A result of a diversion in the newsroom tread of Carthaginian this tread could be a place to write about weapons, weapon laws and ideas of what we see and know of the world as it is.
One of my premisses is,
Quote"a government that doesn't trusts its people with weapons, is very aware that they are doing things that urge normal people to the use of weapons."
Umm this is a potentially very ugly can of worms...
As for Your quote.
I have another
Quote
government is to be afraid of its people not people of there government
;D
Well Your quote is interesting but I don't think is all that valid.
People usually know that there weapons will not faze the government in the slightest.
Civilians can get there hand on a RPG at best or equivalent.
The government has 1t ton aerial bombs 203mm Self-propelled artillery NBC gear and freight train loads of people with Assault Rifles.
Were I was in the military my fear was that I will be ordered to pacify my own people.
The fire power we were daily issued was bad enough but the stuff that was sitting in hangars and machine parks was down right scary. A flight of a Mi-24 was a sight I will never forget. Beauty personified.
My view on civilian gun owner ship is that it be limited to recreational and self-defence use.
If some one says that he wants a sub-machine gun of self-defence. I say hell no.
Calibre is to be restricted to 20mm, and arbitrary number but that will make grenade launchers of limits.
Automatic weapons are to be illegal. Semi-automatics are fine by me.
Size of the clip/magazine is to be as big as one thinks is what he needs.
You're not entirely incorrect, and a government that isn't afraid of its people can set reasonable restrictions without going to extremes.
Unfortunatly, it seems that any excuse is good to disarm the European citizens.
I ask, what government can forbid me to manufacture weapons with my tools and skills?
Well couple of elections back my party tried to give the citizens easier access to guns.
That almost made not vote for them.
Here gun owner ship became easier in the last years.
I fully agree, Mario.
I've handled firearms, blades and heavy blunt objects enough in my life to know that not a single one of them is inherently dangerous... or at least no more so than a pencil, pen, automobile key or slingshot.
The only practical use of removing the right of a free man to own a firearm is to impose your rules on him using a firearm (superior firepower cannot be argued with, at least not cheaply... Marek, you are right on that score). Every gun control measure passed on planet Earth has failed in it's intend to stop criminals from acquiring firearms... because criminals ignore those pesky laws in the course of their enterprise. I laugh out loud at the people who say that hunting is immoral because animals are unable to defend themselves from men with firearms, but will in the next breath say that men do not deserve the right to own firearms to protect themselves from a criminal so armed.
Personally, if someone sees me on the street and I am not either 1.) going to or coming from work, 2.) going to or coming from a government building (or other facility where carrying is forbidden by law or facility policy) or 3.) going to or coming from church then it is safe for that person to assume that I am armed with at least one firearm and one respectable bladed weapon. I own two 'carry' firearms and a plethora of utility and collectible weapons.
My 'daily carry' weapons is this:
(http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/pk380-tfb.jpg)
Walther PK380 - light compact and convenient... and very inexpensive to boot ($375 US)!
(http://gamyhan.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/glock231.jpg)
Glock 23 - power, capacity, and durability... a great all-around gun, but a bit much to pack under a T-shirt!
PS - just to illustrate that any gun can be used for anything, I took a deer with the Glock on a draw shot at about 8m several years ago.
With 6'1" and 220lbs, on a wide frame (I have short limbs and a big belly) I can hide considerable stuff. But I don't see any reason for it.
Oh well. Just to illustrate my view on weapons.
When early man was getting organised, we have one Ugh. A clever fellow. When he tried to crack a nut, he used a simple stone, and he learned that it worked well with a fairly light stone, but with a heavier one, the nut became paste. To heavy and it was to much of a bother , and making even a worse mess of the toughest nuts.
But when that pesky sabertooth came by, and tried to eat Ughs favorite wife, that heavy stone did shatter the Sabertooths skull. The tribe was astonished...
Unfortunatly. Ughs skull wasn't stoneproof when Og wanted that same favorite wife in his cave.
Just a tought that ran trough my head.
The BMG .50 "Ma deuce" is a design in use for 90 years now, without any big changes. And most, if not all militaries still use it.
But, is there a replacement?
Outside some munition guzzling gatling or chain guns that are heavier, a lot more expensive and more prone to breakdowns, I can't imagine one.
Quote from: maddox on April 18, 2010, 04:02:44 AM
Just a tought that ran trough my head.
