Americans and Guns

[Frodo Baggins]

I always joke to the Americans/British here about America's obsession with guns. For a while, I thought this was just a big stereotype. But every week or so, a new gun thread appears on OCF (This week, it's about someone's request for tips on how to better shoot a magnum).

So it really isn't a stereotype? Americans are really obsessed with guns?

[UnrealAlex]

I'd say a lot are. More so people that are born here, than immigrants too.

The constitution states:
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Which is very ambiguous, like the rest of the constitution. The founders were some lazy people, couldn't clarify things a bit more? I mean that whole line is literally all of the 2nd amendment.

[Frodo Baggins]

But why? Is it cool to own a gun? Do people have them around as ornaments or protection?

Be sure to keep the replies away from the political.

[MLMIB]

in my experience it's just more so the people who are from lower to middle class or those in the south; I have a few friends(good friends at that) that are into guns but they are from blue color families and have been raised around hunting deer and such so they do have fond memories of guns just as my dad is a pilot so I have fond memories of plans; I guess it just goes with that wild west/ living on the frontier experience that comes with being such a big country and having so many people not living in entirely suburban area's.

[zexmarquies01]

frodo, i would NOT call that a stereotype in the LEAST bit.

yeah, there are people ( such as I ) whom are not interested in guns. But, the majority IS.

this country is VERY gun centric!

i don't know the exact number, but there are over 200 MILLION guns in possession in the USA right now. I got that number from a BBC website about guns. Don't know how old the article is, Nor does it tell the exact number of guns.

But there is a little over 300 million people in the US. And somewhere over 200 million guns. So about 2/3's of the country's people owns a gun.

yeah, i'd say your jokes about america and their gun-love is pretty correct.

[b1029384756]

If that's the impression my post gave you, you should see some of the people who shoot regularly. Many of them own over 50 guns, spending thousands (if not tens of thousands) each year on their hobby. zenmarquies01's estimate of the percentage of people who own guns is way off, since the average gun owners has more than one, often many. Myself, I don't currently own any guns, though I plan to buy one shotgun and one pistol when I can afford to.

There's many different reasons for wanting guns.

Protection is one. Some people are quite obviously paranoid about home invasions and such that are very unlikely to occur, but others have good reason to worry about such things, depending on where they live.

Hunting is another one. I always thought that was more popular in Canada than the US. I've never hunted, though I'm sure I would, given a reasonable opportunity with people who know what they're doing. I'd probably like duck hunting. If you're the type of person who likes fishing, you probably like hunting too.

Most people don't have them for ornaments, though just as with anything else, there are collectors who will spend thousands on an antique gun that, for practical purposes, is superseded in every way by modern ones costing $200. You can also find people buying classic cars that they never plan to drive, baseball cards, etc.

For me, I like the sport of target shooting. I don't ever plan to become good enough to compete (aside from informal wagers between friends), but it's a good way to kill (get it?!) a few hours. I also do like knowing that I'm able to shoot one if the need ever arises.

Also, in this part of the country, there's many more people who don't like guns than there are in the south and midwest.

[Frodo Baggins]

But there is a little over 300 million people in the US. And somewhere over 200 million guns. So about 2/3's of the country's people owns a gun.


Well...no. It just means there are 3 people for every 2 guns. But it doesn't mean 2/3 people in America are running around with guns. e.g. newborns probably aren't packing heat. I suppose many people have multiple firearms.

But yeah, that's pretty surprising. 200 million is quite high.

[UnrealAlex]

I wonder if countries with a draft have a far smaller gun owning percentage, seems like they would.

[stratcatprowlin]

I know the original poster said stay clear from politics but I wanted to point out that our right to bear arms is deeply rooted in our history as Americans.Therefore it would be quite normal for a Nation like mine to be a little gun happy. :p

[zexmarquies01]

Well...no. It just means there are 3 people for every 2 guns. But it doesn't mean 2/3 people in America are running around with guns. e.g. newborns probably aren't packing heat. I suppose many people have multiple firearms.

But yeah, that's pretty surprising. 200 million is quite high.


oh, i know. But saying 2/3'ds of the poulation owns a gun, is another way of looking at it, strictly from a numerical point of view. Just shows that there are enough guns in this country for even infants to own one.

I realize most gun owners own multiple guns. I guess saying "2/3's of the population owns a gun " is more of a phrase to show how dramatic the number is, and less to show the actual statistic.


EIDT ( again ): I deleted my older edit, cause i found a bit more accurate, and newer data.


http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMostRead/idUSL2834893820070828

As the report at Reuters.com mentions, 270 Million guns in america out of the 875 million ( notice it says KNOWN ) guns in the world.
And the date for the article is August 28th, 2007.

And again, they say that america's number of fire-arms increases by about 4.5 million per year. Which is also a statistic i came across on a NRA-LA website. ( National Rifle Association for Legal Action )

So in less than 10 years, if that 4.5 million sales stays steady...every man, woman, child, and infant COULD own a gun in this country!

[Frodo Baggins]

oh, i know. But saying 2/3'ds of the poulation owns a gun, is another way of looking at it, strictly from a numerical point of view.

Um..no.

I guess saying "2/3's of the population owns a gun " is more of a phrase to show how dramatic the number is, and less to show the actual statistic.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/features/ihavearightto/four_b/casestudy_art29.shtml


I understand what you're trying to do, but you're just spreading bad math. If you want to say it for dramatic effect, you say, "There are 2 guns for every 3 Americans". Which is completely different from, "2 out of 3 Americans own a gun".

[zexmarquies01]

Um..no.



I understand what you're trying to do, but you're just spreading bad math. If you want to say it for dramatic effect, you say, "There are 2 guns for every 3 Americans". Which is completely different from, "2 out of 3 Americans own a gun".


then how about this instead....

There are enough guns in this country for over 2/3's of the population to own one.

Which THAT stament i CAN use, as it does not strictly say that 2/3's of the population owns one, but 2/3's CAN own one. Heee Heee, i get to keep my numbers and phrasing how i want, or at least close enough. Neener neener neener! :D :beer: ( Hey, its 5am here, i'm bored so i'm having a little fun with ya. )


But seriously, I made a update on my previous post, with newer numbers and all. Should show you how serious gun-ownership in this country is. 270 million guns, and a bit over 300 million people. And in a few years, the number of guns will surpass the number of people. Pretty insane from my point of view.

While i can find these numbers, i can't really answer WHY the gun obession. I'm not a gun person...so that will have to be answered by others.

[Vento1]

270 million guns in a population of 300 million thats amazing. You all preparing to defend agaisnt an invasion or something.

[nerdlogic]

newborns probably aren't packing heat.

Mine does, just check his diaper for twosies. :eek:

We have a rifle, a shot gun and a Beretta so the whole family can be armed. :p My husband has them to practice shooting and I mostly stay away from them because I've got an awful temper... just kidding. :D

[stratcatprowlin]

270 million guns in a population of 300 million thats amazing. You all preparing to defend agaisnt an invasion or something.
No.It's preparing for martial law or a police state driven by the global elites that control this country already^^.
Can you say conspiracy theory? Muwahahahahaa!

[Wraith]

Gun happy? I dont know about that. My father owns a few antiques that his father passed down from his father, World War 1 era rifles etc. Oh, and the Shotguns he Used for Skeet Shooting.

He also owns a Bow that he use to use for bird hunting/Deer hunting.

He's the only person I know save for my friend Mike's father (Uses for duck hunting) of that owns a firearm.

[mblue]

270 million guns in a population of 300 million thats amazing. You all preparing to defend agaisnt an invasion or something.

You assume that it's one gun per person and it is not. To the point of the thread, i'm not sure if I would call it an obsession. Here in the Mid-West, many people use them for sport, either shotting or hunting. In my office there are 6-8 guys that literally stock their freezers for the year with the game they kill. Oh, one more thing, the guy in our office with the biggest gun "obsession", is from South Africa.

