Gagglegnash
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2008
- Messages
- 1,445
Gun controll?
- Thread starter JonathanClement
- Start date
What the professionals teach is just fine. I am talking about the decisions that a potential victim may make. If a crime victim draws on a criminal and this causes the criminal to flee, most people might not shoot him in the back. In a case like this holding your fire would be appropriate.
I do not know what you define as short. I agree that a two inch barrel is not going to be very accurate. A four inch barrel is likely be accurate enough in most any close encounter with a criminal. Ever go to an IPSC or other handgun competition? You might be impressed with how well four to six inch barrels perform.
In the USA rifles and shotguns from 17 to 73 caliber are considered suitable for hunting; by hunters anyway. I'm sure those like the Brady Campaign will disagree with me. In the USA most pistol barrels have to be at least four inches long to be used for hunting. Most handguns used by hunters here have barrels seven to fourteen inches long Semi-autos are frequently used (SKS, AR-15, 10/22, BAR, various semi-auto shotguns) by hunters also. The SKS is popular because it is cheap and robust. If I had a tight AK with a long barrel and a fixed five round mag, would you consider it unsuitable for hunting?
Ranb
Lothian
should be banned
It has been pointed out before, the government is the people it is not a them and us. UK gun laws are met with universal support in the UK, (although people who live thousands of miles away across an ocean have problems with it for some reason I can't fathom.)
I am quite amazed too. We have moved on.
In any case. what is it with the war quotes ? Things must be very bad where you are if you feel you are in a war with your fellow citizens.
Out of interest how many people would you be willing to murder in order to keep your gun ? Who would you murder first ? Would you go for the politicians, the law enforcers or your fellow citizens who favour of a tightening of the gun laws?
What is my birthright ?
If the video linked to in the opening post is indeed by the NRA then the NRA is certainly a lying organization. Whilst I expect special interest groups to spin the facts as best they can the UK based parts of their video is full of very easy to spot lies - not spin, not mistakes but quite deliberate falsification.
Isn't the NRA considered to be the single most powerful single interest lobbying group, over 4 million members and so on?
As an aside and this really should be a different thread:
Rofle I think the acronym you heard would have been "PTO", paid tme off from work, not PTA. However your summary of your friends' experience was not far from the average. When I was moving a department from New York to the UK the USA staff I transferred simply could not believe the holiday entitlement and how sick time was nothing to do with what they called "PTO". I would get questions like "I was off sick for 3 days but I don't want that to come out of my PTO can it be deducted as pay from my salary instead?".
See: http://www.salary.com/personal/layo...asp?tab=psn&cat=cat011&ser=ser031&part=par088 for some figures and more details.
Rofle I think the acronym you heard would have been "PTO", paid tme off from work, not PTA. However your summary of your friends' experience was not far from the average. When I was moving a department from New York to the UK the USA staff I transferred simply could not believe the holiday entitlement and how sick time was nothing to do with what they called "PTO". I would get questions like "I was off sick for 3 days but I don't want that to come out of my PTO can it be deducted as pay from my salary instead?".
See: http://www.salary.com/personal/layo...asp?tab=psn&cat=cat011&ser=ser031&part=par088 for some figures and more details.
Lothian
should be banned
Wow, 15 years before you get 21 days holiday. Just think how much less would it be if their employees didn't have guns.
Its anecdotal, but my sister in law (Houston - the American one, not Renfrewshire) couldn't believe that we typically got 20 days + stat, say 30 all in each and every year plus sick leave. And you should have seen her face when she heard about maternity pay..
...but she thought it sucked that we had wards in hospitals rather than private rooms (oh, the depiravation!!)
Last edited:
Your expectation are not in line with what a reasonable person would expect.
If cars were banned, highway deaths an injuries would go down. Why? Because the huge majority of highway deaths and injuries are caused, directly, by cars.
If guns were banned (and again, they haven't been) why would you expect violent injuries to go down? Are they all caused by guns? Are even the majority of them caused by guns? And wouldn't it be possible for violent crime to rise, because (rather than despite) of a drop in homicides - the 'punch in the face versus bullet to the brain' tradeoff?