The BMG .50 "Ma deuce" is a design in use for 90 years now, without any big changes. And most, if not all militaries still use it.
But, is there a replacement?
Outside some munition guzzling gatling or chain guns that are heavier, a lot more expensive and more prone to breakdowns, I can't imagine one.
Ma's reassuring voice is already being silenced, Mario.
Her first partial replacement will go into circulation in 2012. The new weapon is mostly for mobile units like airborne and infantry. The more static uses will still be held by the Ma Duce, but the longest-serving military weapon since the Brown Bess musket is about to go into light duty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LW50MG
(http://www.defense-update.com/images_new1/lw50.jpg)
In short, a re-engineered Ma Deuce, using more modern materials and the acces to computer aided design to make it lighter and tighter.
It speaks volumes the old cartridge is retained.
Quote from: maddox on April 18, 2010, 07:41:59 AM
In short, a re-engineered Ma Deuce, using more modern materials and the acces to computer aided design to make it lighter and tighter.
It speaks volumes the old cartridge is retained.
I'm not sure if it is just a 're-engineered' M2. I don't know whether or not, for instance, the 'headspace and timing' adjustments that were a constant necessity (and annoyance) to .50 cal gunners everywhere will be a part of this weapon's design.
As for the cartridge, if John Moses Browning designed it... it is timeless.
The man was a genius in the truest sense of the word.
Marek, nothing personel, but I can tell you never went to the Marine Force Recon schools. If you allow semi-automatics you may as well allow full automatics, as I can tell you that it takes a skilled individual about 20 minutes to convert a semi auto to a full auto with a file. It would likley take Mario even less time in his shop. Now there is an interesting point to be made about the firepower that the military has and if it could be efectivly used against the civilian population in the US atleast. in our oath we promise to Protect the Constitution against all enemies Foreign and DOMESTIC. also under the UCMJ we have the right (or responsibility as it realy is in the case of officers like myself) to refuse orders that we belive to be imoral or unconstitutional. In the event of a "Civil War" I belive you would see likley half if not more of the military going over to the other side because they would refuse to fight "Civilians"
If the military splits, then each faction will have its own proper fighting edge.
If the military doesn't, then the 'insurrection' side will either be cripplingly outgunned, or buying military arms off the black market as fast as they can find them.
In either case, the state of gun ownership laws before things break open is a laughable irrelevance.
Gun control only matters inasmuch as it changes the stakes of the criminal-and-innocent game; lawbreakers have more familiarity and interest in the tools and skills of violence than the average citizen - it's simply more relevant to their lives. Criminals will always outgun - in the figurative sense of the word - J Random Citizen, because before their 'Fateful Meeting', Mr Hood will care and Mr Citizen won't... And the cops damn well should outgun the thugs. All that being the case, having guns available in the equation simply makes it easier for people to die.
That said, I don't think that the margins of that ease are wide enough to bother doing more than regulating - skills, safety awareness, and history, just like freaking drivers licenses require - those individuals who choose to make 'gun owner' one of their law-abiding hobbies.
Quote from: Tanthalas on April 19, 2010, 12:57:25 PM
Marek, nothing personel, but I can tell you never went to the Marine Force Recon schools. If you allow semi-automatics you may as well allow full automatics, as I can tell you that it takes a skilled individual about 20 minutes to convert a semi auto to a full auto with a file. It would likley take Mario even less time in his shop. Now there is an interesting point to be made about the firepower that the military has and if it could be efectivly used against the civilian population in the US atleast. in our oath we promise to Protect the Constitution against all enemies Foreign and DOMESTIC. also under the UCMJ we have the right (or responsibility as it realy is in the case of officers like myself) to refuse orders that we belive to be imoral or unconstitutional. In the event of a "Civil War" I belive you would see likley half if not more of the military going over to the other side because they would refuse to fight "Civilians"
Marine Force Recon School? No I did not, not to my knowledge anyway. ;D
I was in plain old Mechanized Infantry.
I am however very much aware of the fact that any/many semi-auto weapon can be modified to fire full auto.
As for the second part.
My army historically dose not have that ability.
We swore to protect the borders and the country independence.
The only option given with in the military regulations is that we can say we do not understand an order or that we have no resources to do so.
We can our right not fallow an order if its unlawful.
However all orders are lawful if they come from high enough.