[seadave77]

I won't call myself obsessed with guns. I own one, my father owns three, my father-in-law owns seven I think.

I can't speak for anyone else but myself but most guns I know of are for two things. Hunting and protection. Mine is for protection. Mainly to make my wife feel better, but should someone come into my house without my consent, they won't be leaving under their own strength. One of my dads is ornamental, it was his grandfathers. One is for hunting and the other is for protection. My inlaws guns are all for hunting. Different guns for different game, and enough for his sons.

I don't think nothing of it. I think everyone should know how to operate a gun. I was surprised to learn other parts of the world are not like that. But different cultures do different things.

[phantasm]

Wow, I never thought a thread like this would appear over here. I myself own firearms. I served 5 years in the military and fully intend on keeping up my skillset that Uncle Sam taught me. I own everything from handguns to semi-auto's (for those of you who don't know, a semi-auto is a gas operated firearm capable of firing a SINGLE shot). I hunt pheasant as well, which has often been reffered to as the sport of kings.

Owning a firearm is a great responsibility. Unfortunately there are plenty of people who own firearms that shouldn't. The problem in the US is not the ownership of firearms, it's the criminals who obtain them illegally. This is where the majority of your violent crimes come from. It's not the legally purchased firearms.

Are we obsessed with guns? No. We're given the right to own firearms by the 2nd Amendment, period. Unlike some people would like to believe the Constitution is not a pick and choose document.

in my experience it's just more so the people who are from lower to middle class or those in the south; I have a few friends(good friends at that) that are into guns but they are from blue color families and have been raised around hunting deer and such so they do have fond memories of guns just as my dad is a pilot so I have fond memories of plans; I guess it just goes with that wild west/ living on the frontier experience that comes with being such a big country and having so many people not living in entirely suburban area's.

You my friend are mistaken. I know several prominenet individuals who collect firearms. Most of them shoot skeet as well, it's not a "blue collar" thing or anything related specifically to southeners. By that statement, it sounds like your insinuating that gun owners are mainly individuals with a lower IQ since most southenerss are considered to be lacking. Not cool.

[rdrash]

270 million guns in a population of 300 million thats amazing. You all preparing to defend agaisnt an invasion or something.

Absolutely...why you coming back???

LOL/jk

I believe all the stats of 200~270million guns is only counting legal firearms...there are probably more than that in reality.

EDIT: I am USA by birth just livin overseas and workin for Unlce Sam.

[z0n3]

270 million guns in a population of 300 million thats amazing. You all preparing to defend agaisnt an invasion or something.
Yes, zombies. I also bought a machete because Max Brooks suggested it.
I live in a state that has been red for years and I personally have never owned, fired, or held any fire arms. Unless you count nerf guns.

[FudgeNuggets]

I'm an American, or at least was for 25 years and I don't like guns personally. Don't like to hunt (animal lover, yet a meat eater), don't like to target shoot, don't think I need one for self defense.

My brother however, who is a Deputy in Tennessee has his own personal arsenal aside from the county issued sidearm and shotgun. He is a gun nut. He is also 5'6" 180lbs and not much of a fighter...but that may be a moot point....

I can say that nearly everybody I know or have known in Tennessee and Kentucky owns at least 3 guns (pistols and shotguns) and most own a bow and arrow too.

I don't get it either and he can't explain it :shrug:

[Twigglish]

I dont own any firearms. only use whats issued to me by the Army.

[hafa]

I'd have to agree with stratcatprowlin: "(gun ownership)...is deeply rooted in...(the)... history...(of)... Americans"

I don't own any myself, but my relatives who live in the states do, as our family has a long history as gunsmiths, law enforcement and military.

Another country with a long history of gun ownership is Switzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland). With 3 million (est.) guns for 7 million people, they're not lagging all that far behind the US in terms of numbers.

It's funny how things have come full circle in terms of the reasons for ownership in the US. In the days of the wild west, you had a firearm primarily as a means of protection against others, then as things gentrified, they became more of a sporting piece, now, it's back to having them as protection against others.

[Hardin]

We don't have any guns in our house but I know quite a few people who like to hunt deer.

[Goonda]

I don't own a gun and I don't foresee owning one in the near future, but my friends who hunt own several firearms. Mostly shotguns/buckshots. No rifles, maybe the occasional pistol. I don't see anybody walking around with an M240-Golf/AK or RPGs around downtown.

Gun safety is an issue, but sometimes the media blows things out of proportion. That being said, I don't see why anybody would need an AK. If it is for fun, I want to drive a 120mm howitzer around town (j/k). :D :beer:

[phantasm]

I don't own a gun and I don't foresee owning one in the near future, but my friends who hunt own several firearms. Mostly shotguns/buckshots. No rifles, maybe the occasional pistol. I don't see anybody walking around with an M240-Golf/AK or RPGs around downtown.

Gun safety is an issue, but sometimes the media blows things out of proportion. That being said, I don't see why anybody would need an AK. If it is for fun, I want to drive a 120mm howitzer around town (j/k). :D :beer:

Two questions:

1. What's a Buckshot? Buckshot is a shotgun round, not a firearm.
2. An AK? AK's are automatic weapons which make them a Class III item and illegal to own without the proper documentation (approval by the ATF).

On the subject of AK's, there are look a like AK's that are semi-auto and perfectly legal to own, just like there are semi-auto AR15's which are legal to own (they look like M4's and M16's). SOme people think that because they see a military style weapon its automatically an "automatic" weapon. Far from the truth.

[xb1az3x]

I wouldn't say the Americans are obsessed with guns. That article does not say where it even gets that number from. Based on what the article is attempting to get across I imagine they count the inventories of gun shops as well as estimates for illegally held guns. Notice how the article phrases the numbers for the other countries differently than for the USA, it says civilians or privately owned as opposed to citizens for the USA.

Regardless, I know that many people that own guns, but many of them are not used. For example my Grandfather has a Mauser Karabiner 98 that hasn't been fired since he took it from a German soldier in WWII, does that count? Of the people I know that hunt I can say they each own more than 30 guns. Its more of a hobby for most people than anything else. When I went to school in Iowa many people had farms and used guns to keep coyotes and, believe it or not, mountain lions from killing their livestock, or other animals from eating crops. For the farmers it is a tool to protect what provides them with money. Sure I know people who own a couple firearms for protection, many of whom are former military, police officers or combination of the two and they live in Chicago. Those folks also overlap with the people who collect guns as a hobby or hunt. To say that Americans have an obsession with guns is a little strong is pretty much what I am getting at.

[MRD]

If you actually look at gun ownership rates, while the US is higher than most of Europe, the US and Canada are quite similar in the percentage of people owning guns (US is a few points higher).

So Canadians can't really accuse America of being gun obsessed.

Where I live in the northeast, guns are not very common, but in the more "Red" states, they are more common.

[twEEkerAreUs]

Most people I know that own guns or have at one point, were all hunters or hunted at some point. It's exactly what introduced me to them and while I no longer hunt I don't dislike either. Also guns aren't exactly uncommon in Canada either, there might less but plenty of hunters/collector at the border.

[Enablingwolf]

Most average Americans only own one or two guns. For those who do own firearms

The numbers really do not reflect what is in most homes.

One thing to consider, most the guns shops I ever been to are 'mom and pop' shops. That have around 50-100 guns. One gun store I seen had over 500 guns. It was not a conglomerate chain.

Since Gun stores do own the guns and the guns are real.. The numbers are not really reflected what is actually at most folks homes. Everything aside, personal experience. Out of 5 homes, 2 might have a gun inside. Since many do not want or feel a need to have any.

