Ai, talk about nitpick. Why are you so unwilling to answer the question of why you want a high power assult rifle? The question was one asked out of curiousity with the possability of working the answer into another post if it proved useful.

Since when did the burden of proof lie with me? I didn't start this mess, I just weighed in halfway though. For refrence my arguement isn't "sometimes people get shot" it IS that people get shot. People DIE becase some jackass exersizing his constitutional right blows a 45 cal slug though some poor bastards back who he thought was threatening. YOur mainjsutification always seems to have been personal defense, how about less deadly means of doing that?

I mean the agurement of guns for personal defense is flawed anyway. Firstly if peopel arm themselves, crims are either oging to get more organised so people don't have itme ot use them, fire first, resulting in more deaths or get bigger guns. Great solution. I was looking into carrying weapons though cambodia and parts of Thailand for security reasons and after talking to people decided against it because in most cases it makes a bad istuation worse. Beleive it or not ciminals are not that interested in killing people, it tends to cause allot of problems. I'd rahter lose my wallet and leave it at that than risk losing my life over my wallet.

So the only purpose is a deterrant?

What the hell do you think guns were made for? Assult rifles in particular are designed from the ground up to effective kill people. Full stop. Whether they act as a deterant is irrelavent to that statement, that is their purpose. Just as a convertable can be used to impress people its still fundamentally for transport.

I'd be interested in getting some stats on this, where gun owners have killed unarmed people, armed people, people armed with lesser weapons etc not to mention percieved threat vs real threat. I mean here gun owners are a small group of people, but there penty of clubs around and stuff. I"ve been to a few of these for gun, fired a range of stuff and since i also did cadets i've done firearms traing. I swear the way a some of those people handed weapons, including loaded weapons would make scare the shit out of your average soldier. The simple fact is the vast majority of people are not mentally capable or trained enough to be able to handle wepaons effeicvely and safely in dangerous situations. Thats why i'm advocating nonlethal wepaons.

Ut: got a source on that? this one is interesting. What would a cannon have been calssified as?

On the other hand if the citizen corsses a line, they will sne dagents, who will effetive deal with that person, armed or not. If large numbers of peopel started protesting in public brandishing arms about something i'm sure the first thing that would happen is those weapons carriers would be singled out and dealt with. Lets face it anyway, the public is too stupid and too apathetic to do it anyway unless all hell borke loose in which case it woudl be ineffective anyway. I don't think bush sits there and this 'if i sign this will all thsoe armed citizens out here get pissed off.

While what you said is quite possible UT, you didn't mention why they were sending him letters. Depending on why he was getting letters, it may not have been worth it to send someone beyond the possibility that an agent might get his ass capped. What was he doing? Importing yak meat from Tibet? ;)

(EDIT: Incorrect use of a word..."fact" changed to "possibility" in last paragraph.)

Since the minute you propose restricting my rights, you need a damn good justification. I don't need a justification to exercise my rights, that's why they're called <i>rights</i>. Sorry you don't have those rights anymore, but it's not my fault.

I was trained to use an M-14 by the military, I found it to be a very satisfactory weapon, accurate, pleasant to shoot, and a fine piece of machinery. It is my right to own one, and if I had the money to spare (I don't) there would be one here right now. I don't need any more reason than that.

There are state game lands only a few miles away from my home, I might use it to hunt. (Or I might not; I'm not really fond of venison but would certainly survive on it if I had to. We're so ovepopulated with deer here that the Feds actually hire hunters to come into the local parks and thin the herds.) I would very likely use it for target shooting....it's definatly *not * the same thing as shooting as a .22 match rifle.

But I don't owe *you* a justification for this, especially since you've already declared yourself hostile to my rights. This is a matter totally within my discretion.

You don't? Then you don't know squat about US politics. Bush would have lost the election <b>big-time</b> without the support of armed citizens, and he knows <b>that</b> very well, I assure you.

And once again I've grown weary running after you around in circles over this thing.

If I deny "the only purpose of a gun is to kill" and assert "One purpose of a gun is to deter violence" you jump right into "so the only purpose is deterrance?". And then <i>in the very next sentence</I> you wander off down the "the only purpose of a gun is to kill" street again. Where did you learn logic?

No, the *only* purpose isn't deterrance, but it *is* a damned good one, and one that does not require killing. If a weapon isn't potentially lethal, it doesn't make a very good deterrant. And your proposal "let's give non lethal weapons to people who are too stupid to use guns safely" doesn't appeal to me much either....most non-lethal weapons require even <b>more</b> skill to use effectively and safely than firearms do. .

But this is all pointless...I don''t <b>need</b> a reason that will pass your muster, which is a good thing in my view, because no purpose <b>will</b> pass your muster. I remain convinced the reason it can't is because <i>you've</i> already lost your rights on this score, so everything else is sour grapes.