If I was ordered to shot at civilians in my own country my only option was to desert or mutiny, or be a murderer in my own eyes.
I was never given that order so I don't know what will have done.(That sentence cannot be grammatically correct)
As for actual situation when my country military was ordered to shoot civilians... Usually each time it ended up with piles of dead bodies and no deserters.
As for a civil war.
Those who use the gun they legally owned before it started are the one using crappy guns. With Weapon stock piles counted in millions standard army rifle will not be a problem to acquire. Add to it the fact that underground rifle manufacture is easy, Chechen's did it while Grozny was under Russian shells, and we did just that under occupation.
Quote from: Valles on April 19, 2010, 01:38:43 PMCriminals will always outgun - in the figurative sense of the word - J Random Citizen, because before their 'Fateful Meeting', Mr Hood will care and Mr Citizen won't...
On the one occasion I have found it necessary to draw (heard gunfire from someone being shot on the same block/sidewalk, drew and pushed date to cover but never saw guy who was picked up within 100' of me by cops) I DID care, and WOULD have fired had he had the mis-fortune to approach me.
On the three occasions a female friend of mine has had to draw (3 separate friends, not 1 three times) they always out gunned their assailant- in fact, two of the would-be rapists were foolish enough to bring knives to a gunfight. Only one fired, but she was happy to go to court and tell her side and things went smoothly enough.... especially since her assailant was busy explaining himself to the Almighty at the time rather than the judge.
Some citizens DO care- they are the ones who DON'T get taken advantage of.
Carth I understand that example perfectly. Remember I come from Wyoming, and possibly the only state with more guns per capita than us is Texas. I grew up with firearms of every type, and I intend to bring my children up in the same atmosphere. Guns dont kill people, People kill people.
In all my life not once have I heard a gunshot fired in anger at another human being.
Lucky me I guess.
On the other side I have knife wound on my person, my mother has one my uncle was opened up from waist to the rib cage. I've be in a knife fight on a couple of occasions.
If in any of them some one pulled a gun, well morgue will been more likely that hospitalization.
@Tanthalas.
Well they don't but they do help.
My personal stance on fire arms for self protection:
For personal and my love one's protection on a street, I bet on my own two hands and there extension(Melee weapons).
In my residence a thick door will do.
Were I live guns are rare, If they became more plentiful I guess I will have to buy one myself.
I don't like the idea of a range weapon in the hand of someone that wish too harm me, the only way for me to defend myself is to have one of my own.
That will end ugly.
Edit:
Plus I some one want me dead they will succeed one way or another.
Now I'll save my money for a new washing machine rather that buy a gun.
Giggle;In my country,if you walk around with knife above 7 cm ,you get at least 3 months in jail,not to mention any kind of firearms:1 year in prison!!!
Off course unless you are licensed as a hunter.In that case ,your riffle has to be dis-assembled and the parts is to be locked away in at least two different lock places.
Glad to hear that those incidents turned out well, Carth, and sad that they happened at all, but might I ask where they took place? Small town, big city, good neighborhood or bad, and so on? Dealing with Joe Loser or Mister Con? I, sloppily I admit, was referring primarily to the latter - a prepared citizen is likely to be better equipped for a confrontation than the former, who is, by definition, an idiot.
But once again, that's going to hold regardless of how 'armed' the society in general is.
If you have scientific evidence disproving this thesis, I'll welcome it...
And be utterly shocked.
Quote from: Valles on April 19, 2010, 07:43:17 PM
Glad to hear that those incidents turned out well, Carth, and sad that they happened at all, but might I ask where they took place? Small town, big city, good neighborhood or bad, and so on? Dealing with Joe Loser or Mister Con? I, sloppily I admit, was referring primarily to the latter - a prepared citizen is likely to be better equipped for a confrontation than the former, who is, by definition, an idiot.
But once again, that's going to hold regardless of how 'armed' the society in general is.
If you have scientific evidence disproving this thesis, I'll welcome it...
And be utterly shocked.
Well, the dude in T-loosa was a major local gang-banger, so while not exactly a member of the Gotti family, he was a rather 'well educated' hood. Had he faced our little double-date pairing, though, he could have been a Gotti family shooter... with three armed people to his one, he'd have never stood a chance. Heck, had I been the only one, he'd have been a dead man. I have my confirmed kill; I don't have to wonder what I am able to do if it's a 'him or me' situation.