As for homicides, yes I would expect them to drop. And, rather unsurprisingly, they have. Doesn't help you case much.
Done. This is a 2006 analysis, and the best designed analysis so far. Enjoy. It does disagree with this earlier analysis, but only in magnitude of effect, and this 2006 one is better designed anyway.
You might also be interested in this study, though it is not about Australia. Found it while I was searching.
The government provides the data. But if you're going to figure out whether there is an effect or not, you need someone to analyse that data. Graphs and numbers are pretty and all, but unless you bother to check what it all actually means you're going to look mighty stupid insinuating that the data provided by the government says anything other than what I've said it does.
Actually, he didn't. It was against the British, what with it being after 1707. You need to brush up on your history.
Small arms didn't work so well for the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, did they? Come to think of it, the Polish Army didn't do so well either. As we've said before, if you're clinging to weapons against state oppression then you're going to need to remember that the army generally has real weapons.
Potential civil war as a reason for maintaining arms. Hmm.....
Another difference between the Europe and America.
Why would you need guns to find lost people?
Nope, don't have these. Indeed when the "Guardian Angels" tried to set up in London, the police had "strong words" with them regarding vigilante action.
Good for them. Same here.
MarkCorrigan
Героям слава!
"Unsuitable"? No.
Pointless? Yes. Why bother? Why not just get a single shot bolt action, or a 12 bore shotgun or something? Why do you need to have an AK? It may work well (I'm not denying it would) but there is simply no need to own an AK or BAR for hunting. It's either too extreme if left alone or utterly pointless when modified.
Things get sticky in a revolution. So I take it you have no problem with civil disobedience. If the situation arises, I suggest you use it.
The law where I live does the same thing, and it's really nice, yes.
I don't know what you mean by "worked", but it would certainly have made an impact. The problem with Nazi Germany was not that people who opposed the regime didn't have enough guns, it was that not enough people opposed the regime in the first place.
Which is why I'm a bit curious of if the people who feel they absolutely, posetively need to keep a gun for that purpose are working on every single one of those things on the list they should be doing first. Or doing to prevent such a government from becoming reality. Such as, I don't know, voting?
Which is why I clarified as simply put as it could possibly be that I DO NOT WANT THE LAWS IN THE U.S. TO CHANGE WITHOUT PUBLIC SUPPORT.
I hate to call people on fallacies, but what I'm really trying to say is that this is appeal to authority (the writers of the constitution) and popularity (the American people). Neither are arguments, and since you have arguments, I do not understand why you would be interested in bringing these up. They are perfect justifications for not changing the law in the US right now, yes. But I've never said that you should. Rather, I specifically said that you shouldn't.
Yes. Which is sad, really. But securing a free state does not require guns.
It's nice that they want to help out, and I don't dispute the fact that hunters need guns (for hunting), but do you think this feeling about duty to the government will work in your favor if the nightmare scenarios suggested become reality?
And that's an entirely different matter.Some people just like having guns.
Was he now? Because he was a communist? Extremists of both left and right share many undesireable traits, among them this fondness of violence as a tool of political power.
I hope so.
That's why I wrote that I don't think anyone actually does that. So we don't have to worry about fascists taking over your democratically governed nation, then?Damien Evans
Up The Irons
Hmm, IIRC, the worlds most technologically advanced country is Finland. I expect you to be moving there soon.
Architect...Just as an FYI thing..
Depending on the state, it is possible to own "real" weapons like machine guns ( class 3 weapons ) and grenades ( so called destructive devices ) Not much use, I agree if the military comes after you with a tank, but if someone wants to hold off a few infantry guys, serious firepower is available.
I think the "volunteer police force" term refers to deputies, or reserves as there called in Canada. They're armed in the US but not in Canada. It's an official position but with limited powers.
There's still quite a lot of rural America left, thousands of square miles of trees, rocks etc and sometimes law enforcement will call on local hunters for their knowledge of the terrain. I can understand wanting to be armed in these situations as not all the woodland creatures are warm and fluffy. Then there's the fugitive, chances are he's got a gun too.