Enjoy your enlightened civilization, sooner or later you guys may figure it out. Or not.

Syc, I dunno what grandad was doin'... and I don't wanna know. No, really I don't know. I don't expect that it was very serious and might well have been routine. But it did occur to me that, being as he was up there in the middle of nowhere, with many people with righteous indignation at tax payin', it may well not serve your basic revenooer to pay a visit.

That's like Griff country up there; you don't just go knocking on doors without knowing what to expect. Everybody knows everybody else if it isn't tourist season.

Why did you jsut say 'deer hunting' and got the hell over it? What does my view on gun rights have to do with asking you why you want an assult rifle?

YOu've misread waht i said, which is partially my fault at elast twice. Firstly when i said armed citizens i didn't mena gun owners. I was evaluating the role of his thinking of an armed insurrection taking ot the streets, not the NRA throwing money at lobbyists.

I didn't say killing is the ONLY purpose of a gun. I didn't even say thats its purpose. I said what they re designed for. Which is killing. Particulary assult rifles. From a defense perspective a gun can either be used to deter someone from attacking you, or to stop them, i assume by shooting them correct? If a 'successful' use in a defense situation is deterence, ie someone pulls a knife and asked for your bag and you pull out a (mm and tell them to fuck off and they do. i'd love to see some stats on usage in such situations.



Phlease. Its the best peice of legislation passed in recent times in this country. Now i can go to a nightclub knowing the chances of some dipshit pulling a glock on the dancefloor is virtually none. I know i won't get gunned down by accident in a driveby, the list just goes on. Furthermore its far easier to take on an attacker with a knife than a gun, its a cc weapon and it takes some serios skill to use effectively, guns are far easier to kill people with, particuarly when theres a few metres involved. I've done enough martial arts, knife fighting and disarmament training to feel confident about taking on an attacker with a knife, unarmed.

I'm glad you finally came out and said that, youv'e been hinting at it all the time, i was tempted to say something but it was jsut too funny. I hope you've now realised i firmly beleive what i say. I would not want to live in a gun toting society and i do not beleive the inability to carry weapons in public is a bad thing. Btw don't get holier than thou about 'enligheneted civilizations', you live in a war mongering, ignorant, arrogant powerhouse, enlightened is something i'd apply to the constitution of America in general, but not the nation.

My God...are you high, man?

There is absolutely no way you can provide evidence to support this statement: "I know i won't get gunned down by accident in a driveby." No way in hell you can prove that. That's like saying, "I know I won't get HIV if I have unprotected sex. It CAN'T happen to me." Not to mention, were the chances of getting shot at a club that high before the gun laws? I'd say probably not.

I challenge you to come to the United States. In fact, I challenge you to come to Philadelphia. Then you can see how much of a "gun-toting society" we really are. You make us sound like we're all hanging out at the OK Corral, when in fact, all you really know about American society is what you read. You've never been here...and I'm willing to wager that if you spend a good month in this country, the only thing you'll need to worry about is people picking on you for having a "bad" accent.

Jag, I think you're an intelligent person. But you are coming across (at least to me) as incredibly paranoid and naive right now. There's nothing wrong with your beliefs, but your rationale seems to be coming out of left field.

Because (1) it's not the entire story (go back and read what I wrote again) and (2) your campaign for many postings has been "prove that you need to have a gun", along with a lot of blather about how I don't really. My reasons aren't subject to your review...which is apparently OK because even when I do lay them out you don't hear all of what I say anyhow.
A distinction without a difference.. Gun owners are armed citizens, and vice versa. By "gun owners" I mean legal gun owners...they're citizens, and they are armed.
What I said had <b>nothing</b> at all to do with lobbyists, (although it's always fun to drag that perjorative into the discussion, just like "eating wildlife" when you mean "hunting").

I was referring the people who elected him President. They're not lobbyists. And fortunately we're not yet at the point where our President needs to be in fear of an armed insurrection before he listens to the people he's supposed to be working for.
Really? I've had martial arts training too, and what I was taught (along with the appropriate techniques) was that if you take on an assailant who has a knife and knows how to use it, with you empty-handed, you *will* get cut, perhaps fatally, unless you are very skillful, recently practiced, *and* very lucky. I respect that sensei very much.

It sounds to me like you've been taught a few techniques and fed some false confidence, which can be very dangerous.
No, I've said it on several occasions before, you must have missed it. I still think it's true, especially after your account of how you considered arming yourself once you got out of AU but got talked out of it. I sure hope that wasn't on the strength of what a bad-ass martial artist you think you are...in SE Asia, of all places.