[||Console||]

I always saw it like this ( as it was the case with most of my friends) , If you grew up in the city more than likely you didnt really like to hunt , but if you grew up in the sticks it was part of every day life .

[MRD]

That would explain why Canadians have so many guns. It's a very very low population density country.

[Goonda]

Two questions:

1. What's a Buckshot? Buckshot is a shotgun round, not a firearm.
2. An AK? AK's are automatic weapons which make them a Class III item and illegal to own without the proper documentation (approval by the ATF).

On the subject of AK's, there are look a like AK's that are semi-auto and perfectly legal to own, just like there are semi-auto AR15's which are legal to own (they look like M4's and M16's). SOme people think that because they see a military style weapon its automatically an "automatic" weapon. Far from the truth.

Sorry man. I hardly know anything about firearms, except what I read on the news or what I see on TV. Is is very hard to buy mod kits online to make them fully auto? Are these AK's designed to be single shot from ground up or are they just limited fully-auto versions? Do people hunt with AK's?

[FudgeNuggets]

That would explain why Canadians have so many guns. It's a very very low population density country.

There's a lot of hunting done up here, but there are also a lot of guns that are legal in the US that are illegal up here. I don't know all of the particulars.

[MRD]

US laws vary a great deal from one state to the next. You can't summarize all of the US together. In general, gun laws are made on a state level, not a national level.

[drenader]

It is simple, we have some strange attachment to them. You simply can not reason with us, it is in our constitution. despite the mockery some officials make of this little document, people get all paranoid when you want to take one of the bill of rights away from them.

I personally hate guns, and think there is no reason for people to own them. I hate the argument of more guns means a safer society. I think NO guns would be better, but I know that there is no way around this 2nd amendment thing.

[EmAn]

this explains a lot of americas gun laws and you can even buy fully automatic weapons and silencers here LEGALY

www.internationalpolicesupply.net

[Tyranos]

this explains a lot of americas gun laws and you can even buy fully automatic weapons and silencers here LEGALY

www.internationalpolicesupply.net


provided you have an FFL.

[El<(')>Maxi]

Americans & guns? It's like americans & cars, we're just more comfortable with alot of them around ;)

[phantasm]

provided you have an FFL.

Negative. The dealer needs a Class III FFL, an individual buying an automatic weapon or a silencer or AOW needs to purchase it through such a dealer, provide the ATF with fingerprints, a picture, an application and $200. Then you wait for 6 months to a year for it to be processed.

Also, any automatic owned by a civilian has to be pre 1986 because of the machine Gun act of 1986 (i think thats what its called) which prevents the further importation of autmatic weapons for civilian ownership.

Sorry man. I hardly know anything about firearms, except what I read on the news or what I see on TV. Is is very hard to buy mod kits online to make them fully auto? Are these AK's designed to be single shot from ground up or are they just limited fully-auto versions? Do people hunt with AK's?

Most AK's you can buy that are semi-auto are built that way. There are ways around it but i'm not going into it because it's illegal.

I hate the argument of more guns means a safer society. I think NO guns would be better, but I know that there is no way around this 2nd amendment thing.

It hass been proven that the lack of firearms in a country does nothing to deter crime. Criminals don't buy their firearms over the counter, they purchase them illegaly. By banning all firearms you are essentially taking away the right of the people to defend themselves against above mentioned crinminals. I hunt, i target shoot, i keep in shape with the skills Uncle Sam taught me. God forbid i ever need to use them.

[Tyranos]

Negative. The dealer needs a Class III FFL, an individual buying an automatic weapon or a silencer or AOW needs to purchase it through such a dealer, provide the ATF with fingerprints, a picture, an application and $200. Then you wait for 6 months to a year for it to be processed.

Also, any automatic owned by a civilian has to be pre 1986 because of the machine Gun act of 1986 (i think thats what its called) which prevents the further importation of autmatic weapons for civilian ownership.



Hmm I was misinformed. Time for me to rock a 249 again!

[drenader]

I love the advertisement on the page to buy the guns.

In Stock:
(get them before they are banned!)

[>HyperlogiK<]

It hass been proven that the lack of firearms in a country does nothing to deter crime.

I agree, but I don't really buy arguments to the effect that they help protect civilians either.

[Tyranos]

I agree, but I don't really buy arguments to the effect that they help protect civilians either.

Pretty confident in your hand to hand and ability to disarm an attacker? Would you bet your family's life on it? Or your own?

[drenader]

Pretty confident in your hand to hand and ability to disarm an attacker? Would you bet your family's life on it? Or your own?

You know this is a 'loaded' conversation. I will walk away biting my lip, as most of you should too since this is a good conversation.

[mblue]

I agree, but I don't really buy arguments to the effect that they help protect civilians either.

It does if you live in the country and your County Sheriff will take 30 minutes to reply to a call, as he or one of the other deputies on duty at night drive from one end of the county to the other. Not ever one lives in the city where cops patrol the neighborhoods and/or a five minutes away.

[Silversinksam]

But why? Is it cool to own a gun? Do people have them around as ornaments or protection?

Be sure to keep the replies away from the political.


Scratches head on how to not make this post polital...I'll do my best :beer:

I own a couple pistols for protection, plain and simple, the reason imho that America is thought to be comprised of gun nuts is pretty simple and comprised of two parts, the right to bear arms is written into our constitution (it's the second amendment) Interestingly the second amendment is directly derived from your country from the 12th century, King Henry II required all freemen to possess arms for defense, this was necessary because England didn't have a police force until 1829, the laws on this in England were like a ping pong ball for decades if not centuries. They had laws preventing the poor castes from having arms and only the rich castes were permitted to own arms, not going to go into this with more detail as its impossible to talk about this while refraining from Continental politics....

Anyway, back to today. I have a couple pistols for protection, I try to practice once a month as I enjoy shooting, plus bearing arms is necessary when you have lunatic police officers shooting civilians (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071008/ts_nm/shooting_wisconsin_dc_3;_ylt=An3x6h6lp8RVHp8YbM2RE pwE1vAI). There are lunatics here in the USA and I'm sure you have them across the great pond. Americans that are gun owners for the most part are not gun fanatics by any stretch of the imagination, most of my friends don't even know I have a couple firearms, it's not like I wear one on my hip pretending to be Jesse James. I've been less fortunate and have been in situations where I was fortunate enough to have a firearm, without it, I may not be typing this post.

The reason many people abroad think we're gun nuts is because people pay more attention to bad news and tragic gun situations, most gun owners are responsible citizens and not a bunch of nuts. It's the small percentage of nuts that go insane that are shown on BBC :)

[phantasm]

It does if you live in the country and your County Sheriff will take 30 minutes to reply to a call, as he or one of the other deputies on duty at night drive from one end of the county to the other. Not ever one lives in the city where cops patrol the neighborhoods and/or a five minutes away.

Where i lived in Central ME the County Sheriff came through once a month, otherwise it was a 45 minute ride for them to get to us.

Hmm I was misinformed. Time for me to rock a 249 again!

You wouldn't be able to as a civvy. The M249 isn't available, and the only M240B i ever saw available for civilians had a starting price of $150k.

[Tyranos]

Where i lived in Central ME the County Sheriff came through once a month, otherwise it was a 45 minute ride for them to get to us.



You wouldn't be able to as a civvy. The M249 isn't available, and the only M240B i ever saw available for civilians had a starting price of $150k.

We live 30 minutes from civilization as well. My wife also has epilepsy and takes care of our 2 month old daughter. I don't get paid enough to be able to live closer to town though.

And holy ass on the 240 price. I couldn't see paying over even 1000 bucks for some of the "well worn" 240's I've used.

[Vento1]

The reason many people abroad think we're gun nuts is because people pay more attention to bad news and tragic gun situations, most gun owners are responsible citizens and not a bunch of nuts. It's the small percentage of nuts that go insane that are shown on BBC :)

Very true.