Search and rescue poses the same risks re dangerous creatures.
Depending on the state, it is possible to own "real" weapons like machine guns ( class 3 weapons ) and grenades ( so called destructive devices ) Not much use, I agree if the military comes after you with a tank, but if someone wants to hold off a few infantry guys, serious firepower is available.
I think the "volunteer police force" term refers to deputies, or reserves as there called in Canada. They're armed in the US but not in Canada. It's an official position but with limited powers.
There's still quite a lot of rural America left, thousands of square miles of trees, rocks etc and sometimes law enforcement will call on local hunters for their knowledge of the terrain. I can understand wanting to be armed in these situations as not all the woodland creatures are warm and fluffy. Then there's the fugitive, chances are he's got a gun too.
Search and rescue poses the same risks re dangerous creatures.
fagin
Philosopher
If the person attacking you has no firearm, is it ok in tha USA to draw yours and shoot them in the chest?
If they are already threatening you with one, you won't have time to draw, so what's the benefit.
I have been to shooting competitions, I owned a firearm in South Africa, and I was well trained. If you want to know the level of training, probably higher than most peoples posting here, google 'recce' or '1 Reconnaissance Regiment'. (South African Defence Force.)
A previous poster suggested that we were a bunch of pussies, no longer willing to fight them on the beaches etc.
I think you will find this untrue, if there is actually a threat to our security UK citizens would respond, as they have in the past, but our violence generally involves alchohol and yobs, normally they just hit each other.
Personally I would happily blow someone away who was threatening my life, I am certainly not a pacifist, but the chance of someone attacking me with a gun here are so remote as to be ignored.
I believe that the majority of gun crime here is gangsters shooting each other, so no big deal.
Rolfe
Adult human female
OK, looks as if my impression wasn't so far out after all. It's possible I misheard "PTO" as "PTA", and rationalised my friend's response as "paid time away".
My poor friend had chronic lupus, and was frequently sick. She was struggling to get into work on her bad days, and to find the time to attend hospital for her chemotherapy treatments. And yet she had to hang on to the job, because without the job she had no health insurance and little means to pay for her treatment. She was trying to conceal her condition from her employer (a large hospital!) because she was afraid of losing her job (and her healthcare) if it was discovered.
And yet she loved the job, and wanted to do it as best she could. In Britain she would have been fine, because she would have been allowed time off to attend medical appointments and sick leave as necessary, quite separate from her holiday entitlement. As a result, she would have been able to go on working and contributing and using her considerable skills in the time when she was well enough. While such employees can be a bit of a trial for small businesses, a large organisation has no problem accommodating someone with this sort of problem, and there is a lot of help and encouragement to allow people to work if they can rather than just give up and go on permanent disability benefit. But even so, if it gets to the point when the person cannot go on working, health cover is of course not lost, as our universal health cover is unrelated to any employment.
The last I heard of it, friends were suggesting to her that she "go on welfare", which she was very very reluctant to do. I couldn't see the problem, but then there was a long involved explanation of the iniquities of the welfare system, and how she'd never get out of it if she went on, and how awful it would be and so on. I really don't know what to make of it because I just don't have a comparison. For a start, in Britain she would have been able to get support to keep working if she could, as I said, but then, if she couldn't, then going on incapacity benefit isn't so bad, and if she improved so as to be able to take on a job again, even part-time, again that wouldn't be a problem.
It does seem as if employment conditions as regards holiday entitlement and sickness provision are much poorer in the US than in the EU. If the US posters feel it's somehow virtuous to spent your entire adult life with your nose perpetually to the grindstone in the name of productivity, well fine. But it's good to smell the flowers too, we only pass this way but once. And I don't see that Britain's productivity is such a disaster. And I think accepting that some people need extra concessions because of illness and facilitating them to work when they can is better than forcing them into "welfare" because they can't manage full-time, 50 weeks a year. And the less I say here about removing people's entitlement to healthcare because they can't hold their job down due to illness, the better.