The rapists- well, two were amateurs (one didn't get to gain any more experience) and the other one was literally minutes out of the pen on parole, he tried to hit one of my friends in a gas station restroom. I'll imagine that her .380 looked big enough to drive a log truck through the barrel when he faced it.
There is A LOT to say for being prepared. To be prepared, though, you must know how to be prepared, and that entails being educated in the use of your chosen tool.
Frankly, Valles... no gun control measures work except for 1.) NO GUN CONTROL or 2.) NO GUNS.
The former is impractical, as anyone can have anything... and most of the people with the heavy artillery will steal it, whereas the honest folks who need it for self-defense can't afford it legally.
The second is impossible, as every nation who has foolishly pursued it can tall you, simply because someone will find a way to either smuggle in a few thousand guns for his criminal enterprise or he will manufacture his own.
I like the system of illegal full-auto and licensed carry that is the norm in the United States. It's the best compromise IMO- anyone can own a solid firearm useful for defense, while criminals face stiff penalties if the laws are applied to their proper extent- which, alas, doesn't happen often or early enough. But that is a failing of the system rather than the laws... though instead of simply applying the existing laws more harshly, our moronic government seems to favor slapping on more poorly-enforced and ill-conceived laws.
I have to laugh at the definition of 'assault rifle' that morons in our idiotic government have randomly assigned to make everything from an SKS to an Olympic Target Pistol illegal in some States, though ;) (this being 'anything capable of semi-automatic fire and having a detachable box magazine forward of the trigger guard). Our Olympic athletes from California had to move in order to practice for a time (an exemption was later created for them)!
Anyway, in my rambling, I think my overall point is:
1.) as a concept, strict gun control looks good on paper, but doesn't really work off it.
2.) disarming everyone will only work if the whole world decides to make s'mores and sing kumbaya- if anyone is still making guns, someone who ain't supposed to have one will use it on someone who is denied the chance to own one for defense.
3.) I do find it HUGELY ironic that the countries in Europe and States in the US that have the highest number of LEGAL gun owners have the lowest crime rates. Heck, Switzerland and Israel have lower crime rates than a lot of US cities, while having more gun owners (and in Israel's case, a LOT more need for them, as they include terrorist victims in their murder rate and the US does not).
I suspect we're coming at the same point from opposite directions, then. ^_^
Quote from: Valles on April 19, 2010, 08:36:08 PM
I suspect we're coming at the same point from opposite directions, then. ^_^
With is?
I seriously lost track.
Quote from: VallesGun control only matters inasmuch as it changes the stakes of the criminal-and-innocent game; lawbreakers have more familiarity and interest in the tools and skills of violence than the average citizen - it's simply more relevant to their lives. Criminals will always outgun - in the figurative sense of the word - J Random Citizen, because before their 'Fateful Meeting', Mr Hood will care and Mr Citizen won't... And the cops damn well should outgun the thugs. All that being the case, having guns available in the equation simply makes it easier for people to die.
Actualy, owning a firearm without licence is already lawbreaking in most of the Eu countries, and in Belgium that includes having the rusted trough munitionless Lebel that great-grantfather stored at the attick after WW I.
There are cases know where people, who had been "caught" owning an "assault rifle" of that kind having punishment heavier than a copkiller.
It was only barely avoided that the guy who killed the young female police officer "Kitty Van Nieuwenhuysen" with a sparkling new Albanian AK derivate went free, because his lawyer pointed out that the assholes arrest was unlawfull because some paperwork wasn't in order.
Currently, the killer and his 2 compatriots are still awaiting the preliminary courts decision about what court will judge them. The "normal" criminal court, or assisen (meaning a jury composed of randomly chozen Belgian Citizens).
We also had 2 "important" cases of idiots killing children at random. Hans Van Temsche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Van_Themsche) bought a hunting rifle -then no licence for that was needed- and went on a very short shooting spree in the streets of Antwerp.
The other one was an even worse nutcase. Kim De Gelder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendermonde_nursery_attack), after killing an elderly woman in her own house, he went into a nursery, stabbing and killing several of the toddlers and a caretaker.
Now, my questions are,
Would Hans need a gun to kill 2 people and injure a third one?
Would Kim need a knife to kill toddlers in their beds?
QuoteNow, my questions are,
Would Hans need a gun to kill 2 people and injure a third one?
Would Kim need a knife to kill toddlers in their beds?