[phantasm]

We live 30 minutes from civilization as well. My wife also has epilepsy and takes care of our 2 month old daughter. I don't get paid enough to be able to live closer to town though.

And holy ass on the 240 price. I couldn't see paying over even 1000 bucks for some of the "well worn" 240's I've used.

Yea, i miss the M240, M249, Mk19, M2 etc etc.

[Tyranos]

One of the reasons these statistics seem to be a lot is because of the way many people view a firearm as subject matter. Even 400m in circulation isn't a lot compared to other "obsessions"because firearms tend not to break down and require an RMA or anything of that sort. They have a long lifespan if cared for properly, so they stay in circulation. It's just that the thought of "lotsa guns" scares people. To me, that's like saying there are 5 billion screwdrivers in circulation, or 40 million automobiles on the east coast. If you view them only as a killing tool with fear and loathe, then any type of statistic regarding them scares you. To me it's not applicable to label an entire country obsessed with them.

[Tyranos]

Yea, i miss the M240, M249, Mk19, M2 etc etc.


+1 for the M2. Remember the first time you fired that weapon? Back in basic at ft benning it felt like I was firing an artillery installation or naval cannon compared to the m16's.... nevermind the AT4.

Never got to fire a Javelin though. :bang head:beer:

[phantasm]

+1 for the M2. Remember the first time you fired that weapon? Back in basic at ft benning it felt like I was firing an artillery installation or naval cannon compared to the m16's.... nevermind the AT4.

Never got to fire a Javelin though. :bang head:beer:

AT4's were nice. Ever been near a Claymore when it goes off? That's a religous experience!! lol.

[Tyranos]

AT4's were nice. Ever been near a Claymore when it goes off? That's a religous experience!! lol.

500m was close enough for me!

[MRD]

Anyway, back to today. I have a couple pistols for protection, I try to practice once a month as I enjoy shooting, plus bearing arms is necessary when you have lunatic police officers shooting civilians (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071008/ts_nm/shooting_wisconsin_dc_3;_ylt=An3x6h6lp8RVHp8YbM2RE pwE1vAI). There are lunatics here in the USA and I'm sure you have them across the great pond. Americans that are gun owners for the most part are not gun fanatics by any stretch of the imagination, most of my friends don't even know I have a couple firearms, it's not like I wear one on my hip pretending to be Jesse James. I've been less fortunate and have been in situations where I was fortunate enough to have a firearm, without it, I may not be typing this post.


I'm glad to know Sam has guns, because he used them on his Windows Vista disc. That is an important use of guns.

[phantasm]

500m was close enough for me!

I was about 10m to the rear and elevated of one when it went off. Damn that was insane!! I'll never forget it as long as i live.

[Tyranos]

I was about 10m to the rear and elevated of one when it went off. Damn that was insane!! I'll never forget it as long as i live.

Haha. Playing with claymores is a good date activity.

[Goonda]

Never got to fire a Javelin though. :bang head:beer:

Start playing Joint Ops IC-Mod. That's where I learned how to be a wicked shot with the G3 and the AK/GP5. Also proficient with Javs, hellfire birds, piloting Apaches, Tigers, Blackhawks and Humvees. These days, I just roam the city on an Abrams or a T-90. :beer:

[b1029384756]

Your statistics also don't take into consideration that there happens to be quite a few guns owned by the US military and police departments.

I think the main difference between the US and Canada is that we love our pistols, while Canada is mostly rifles and shotguns.

[Mathersalan]

We don't have any guns in our house but I know quite a few people who like to hunt deer.

Same here.. A lot here love to hunt deer, but they only own simple rifles nothing big or special. I don't deer hunt but I still own a couple of rifles and a few pistols where I live. Every month I go out in the back yard or field and target practic with my dads AK-223 semi auto, 1944 mosin nagant, H&K 45. USP compact, 38 spcl, and a .22 for about an hour and clean all my other guns and put them away. Pointless to own a lot of firepower..but there is protection when you need it!

I disagree with people owning firearms in major cities, deep down in the county I understand when the nearest police department is 30 miles away like me.

[drenader]

What about those semi-auto's that are legal. I can understand the protection line to a mild extent, but i think semi-auto weapons are a little over board. Am I off by thinking this?

[twEEkerAreUs]

What about those semi-auto's that are legal. I can understand the protection line to a mild extent, but i think semi-auto weapons are a little over board. Am I off by thinking this?

Why would it be overboard? A good chunk of pistols for protection are semi-auto. I can easily understand automatic weapons for protection be overboard, but not semi-auto.


I disagree with people owning firearms in major cities, deep down in the county I understand when the nearest police department is 30 miles away like me.

So you disagree with people owning firearms in major cities but in rural areas its fine? I'm not clear on why would you disagree with that.

Heck there are even semi shot guns now that will do some damage to a intruder

All shotguns unless using less lethal rounds will do serious damage to an intruder.

[Tyranos]

What about those semi-auto's that are legal. I can understand the protection line to a mild extent, but i think semi-auto weapons are a little over board. Am I off by thinking this?

Semi automatic just means that you charge the weapon once to chamber a round, then it will fire one shot with each squeeze of the trigger until the ammunition is depleted. It may sound scary, but it's really no more deadly than a cowboy gun. or any double action revolver. The reload time is a little faster once you get going because of the ammunition contained within magazines, but reloading a magazine is much slower than reloading a revolver's cylinder. In fact, once a revolver's cylinder is loaded, it can be fired faster than a lot of semi automatics. A double action revolver doesn't require you to pull the hammer back and lock it (single action) with every shot, or engage the hammer, and feed a round into the chamber by charging the weapon (semi auto). As soon as it's loaded, pull the trigger, hammer engages and disengages and it fires.

Some of the fastest shots in the world are actually done with single action revolvers (cowboy guns). Some men are literally able to fire those weapons faster than your eyes can track, it's hard to believe but true. All they do is hold the trigger down, which doesn't fire the weapon initially, and fan the hammer with their free hand, just like in the movies. The speed is only limited by a factor of how fast the user can move, and the physics of the trigger, sear, and hammer assembly.

[||Console||]

Heck there are even semi shot guns now that will do some damage to a intruder

[Mathersalan]

Why would it be overboard? A good chunk of pistols for protection are semi-auto. I can easily understand automatic weapons for protection be overboard, but not semi-auto.



So you disagree with people owning firearms in major cities but in rural areas its fine? I'm not clear on why would you disagree with that.


Nah I should of added more..I only disagree with owning firearms in some areas in major cities where there is a active crime watch and a police department a mile down the road. Not in rural areas where there is a sheriff's department 30 miles away like in a lot of places.

[twEEkerAreUs]

Nah I should of added more..I only disagree with owning firearms in some areas in major cities where there is a active crime watch, a police department a mile down the road. Not in rural areas where there is a sheriff's department 30 miles away like in a lot of places.

Well I understand what you mean but I don't see eye to eye with you on that. I have a police station about a mile away and they have terrible response times. Once I saw a drunk driver plow into a vehicle right by me and fled, I was seriously 800 - 1000 feet away from the police station.

It took them 7 mins to get to the scene. Now obviously this isn't (Person with a gun trying to shoot us story) but you can't rely on the Police to save your life. A lot of people just assume they will save the day and end up getting killed or close to it because they don't fight back, I've seen it numerous times around here.

This state allows CCW but in order to get it you have to jump through a few hoops and pay a fee & renewal fee after X time. It's nothing more then a money making setup to penalize citizens in my opinion for wanting to protect themselves. Some states that have CCW but it's more so a charade (California) where it's almost impossible to get one if you are in certain areas.

Law abiding citizens that have gun safety training, ccw training, and X amount of hours at the range are qualified in my opinion regardless of the area.