I've had the opposite experience to Darat. The company where I was before was taken over by a US company. One of the (many) reasons I left was a management attitude that employees had no rights and they (management) could do what they liked. They had no concept of contracts of employment, for a start. Of course, in my case the contract did exist. I'd have hated to work for these guys in the US, where it appears they could sack anyone at will.
Sorry, it's a derail, but it's sort of relevant. We're told all the time about how the US is the Promised Land, how wonderful life is there and so on. Then when we find out a bit more about it, well, don't be poor, don't be old, don't be sick, don't be disabled, don't annoy your neighbour, don't be mistakenly accused of a capital crime.... and you're fine. (OK, maybe don't be black either, but I'm not infored enough to comment on that one.)
My friend really really thought she lived in the greatest country in the world. Her little face shone with gratitude when she described the wonderful medical treatment she was getting. She really thought she wouldn't have got that, say, in Britain. I couldn't face telling her that yes, she would. Free at the point of need. That she would have been allowed the time she needed off when she was sick without needing to eat into her 5-weeks holiday, and the time for her medical appointments, and that her employer would have arranged a part-time work rota for her if that was what she needed. And that her healthcare would have been absolutely independent of her job, so that if she couldn't manage the job in the end, healthcare would continue unchanged.
I didn't tell her that. It seemed to me it would have been too cruel. So she went right on shining with gratitude in her joy at being lucky enough to be sick and disabled in the USA.
Oh dear.
Rolfe.
PS. She had a loaded shotgun beside her bed too. In the middle of a large, respectable-looking, middle-class suburban housing estate. I never asked her why.
Last edited:
JoeEllison
Cuddly Like a Koala Bear
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,270
And, you know, I don't think this is much of a derail at all. Americans as a whole live in a world completely out of their control, with a smaller and smaller safety net as the years go on. You can work a job for 30 years, and have someone come to your office Friday afternoon and let you know that you've got a half-hour to clear out your desk, and then the security guard will escort you to the parking lot. You can work all year, get to November, and find out that your company will no longer be insuring you(which is a PAY CUT) at the start of the next year. Your neighborhood can be bulldozed to put up high-price condos, and there's nothing you can do about it. And, there's little in the way of government assistance to make sure that you don't fall between the cracks... the system is almost all cracks.*snip*
If the US posters feel it's somehow virtuous to spent your entire adult life with your nose perpetually to the grindstone in the name of productivity, well fine. But it's good to smell the flowers too, we only pass this way but once. And I don't see that Britain's productivity is such a disaster. And I think accepting that some people need extra concessions because of illness and facilitating them to work when they can is better than forcing them into "welfare" because they can't manage full-time, 50 weeks a year. And the less I say here about removing people's entitlement to healthcare because they can't hold their job down due to illness, the better.
I've had the opposite experience to Darat. The company where I was before was taken over by a US company. One of the (many) reasons I left was a management attitude that employees had no rights and they (management) could do what they liked. They had no concept of contracts of employment, for a start. Of course, in my case the contract did exist. I'd have hated to work for these guys in the US, where it appears they could sack anyone at will.
Sorry, it's a derail, but it's sort of relevant. We're told all the time about how the US is the Promised Land, how wonderful life is there and so on. Then when we find out a bit more about it, well, don't be poor, don't be old, don't be sick, don't be disabled, don't annoy your neighbour, don't be mistakenly accused of a capital crime.... and you're fine. (OK, maybe don't be black either, but I'm not informed enough to comment on that one.)
So, what have people got left that can make them feel less small, less weak, less pathetic in a system that has little but contempt for them? Guns and violence and tough-talk.
fagin
Philosopher
While in the UK we seem to be nannied more and more each day.
Surveilence is endemic, and the government is continually threatening to protect us from our vices.
It can be very annoying, but on the whole seems to drive people to drink rather than violence. (if i used smilies would insert here)
Surveilence is endemic, and the government is continually threatening to protect us from our vices.
It can be very annoying, but on the whole seems to drive people to drink rather than violence. (if i used smilies would insert here)