No, and no.
But postal cases are an inevitability, and they're inevitably going to be messy. The difference, such as it is, is going to tell in the idiot kid robbing the corner convenience store.
Let me put it this way:
I would rather live in a country where I don't have to have a gun to protect myself ,than living in a country that has to have a gun/weapon to feel secure.I know this is a
possibility only if you live in a small country as Belgium or Denmark.
But for me the greatest freedom is the notion of NOT HAVING to posses a gun to feel safe.
I don't need a gun to protect myself, nor would it make me feel safer atm.
On the other hand, the House of Chaos is 1 big arsenal with stabbing ,crushing and otherwise painfull or even deadly instruments of violence.
But, with all the gun control laws in Belgium, only inept policemen (the occasional adept policeman are just exceptions) and criminals have acces to firearms.
Only the UK has more strickt gunlaws in Europe, and lets compare statistics there...
The more armed the civilians ,the lower the violence.
I agree, guns make it easier, but in the end, it's people that kill, not tools.
Quote from: Valles on April 20, 2010, 09:08:35 AM
QuoteNow, my questions are,
Would Hans need a gun to kill 2 people and injure a third one?
Would Kim need a knife to kill toddlers in their beds?
No, and no.
But postal cases are an inevitability, and they're inevitably going to be messy. The difference, such as it is, is going to tell in the idiot kid robbing the corner convenience store.
Uhm, Val... you are aware that most such instances are conducted with 1.) threats or 2.) edged weapons... right? Firearms in crime are NOT as prevalent as people are lead to believe.
Ledeper,
I don't need a firearm to feel safe, I can feel safe in 99.9% of the places I choose to go without one. I keep the firearm close, though, because no matter how 'safe' one feels, something unforeseen can always happen. It's like buying insurance for your car- you don't NEED it all the time, but the rare occasions you do need it you are happy to have it.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
I still find it interesting that Switzerland- which MANDATES gun ownership for all militia age males and then gives them their automatic service rifle for free- has a lower per capita crime rate (# 56 Switzerland: 0.00921351 per 1,000 people) than South Korea, in which gun ownership is a capital crime (# 38 Korea, South: 0.0196336 per 1,000 people).
Clearly, forbidding firearm ownership is not as good an idea as it looks like.
QuoteUhm, Val... you are aware that most such instances are conducted with 1.) threats or 2.) edged weapons... right? Firearms in crime are NOT as prevalent as people are lead to believe.
Really? I was not aware.
Interesting. Though I'll admit I don't see the relevance to my point.
QuoteClearly, forbidding firearm ownership is not as good an idea as it looks like.
Or is, as I've been at least trying to contend from the beginning, not a significant variable. Japan, one of the leading poster children for gun bans, is at #60 on that very list, for instance.
My point of view would be that Switzerland is an immensely well-off and stable place, Japan likewise. South Korea is less secure and less organized - or perhaps the word I want is equitable? - and so appears 'lower' on the list, while the relatively slapdash United States out-kills all three.
I get more exercised about the proselytizing Holy Writ attitude
both sides take up over gun control than I do either side of the argument.
Quote from: Valles on April 20, 2010, 04:57:42 PM
My point of view would be that Switzerland is an immensely well-off and stable place, Japan likewise. South Korea is less secure and less organized - or perhaps the word I want is equitable? - and so appears 'lower' on the list, while the relatively slapdash United States out-kills all three.
I get more exercised about the proselytizing Holy Writ attitude both sides take up over gun control than I do either side of the argument.
I semi-agree with you. Gun control in and of itself is a variable in the equation (I give it a bit more credit than you, apparently) but the major source of problems are the PEOPLE. I disagree with money as the cause, however. The most violent places in the world have a bigger problem with a sense of COMMUNITY than they do with poverty- the least violent areas in the US are generally the least urban, and thus have the benefit of people seeing each other as neighbors rather than competitors.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2010/tables/10s0296.pdf
Cities breed crime- where ever you go. It's a sad fact of life.
People loose a sense of community, and they then loose the rest of their sense. ;)
I don't think that affluence qua affluence is a factor so much as relative inequity and opportunity. Certainly there are stable societies today that are also poor, although given other historical factors that mostly involves relatively small states - Bhutan is about the largest I can think of.
In any event, that's a matter for deeper sociological examination than I care to get into in this thread. ^_^