[Enablingwolf]

Lets just say I am in a good sized metro. :P

Also let's add that I might own a firearm or two. Carried from many moons ago. From lets say since ohh.. 1989. Legally purchased and all the good stuff.

If I did own a firearm or two. In a major city. Should I get rid of them? Even if the only time they are handled are to clean and service them. Otherwise they are stored safely away.

This is hypothectical of course.

[Tyranos]

Start playing Joint Ops IC-Mod. That's where I learned how to be a wicked shot with the G3 and the AK/GP5. Also proficient with Javs, hellfire birds, piloting Apaches, Tigers, Blackhawks and Humvees. These days, I just roam the city on an Abrams or a T-90. :beer:

Never played that before, but we were talking from experiences we had in the military. :)

Actually if you want to have hands on experience with those.... Enlist in the Army with an Airborne contract. After Infantry OSUT, you'll get stuck in pre airborne hold for a while.. tell the NCO in charge of you fng's that you want to go to Javelin school. When you finish, then you'll get to go to Airborne school. Do your time in the airborne infantry and you'll get to drive humvees and LMTV's all you want and most likely fire some AK47's if your unit has any they want to play with (if not, you might be able to fire them in the middle east when you deploy). G3 you'll probably have to find on your own personal time and shoot. You'll get to jump out of c130's, c17's, and maybe some rotary wing jumps out of a UH60. Depending on where you go you may get some spies/fries training too. Reup and reclass as a tank driver... Don't know if you'd actually like that. Re up again and see if you can become a warrant officer and fly helo's. Then retire. :)

[Silversinksam]

I'm glad to know Sam has guns, because he used them on his Windows Vista disc. That is an important use of guns.

I also shot Windows ME at the gun range years before. Vista met the same fate a few months back :beer:



If I did own a firearm or two. In a major city. Should I get rid of them? Even if the only time they are handled are to clean and service them. Otherwise they are stored safely away.

. That's what most responsible gun owners do.

[1cem4n]

well, america was built on a war and there's a lot of people who feel like it's their duty to their country to be able to defend their country. also, there's just something about guns which makes people want them.

i however, like race guns, bolt actions, revolvers, and shotguns. those are the guns which are fun to use at a range. just like people like going to the driving range, there are some who like the gun range.

[>HyperlogiK<]

Pretty confident in your hand to hand and ability to disarm an attacker? Would you bet your family's life on it? Or your own?

Perhaps I should have made myself clearer, I wasn't speaking about individual cases. Of course if you are attacked by an armed intruder and you have a gun, there is a greater likelihood that you will be able overcome them. However, statistically speaking I don't think there is much difference in the numbers of people getting injured during break-ins whether they have a gun or not.

It's not that I'm against gun membership, I intend to get a pistol licence when I move to Canada. It's just that a lot of people with macho idiot tendencies own guns, and they often to come up with all kinds of dubious justifications for why guns are utterly necessary rather than just useful or desirable. I'm no great fan of Michael Moore, but some of those interviewed in Bowling for Columbine did make one wonder.

[phantasm]

Lets just say I am in a good sized metro. :P

Also let's add that I might own a firearm or two. Carried from many moons ago. From lets say since ohh.. 1989. Legally purchased and all the good stuff.

If I did own a firearm or two. In a major city. Should I get rid of them? Even if the only time they are handled are to clean and service them. Otherwise they are stored safely away.

This is hypothectical of course.
That's what most responsible gun owners do.

I live in one of the most violent cities in the country, no way in hell would i get rid of my guns because "I live in the city."

[DerekDRP]

I always joke to the Americans/British here about America's obsession with guns. For a while, I thought this was just a big stereotype. But every week or so, a new gun thread appears on OCF (This week, it's about someone's request for tips on how to better shoot a magnum).

So it really isn't a stereotype? Americans are really obsessed with guns?Nerf guns are guns too you know :D

and I own 2 :D

[>HyperlogiK<]

and BB guns, for many people in the UK (I'm not just talking about criminals) it is probably easier to buy an illegal handgun than an airsoft pistol.

[xb1az3x]

Perhaps I should have made myself clearer, I wasn't speaking about individual cases. Of course if you are attacked by an armed intruder and you have a gun, there is a greater likelihood that you will be able overcome them. However, statistically speaking I don't think there is much difference in the numbers of people getting injured during break-ins whether they have a gun or not.

It's not that I'm against gun membership, I intend to get a pistol licence when I move to Canada. It's just that a lot of people with macho idiot tendencies own guns, and they often to come up with all kinds of dubious justifications for why guns are utterly necessary rather than just useful or desirable. I'm no great fan of Michael Moore, but some of those interviewed in Bowling for Columbine did make one wonder.

I don't know where you are from but I am from Chicago. What I learned about robberies is that 99% of the people who are willing to commit the robbery are willing to kill every person in the house as well. Chances are they will be carrying a gun and if you do not also have one consider yourself dead. My parents house in Chicago is near a police station but they don't have response times fast enough to keep you safe in a situation like that.

[PhysX]

Your statistics also don't take into consideration that there happens to be quite a few guns owned by the US military and police departments.

I think the main difference between the US and Canada is that we love our pistols, while Canada is mostly rifles and shotguns.


yeah, i guess thats how it is, but alot of us do hunt, who hunts with a pistol ? or is main for targets ?

[MRD]

I wouldn't have guns with kids around the house, but if everyone is an adult and of sound mind, I don't think it's a bad idea. I think they should be kept in a safe though so that if you have some kids over some time, they can't get into it.

I live in a nearly zero-crime area, but I can still see the need to protect yourself. I believe in alarm systems and guns for protection... but I'm more paranoid than most people about such things.

I support stronger gun control laws though.... waiting periods, no more gun shows, background checks, etc. We need to do more to make it harder for people to get guns who should not have them.

[phantasm]

I wouldn't have guns with kids around the house, but if everyone is an adult and of sound mind, I don't think it's a bad idea. I think they should be kept in a safe though so that if you have some kids over some time, they can't get into it.

I live in a nearly zero-crime area, but I can still see the need to protect yourself. I believe in alarm systems and guns for protection... but I'm more paranoid than most people about such things.

I support stronger gun control laws though.... waiting periods, no more gun shows, background checks, etc. We need to do more to make it harder for people to get guns who should not have them.

I've got to ask what you have against gun shows?

If it's the always popular "Gun Show Loophole" then it's a myth. Any firearm sold by a dealer at a gun show has to be processed as if it were being sold in a store. In other words, John Doe goes to "Johny's Guns" booth and decides to buy an H&K USPc 9mm. Mr. Doe has to have a background check completed and has to wait the alloted time. He doesnt just walk out with the firearm.

Of course there are exceptions. In some states, a Concealed Carry License can substitute the NCIS check because that person was run through the FBI database before they were issued the license (NOTE: This type of license is expensive and takes a few months to obtain). These inidividuals can purchase a handgun and take it home the same day.

[ryanmartini]

well here in Goergia, if we were ever invaded, I do not see them making it past Atlanta... Everyone has some sort of firearm down here. lol!

[MRD]

I'm not willing to buy your assertion that there is no loophole for gunshows, considering the large number of sources that say otherwise.

[Tyranos]

well here in Goergia, if we were ever invaded, I do not see them making it past Atlanta... Everyone has some sort of firearm down here. lol!

Not to mention you have an assload of Army and AF bases in the south!

[XeRoFuN]

I live in one of the most violent cities in the country, no way in hell would i get rid of my guns because "I live in the city."

Same here. We currently live in one of the top most violent crime cities in California, so I'll continue to have a 12 gauge by my side.

I wouldn't have guns with kids around the house, but if everyone is an adult and of sound mind, I don't think it's a bad idea. I think they should be kept in a safe though so that if you have some kids over some time, they can't get into it.

