as it is very jam resistant by comparison. Seems if that were the case...the armor is faulty...as the bullet sure is not a barn burner. It is excellent for coyote control.
By the way...the only semiautomatics I use, are .22. I have no use for fast repeticious shots for big game hunting. In fact, I used to carry three shells in the woods with me, and now hunt strictly with pistols for big game. I am seven for seven bucks with .44 magnum and 7-30 watters...using Thompson Center Contenders(single shot pistols), and hand loads. I also enjoy muzzle loader hunting.
I bow to your superior knowledge of military advances. Most of my guns are from the turn of the century, and I picked them up for a song years ago...when everyone traded in their winchester model 1897's for semi automatics. I have little interst in such things about which you speak. I do know my way around guns though, and this idiot really torques me off, with his totally missing grasp of reality. He is a self righteous idiot who knows nothing, but will not shut up. The only question left is...what dumb thing is he going to come up with next. You do not know what he is going to say...you just know it will be very stupid! Have a good one mate! | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/24/2008 7:09:41 PM |
Where do you get these ridiculous things you try to pass off as truth? If ignorance is bliss...you are obviously quite happy.
The media is your source, and that is so tranparent. You already know what I think of them...and you.
Have you ever so much as held or fired a gun? I suspect not. You certainly are extremely ill informed.
6 years US Army, 5 years Canadian Forces, a shooter since I was 12.
I own a Beretta 92 (9mm), a Glock G21 (.45), a S&W model 14 & 52 (both .38) and a Ruger mk 3 (.22). I go through a minimum of 200 rounds a week and can put 10 out of 10 inside the 9 ring on a standard 20 yd i.s.u centre patch with my .45 (and if you didn't know it, the 9 ring is 2 3/4 inches in diameter).
And yes, tungsten-carbide bullets DO work. They are not simply a harder bullet but work on the same principle as a sabot round. The soft outer shell strips away on impact leaving the small penetrator core to split the weave of the vest.
Any other ignorant rants you would like to get off your chest today? | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/24/2008 8:04:57 PM | Actually, the whole gun control debate in the US is really a moot point. Cigarettes kill 10 times more people yet we STILL have yet to put anything worse than a tax & warning label on them. If we're not going to stop the Number One Killer in our nation...what makes anyone really think we're going to do more than a little liberal pandering with faulty assault weapons bans that expire after 10 years???
C'mon, get real. | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/24/2008 8:37:43 PM | I also doubt that you could have those guns in Canada...and if you did...you certainly would not publicize it.
Then perhaps you should actually look up the gun control laws in Canada. Every one of those firearms are completely legal in this country, why would I not "publicize" it? Given that you did not know this simple fact leads to the question "Who is it that reads too much and understands too little?"
Contrary to the usual propaganda about how gun control is secret code for confiscation, Canada has had a handgun registry since 1934 and (amazingly I know) it is still perfectly legal to own handguns.
Even more surprisingly, in over 74 years the gov't has not confiscated them. Wow, imagine that!
Not only is it legal to own handguns, not only has the gov't not confiscated them but gun control STILL (after more than 70 yrs) has not led Canada to become Nazi Germany.
And even more to the point, our handgun murder rates (and all other crimes involving handguns) is still lower FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTRY than in many small US cities!!!
Will wonders never cease?
Yup...been there and done that...they do not work as you say.
It really is interesting how you seem to be the only person in NA that doesn't know that Kevlar isn't actually bullet-proof (hint: it's bullet-resistant but can still be pierced by a small, high velocity round). I know you would like to pretend it is and that you somehow know more than the police, military and everyone else who is concerned with this but...
Find someone gullible to pull your crap on.
I already have (and it's a troll) | |
|
| gun control in the usa
Posted: 2/24/2008 10:52:59 PM | The .220 swift does not hit nearly as hard as the 180gr. 30-06.
Had to look up the .220 swift. Did not know what the swift was but now I do. Just applying that simple formula that I gave you would tell the reason why. It has to do with the mass of the bullet. A swift bullet is a calibure of a 22. The diameter of the swift bullet is approx. .224 " and only weighs 50 grains. The heavier of the swift bullets can weigh up to 60 grains. Note: 1lb = 7000 grains. Now if you plug the information into the formula that was given you will find out that the energy of the swift is about half of the 30-06 which weighs 180 grains and has a diameter of approx. 0.3 of an inch. So even though the swift bullet will travel at a much higher velocity of approx. 4 000 ft /s compared to the 30-06 which travels at approx. 2910 ft/s the 30-06 will hit at much a greater impact do to the mass of the projectile.
 | |
|
|
| Page 55 of 93
|
53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93 |
|
Home
login 