I don't doubt you <i>believe</i> what you say, of course, it wouldn't be a good rationalization if you didn't.

Ironic; you dismiss the opposition as a 'load of blather' then claim they don't listen to you.

If you're going to quote, at least don't misquote. I said 'kill wildlife'. Secondly if there is an overpopulation of a species, its a perfectly valid activity. That's why people like farmers here have guns. There are valid reasons for owning firearms, i don't and still don't think personal defense is one of them. As for them requiring more skill than firearms, bullshit. Pepperspray irequires far less training (spray at person, not you) than loading, carrying and zeroing the sights on a firearm and damn, that stuff is effective.

When he doens't he doesn't have to worry either, thats my point.

Firstly i practise twice a week, secondly it depends on how trained your attacker is. If he is trained your most likely stuffed but allot of people carry knives with little or no knowledge of how to use them. Most of the situations in which i could see that happening would most likely involve people who are likely to cut themselves trying to get it out.

That becase the places i'm going to be travling too are very heavily armed and dangerous. Australia is not. My decision was based on the point that if you pull a gun on an armed assailant you're more likely to get shot. Its not in my best interest thereore to carry a gun. I'd rather lose my shit than lose my life.
Sorry, what was the basis of your point again?

Jag you may want to consider Sycs point. The Hollywood version of America is for entertainment purposes only, do not transpose the pictures on your screen into a vision of American culture.

I'm thinking that part of the communication problem you and Maggie face is based on differing views of Americas Bill of Rights. The BoR is only a list of rights which man has that cannot be transgressed by government. It is not a list of rights given by or protected by government. That is why when you propose disarming Americans the burden of proof is on you.

oops i somehow missed sycs post

Ill rephrase. The statistical likelyhood of me being gunned down accidetly in a driveby is signifigantly less enough in a bad suburb of melbourne or sydney, than lets say...inner LA is enough to prove a corralation between the number of guns around and the number of driveby shootings.

Yo'd think by now i'd earn that you can never prove anything. COnsidering i wrote na essay on that yesterday i really should remember. *sighs* The catch bieng i didn't sleep inbetween.

Actually, yea. It was higher. Partiucalry sydney, king st etc, man, wouldn't go near those places.


*sighs* yea, you do have a point. Yea, i've got coloured views on the issue because of media etc, peace doesn't make news i know. At the same time ill stick to by guns fundamentally, carrying firearms for personal protection is counterproductive. As you can tell i'm way too stuffed to aruge atm, i'm gonan be dropping off the edge of the earth till monday or so, ill come up with something more rational with a couple of days sleep behind me.

You're getting the idea.

I'm thinking we should combine the gun thread with a Palestine thread to create The Cellar Steel Cage Shitstorm.

Throw in the National ID concept too for shits and grins. ;)

wwarner11, the fucking smartass, is no longer with us (I believe), so I'm not sure it would be as interesting.

Oh, I <b>listened</b>, but that's why I called it blather. Your conclusions always seem driven by this simplistic view of the world that doesn't involve taking into account *why* people really do what they do, and what the *actual* consequences, unintended as well as intended, of passing laws really are.
That's another fable. The statistics I've read show that as a group, crime victims who resist fare <b>better</b> then those who "give it up". You may find it counter to your expectation based on your casual "fewer guns means less shooting" type of reasoning, but it's true.
Jag, given how restrictive California gun laws are, LA is an <i>extremely</i> bad example of how gun control makes the streets safer. CA law is much closer to AU law on this score.

California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New York, DC and such places have already succumbed to arguments such as yours, and they suffer the consequences daily...which generate the news stories that form your picture of daily life in the US.

Other jursidictions (33 of our 50 states and the majority of our population), where the law provides that the cops "shall issue" permits for legal ownership and carry when the applicant has a clean record have significanty lower rates of violent crime. In each of the states, the crime rate went down when the relevant law was passed.

"Shall issue" rather than "may issue" is important, because it removes discretionary issue...in the hands of local cops discretionary issue too often turns into one of those "prove to me you need this weapon" farces. New Jersey is typical; to get a carry permit in Jersey you effectively need to be either a cop or a politician.

That said, the real reason for gang warfare in the streets in LA is extreme poverty and drug prohibition. Absent drug prohibition, drug gangs wouldn't have so much money and territory to fight over.

As it is, they have so much money that in the magical event of effective worldwide gun prohibition, they could have underground gun foundries set up next to their underground drug labs. In fact, such a foundary would be *easier* to run than a crack factory, since the raw materials for guns and ammunition don't need to be imported.

Gun prohibition works as well as drug prohibition, which is to say "not at all"...and for the same reasons. Creating new categories of contraband simply creates a new black market....and black markets feed on each other.

It'd still be good I think. We still have folks like tw. ;)