I live in a nearly zero-crime area, but I can still see the need to protect yourself. I believe in alarm systems and guns for protection... but I'm more paranoid than most people about such things.

I support stronger gun control laws though.... waiting periods, no more gun shows, background checks, etc. We need to do more to make it harder for people to get guns who should not have them.

The shotgun is out every day, but when our little boy gets older, all our firearms will probably be locked up in our safe. That's not to say he won't be curious about them, so teaching him safety when he's still very young will be important. Also, when he gets a little older, I know I'll end up buying him his own firearm...probably something in .22lr like the CZ 452 or a classic Ruger 10/22.

I support gun control laws as well, but, in my opinion, some of the laws are just ridiculous (especially in CA). When you turn 18, you can buy a shotgun or rifle without any safety instruction, yet you have to be 21 and pass a test to purchase a handgun. Yeah, yeah, I know it's because of the whole concealability thing...Shotguns and rifles are deadly, maybe even more so, than handguns. Also, with the ten day wait period, it does not make sense for those with firearms already. The wait is supposed to be a "cooling off" period, but if I wanted to commit a crime, why won't I just use one of my other firearms instead? I guess a shiny, new firearm would be better to commit crimes with :rolleyes:. I don't even want to get into it about high cap mags, OLLs, and CCW laws. :mad:

[Tyranos]

Regarding children and firearms, if you own any firearms, it's best to teach your children thoroughly and cleanse any sense of wonder or mythos regarding them. Take them to the range frequently, teach them proper weapon safety. Be firm with them, and teach them to respect the weapon, but don't surround it with mistique and NOT teach them. That is a recipe for a dead child. Above all, raise your child right, and don't give them a chance if they show that they're a little towards the "nutcase" side. You as a parent know whether your child can handle certain responsibilities or not. My younger brother has been handling and caring for firearms since he was around 9 years old. He's now 13, and "owns" a 1911 style .45 and Mossberg pump 12 gauge. I feel safer with him handling a weapon than many of the guys I met in the Army.

[phantasm]

I'm not willing to buy your assertion that there is no loophole for gunshows, considering the large number of sources that say otherwise.

That's cool. I've worked a few gunshows and know alot of the reps. and local shop owners there. Most gunshows also have LEO's present to keep things legal. But to each their own. :beer:

[MRD]

I'd like to see much stricter laws against parents whose children die in firearm accidents. IMO, if your kid dies playing with your firearm, that should be life in prison. That would be a real incentive to make sure that you don't let that kid get near that firearm.

I also think that anyone who sells a gun and does not follow every law to the letter should be held legally responsible for any crime committed with that weapon. i.e. You sell a gun w/o a background check, and someone shoots his wife, then you're on trial for murder 1.

Better deterrence is necessary because people do not take guns seriously enough, and as a result, people die.

There should also be a national database established, and anyone who is forbidden from owning a gun should be in it and searchable immediately by fingerprint. When you want to buy a gun, you should have to put your fingerprint on a pad and a computer can search if you're on the no-gun list. There is absolutely no way the VT shooter should have been able to buy a gun, but the information about his being a danger to self, as ruled by a psych professional, did not get into the right databases so he passed the background check. That shouldn't happen.

[Hardin]

Better deterrence is a good thing but you can't convict anyone of murder 1 unless it was pre meditated.

[Tyranos]

I think a dead child is incentive enough..

As for the background check for personal sales, maybe if it was free and painless for the seller.

[speed bump]

Maybe not anywhere else but where I live we are definetly gun nuts. In fact were so nutty about guns that my proffessor was talking about hunting in class today, my boss collects shotguns, and when people move here from places that don't have as strong of a gun culture as we have here automatically start thinking they have to buy a gun and around Oct. 21st go wander through the woods with. Yet weirdly enough we have very little gun crime. Why? I think it is becuase we have a culture of firearms respect and proper useage.


I'd like to see much stricter laws against parents whose children die in firearm accidents. IMO, if your kid dies playing with your firearm, that should be life in prison. That would be a real incentive to make sure that you don't let that kid get near that firearm.

I also think that anyone who sells a gun and does not follow every law to the letter should be held legally responsible for any crime committed with that weapon. i.e. You sell a gun w/o a background check, and someone shoots his wife, then you're on trial for murder 1.

Better deterrence is necessary because people do not take guns seriously enough, and as a result, people die.

There should also be a national database established, and anyone who is forbidden from owning a gun should be in it and searchable immediately by fingerprint. When you want to buy a gun, you should have to put your fingerprint on a pad and a computer can search if you're on the no-gun list. There is absolutely no way the VT shooter should have been able to buy a gun, but the information about his being a danger to self, as ruled by a psych professional, did not get into the right databases so he passed the background check. That shouldn't happen.


Trust me if a parent loses there kid in an accident such as that its even worse than life in prision. Also you already can be chraged with negligence or criminal negligence.

My friend bought a Colt M1911 and if the person he bought it from doesn't put that down on his taxes is going to be responsible for the sign that has 20 .45cal bullet holes in it? Also FFLs get inspected atleast once a year so everything is generally in order and the fines and penalties that exist now are already a pretty darn good deterent(Well atleast according to the people I have met with FFLs).

We do that already except its not instant.The VT shooter by the way wouldn't have made that list becuase he was voluntarily commited, if the psych professional would have said he had to go then he would have made a list that said he couldn't buy a firearm from a licensed dealer.

Honestly I find it kind of interesting that you have these feelings about firearms but in your own signature are against the same kind of regulations for computers.

[Silversinksam]

who hunts with a pistol ? or is main for targets ?

Believe it or not, many people do, personally I think it's inhumane for the most part, because even .454 and even with the the king of the hill, the S&W's .500 (http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10001&storeId=10001&productId=14807&langId=-1&isFirearm=Y)

First of all, I don't hunt, although I've been a few times and it's not my thing, if I want meat I go to the store, but I know even with one of the two hunting pistols above, they are not even in the same league as a good hunting rifle, the manufacturer claims with a scope on them they are good to 200 yards....Yah right, maybe for the most skilled pistol shooters, but 200 yards is a range for a rifle, not a pistol, especially if your going for a kill shot to the organs. When this pistol came out in 2003 (was the pistol of the year) I envisioned hundreds of wounded animals all limping around from people trying to shoot them from 100 yards or more and just injuring or slowly killing the critters. These pistols imho do have a good use, such as a hunting back up gun if a grizzly is charging you. Aside from that, imho I view them as silly.

PS, You guys remember that 1000lb pig hoax (http://www.stinkyjournalism.org/newsdetail.php?id=45) ? that domesticated pig was shot by that kid a few months back? He used a S&W model 500, look at the close up pictures, he shot the pig in the rump, one near the skull that I'm sure probably bounced off as pigs that big have thick skulls and he probably took the kill shot hours later to the vital organs after chasing around this domestic non feral pig for hours. A decent scoped rifle in 30/06 or .270 would have helped with the one shot one kill best case sceanrio.

People hunt with pistols, but imho, I think it's nuts unless your really close..

[Tyranos]

Only pistol worth hunting with are the siloette single shot pistols that are chambered for high powered rifle rounds. I don't think I'd enjoy firing a 30-06 from a pistol though.

[b1029384756]

yeah, i guess thats how it is, but alot of us do hunt, who hunts with a pistol ? or is main for targets ?

Handguns are mainly for personal protection, including while hunting. If a hunter is attacked by a grizzly bear (you have those in Canada, right?), it's good to have a gun effective at point blank range. It's illegal to hunt with anything but a shotgun (or possibly black powder rifles) in this state, but if I were being attacked by a dangerous animal, I'd rather risk a fine and loss of hunting privileges than being killed.

For home defense, a shotgun loaded with duck shot is usually better than a handgun anyway.

Mostly, pistols are good to be able to carry around, which isn't permitted in this state. A person isn't going to be able to carry a rifle in a state that requires concealed carry.

[splat]

Q: Why do Americans have guns?

A: Because we can.

next question.

[MRD]

The need to regulate guns is far more important than the need to regulate computers. Worst case scenario with computers is the RIAA loses a few bucks. Worst case with a gun is that people die. It's not comparable. I am not for banning guns, but I am for making sure that the right people get them. It is in the interest of the people to make sure that anyone who is a criminal or mentally unfit does not obtain a firearm, and if someone circumvents laws to that effect, they are endangering everyone.

You claim that current laws or the death of a child are enough of a deterrent, but I think the fact that so many kids die every year because of their parents not taking care of firearms is proof enough that current laws are NOT enough of a deterrent. I'm all for making the background check as automated and painless as possible, the point is not to annoy people, but the cost of it should be paid by the gun shops and owners, as that is part of the cost of owning a gun. It's like toll from roads paying for construction... you use it, you pay for it.

You can easily change the law to make gun sellers responsible for anything that happens with their guns IF they do not follow the law in selling the guns. Take the guy that sold the pistol to the VT shooter. He followed the rules perfectly, ran a background check... how could he know? He's not responsible. However, had he just "skipped" the background check, I'd say he should be convicted of any crime committed with that gun.

It's very simple. Follow the law, and you won't have any problems. Break the law on something as serious as gun sales, and there should be a huge price to pay. We need to work much harder to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. While no system will do that perfectly (someone may have no record), we should use every means at our disposal.

Also, you're wrong on the VT shooter. He was declared a danger to self, which means that he should not have been eligible to purchase a firearm under Virginia law. However, because of the way the information is passed around, it never got sent to the right people. After the shootings, the govt of Virginia enacted new procedures to make sure that the information gets where it needs to faster. The fault was not the gun shop owner's, but rather the government of Virginia for being so lax in their creation of a no-gun list.

[Tyranos]

Like I said, death of their children are a deterrent enough. What worse can you do to a (caring) parent than say their child is going to die?

It's not that the parents actually need an additional deterrent like life in jail (Honestly, I'd rather die than see my daughter's life end before mine, life in jail is nothing in comparison). It's because the parents themselves are either too lazy to teach and discipline their children concerning ANY possible points of danger within their home, failing to address the points I've put out, or they themselves have no clue on proper firearms handling and care, so they really don't have anything to teach the children. I don't think it dawns on many of them to teach their children about possible dangers in the environment around them other than the basic points like not to stick your head on the stove. I do believe due to the lack of “training” the mystique behind the firearm still attracts young ones to poke and prod, but I also believe many of those children could have died from other causes given half the chance.

[Mathersalan]

Well I understand what you mean but I don't see eye to eye with you on that. I have a police station about a mile away and they have terrible response times. Once I saw a drunk driver plow into a vehicle right by me and fled, I was seriously 800 - 1000 feet away from the police station.

It took them 7 mins to get to the scene. Now obviously this isn't (Person with a gun trying to shoot us story) but you can't rely on the Police to save your life. A lot of people just assume they will save the day and end up getting killed or close to it because they don't fight back, I've seen it numerous times around here.

This state allows CCW but in order to get it you have to jump through a few hoops and pay a fee & renewal fee after X time. It's nothing more then a money making setup to penalize citizens in my opinion for wanting to protect themselves. Some states that have CCW but it's more so a charade (California) where it's almost impossible to get one if you are in certain areas.

Law abiding citizens that have gun safety training, ccw training, and X amount of hours at the range are qualified in my opinion regardless of the area.

Wow that is slow..Cops here are slow but a state trooper will get you faster than you can say "oh sh*t".

[MRD]

It's obviously not enough deterrent, because lots of kids are still dying to them. I still remember the day in middle school that it came over the loudspeaker that one of my classmates had been killed playing with a gun that her friend's father had left out (the two girls were playing together, and it went off).

Maybe you'd rather die than see your daughter die, but that doesn't mean it's true for everyone. Until people take guns seriously enough that their kids can never get them, the penalties need to increase.

Also, if people don't understand what they need to to be safe with guns, they shouldn't have the right to have them. I would not be opposed to making people pass a test on firearm safety rules and laws. By your own admission, many do not have any clue on firearm safety, handling, etc. Those people should not have the right to have guns until they learn the necessary information to be safe and keep others safe.

I can't have a gun where I am now, but I've considered buying one. I would keep it in a safe that only I had the combination to, and that preferably used some sort of biometrics in addition to prevent anyone else from getting access (like a fingerprint pad). Guns are not toys, and they must be kept out of the hands of children. If parents can't do that, then they don't belong out in the free population.

I am not opposed to guns in general, but I think they need to be highly regulated because they are so dangerous. If I could, I'd ban firearms completely... but I mean completely, that means illegal guns too. i.e. A country where only military/law enforcement have guns. However, we all know that that is not feasible, and that criminals will still get guns illegally, and I do not see much to be gained in taking guns from law abiding citizens and just letting the criminals keep them. Thus, I believe the best practical solution is that we have a high degree of regulation on guns and strong penalties for their misuse.

[xb1az3x]

You claim that current laws or the death of a child are enough of a deterrent, but I think the fact that so many kids die every year because of their parents not taking care of firearms is proof enough that current laws are NOT enough of a deterrent.

Do you have any numbers for this? I'm not saying you're wrong or calling you out, I'm genuinely curious about how many time this happens. I didn't think it happened very much but I could be wrong.

[Tyranos]

I do agree requiring training in safety for firearms would help deter accidental deaths and inury, but that is treading on a fine line by saying they don't have the right to own a firearm until they do. I'm sure it can be stipulated like every other law with an agenda to get around the amendment, but I'm not sure on what kind of reaction that would result from the public. And technically law enforcement is civilian, subject to the same laws as you and I (yea right). Military is a different subject, as they have the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and are not civilians, though subjected to many civilian laws themselves. So saying a police officer can carry a weapon, but your neighbor the plumber can't, isn't fair in my opinion.

Personally, like SSS pointed out, I'd trust in my skills and weapons training far more than your average beat cop. They're liable to shoot you instead of saving you. That actually leads to another opinion that I have that all law enforcement personnel MUST have a combat arms job/mos/rate history in the military, but chosen and trained carefully to prevent the “delta sf ranger commando” paramilitary mindset that is absolutely plaguing our “Constables of Peace” during this day and age.

[MRD]

As I said, I'm not actually advocating removing guns completely, as there is no way to remove them from criminals completely, so I think both civilians and police should be allowed to have guns.

The 2nd amendment doesn't say that citizens have an absolutely unrestricted right to own and bear arms. Reasonable restrictions that are in the public interest are entirely consistent with it. For example, convicted felons are citizens, but they do not have the right to own and bear arms. There is no mention of this exception in the 2nd amendment. Also, certain types of arms are not allowed (you can't buy a P-90 at the local gun shop), or for that matter, surface to air missiles (they are indeed arms). The courts have consistently interpreted the amendment to mean that reasonable restrictions are not unconstitutional. I am not suggesting that someone need pass an exam that takes them 6 months to study for 6 hours a day on every detail of firearms. I'm talking about a basic course in how they work, how to be safe with them, what laws you must observe if you own one, how to keep them safe from children, etc. Any person of reasonable intelligence could easily learn these things, so it does not place an undue burden on them. There could be courses, but if you know it already, you could demonstrate it by passing a test (like driver ed basically). Some people learn all about guns from their parents, some buy them and don't know anything about them. This is not safe.

[Tyranos]

Unfortunately the lobbyists on both sides aren't concerned with a middle ground. Generally the people pushing gun control laws ultimately want a total ban on any type of firearm (unless you’re privileged like Hillary Clinton. Huge anti firearm activist, but it’s said she does own “a few”). This is obviously not going to do anything to crime rates, but it will render us defenseless as citizens, a la Hitler Germany. On the other side, firearms for all with no restrictions, no training needed.

And we all know how government agencies work in most areas when it comes to processing anything. Long lines, poor service, worse than banker’s hours. You’d have close to a local civil war if you all of a sudden required taking a test or training on proper firearm useage and effectively making existing gun owners criminals until they do so on their own time. Not to mention all the people that will just take the test, or even training, and not apply any of that at all.

Internet training and tests like taking an EPA refrigerant cert would be very helpful, but many gun owners aren't internet savvy nor have access to the internet, and many have never even touched a computer.

[MRD]

I agree with you that what we need is a middle ground, not the extremist positions of either side. We need a right to own and bear arms but it needs to be restricted in some ways to make the public safer.

I don't think it would be that bad to set up a test of basic gun knowledge. You could give existing gun owners 2 years or something to take it, or even grandfather them in on existing guns and apply it only to new purchases.

I still think one of the most critical things would be a very fast, instantly searchable database with comprehensive data on all those people who should not be allowed to have guns. It should be NATIONAL, not state-based. Background checks should be both instant and very reliable. We easily have the technology to implement that today.

[phantasm]

That actually leads to another opinion that I have that all law enforcement personnel MUST have a combat arms job/mos/rate history in the military, but chosen and trained carefully to prevent the “delta sf ranger commando” paramilitary mindset that is absolutely plaguing our “Constables of Peace” during this day and age.

I have to agree with this statement. Combat Arms speciailty is just that, you learn to "shoot and move" under pressure in all different kinds of situations. I wouldn't be as paranoid about the police if they had that kind of training. Frankly, when i see a cop with his gun drawn, i go the other way. They may empty 2 magazines and only hit the guy twice. Not good odds.

[MRD]

http://www.snopes.com/crime/cops/judd.asp

Another case of underestimating the ammo requirements

As reported earlier this week, some dirtbag who got pulled over in a routine traffic stop in Florida ended up "executing" the deputy who stopped him.

The deputy was shot eight times, including once behind his right ear at close range.

Another deputy was wounded and a police dog killed.

A statewide manhunt ensued. The low-life piece of human garbage was found hiding in a wooded area with his gun. SWAT team officers fired and hit said low-life 68 times.

Now here's the kicker: Asked why they shot the guy 68 times, Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd told the Orlando Sentinel ... get this. "That's all the bullets we had."

God bless Sheriff Judd!

[Tyranos]

I don’t think I’d have any problems if the tests were introduced that way, it sounds rather fair to me.

The database would be nice, but I think it would be a point of weakness for abuse by people with access to it, as to exactly what crimes or convictions can constitute immediate denial to own a firearm. I fear it would be used as a tool to pick and choose who can or cannot own one, or completely abolish the right for us all. I suppose that can happen with the current system though, and I understand the main benefit would be for private sellers that aren’t set up to do background checks in their own homes.

This is kind of funny since I’m contemplating on selling a few firearms to purchase more computer parts!

[Tyranos]

http://www.snopes.com/crime/cops/judd.asp

Wow, 68 times? Police tactics and team setup vary, just like in the military, but if you assume they had a minimal fire team of 4 men, and each one carried an m4, even if they used only 1 magazine each, they missed 52 times...

[MRD]

Actually according to the article they fired 110 rounds, and 68 hit. I jus tlove the line "That's all the bullets we had."

I have no sympathy for the piece of **** that they killed. He killed a police officer, wounded another, and killed a police dog. That guy was going down.

The database would only be there to enforce currently existing legislation about who is disqualified, e.g. felons, people with psych holds, etc. It wouldn't exclude anyone that isn't already excluded, it would just expedite the process of figuring out who is and is not excluded under current law.

[Tyranos]

I’ve only made one sale to a stranger (a friend of friends). I sold a guy a Romanian Kalishnakov. I didn’t have any way of finding out whether or not he could legally own one aside from his age, but I did write up a document with the firearm’s serial number, make and model basically stating that ownership transferred from me to him in a legal personal sale on such and such date and time, which I had him sign. He actually looked a bit scared and looked like he was buying a suitcase nuke.

[ryanmartini]

Not to mention you have an assload of Army and AF bases in the south!

theres a AF and a national guard base within 40 min of my house :D

[Goonda]

It is not 100% certain that you can protect yourself if somebody tries to break-in/rob you. In most cases, you will be taken by surprise and usually get killed if you try to draw a weapon. I don't have stats to back this up (sure you can find some), but usually the person with the drawn weapon wins a CQB fight. :)

Question:
Why not use a flash-bang against a grizzly if he comes charging at you (and you have time to react)?

[Neuromancer]

Well...no. It just means there are 3 people for every 2 guns. But it doesn't mean 2/3 people in America are running around with guns. e.g. newborns probably aren't packing heat. I suppose many people have multiple firearms.

But yeah, that's pretty surprising. 200 million is quite high.

Exactly. It is much more like 1 in 10 people have firearms.

Firearms are not "cool" or "toys" people that think they are should not have them. (Gangbangers etc). Hunters and enthusiasts may own 10-12 firearms or more. There are multiple shotgun or rifle types for different areas and types of game you are pursuing. Plus most people that hunt will also have a sidearm for personal protection. Handheld weapons are generally not used for anything but sefl protection or to delivery a killing shot to a wounded animal at short range. (Big game).

I strongly support the right to bear arms in this country, but my situation is not tenable to owning one. I move around a lot and have children so I do not own large pieces of furniture in which I would keep firearms for safety. Plus I do not hunt. Until they have open season on cows and chickens, I will not eat what I shoot. :)

[MRD]

I don't think personal sales should be legal like that. I think that transferring a gun should require going down to the town hall or some such place and having them run some kind of check to verify the recipient can legally receive the gun, and then fill out some official paperwork tracking the transfer of the gun.

I think the ownership of all guns needs to be tracked and known at all times by the government.

[Tyranos]

I don't, that is placing too much trust into an entity that has grown beyond the scope of a constitutional republic. I don't want to get into hard politics though. It's not that I don't trust our government, it's that I distrust evil ******** that are in positions of power.

[phantasm]

I’ve only made one sale to a stranger (a friend of friends). I sold a guy a Romanian Kalishnakov. I didn’t have any way of finding out whether or not he could legally own one aside from his age, but I did write up a document with the firearm’s serial number, make and model basically stating that ownership transferred from me to him in a legal personal sale on such and such date and time, which I had him sign. He actually looked a bit scared and looked like he was buying a suitcase nuke.

Any firearm that i personally sold was sold to an individual with a valid Concealed Carry License. That provides me with a little oomph in case anything should happen.

[xb1az3x]

I don't think personal sales should be legal like that. I think that transferring a gun should require going down to the town hall or some such place and having them run some kind of check to verify the recipient can legally receive the gun, and then fill out some official paperwork tracking the transfer of the gun.

I think the ownership of all guns needs to be tracked and known at all times by the government.

This is stupid because just about every crime that involves a gun, involves a gun that was obtained illegally in the first place. So tracking legally obtained guns like this would cost far too much and be completely unnecessary.

[phantasm]

This is stupid because just about every crime that involves a gun, involves a gun that was obtained illegally in the first place. So tracking legally obtained guns like this would cost far too much and be completely unnecessary.

Big +1. It's not the LEGALLY owned firearms that you need to worry about. It's the illegal firearms in circulation that are the problem.

[MRD]

Actually, that's not true. Lots and lots of guns used in crimes are illegal, but far from all. Also, the very threat of being arrested serves as a deterrent for people considering a crime.

IF you don't enforce restrictions on person to person transfers, then they do you no good at all. There can't be a loophole that people can go through, or the whole system of restrictions is meaningless.