Please stop! :)

Remove all ads!

I just want to sat that from a hunter in the " old west " of America that the only .50 ( the proper way to write it ) is black powder with wad and ball. Also we are not allowed automatic weapons. But thats okay for people who don't know.

 

Z, try to factor in the population difference between the UK and the US. You're comparing the amount of crime in the UK with a population of about 60,000,000 people to the US at approximately 285,000,000 people. Ofcourse there is a lot more gun crime in the US. There are a lot more people.

[ October 19, 2002, 23:29: Message edited by: Xenecor ]

 

AHHHHHH!!!! No i'm not!!! I'm going by monthly proportion. I'm not so stupid as to count the number of crimes in each country.

 

Monthly proportion? I don't understand what you mean by that. Elaborate please.

[ October 20, 2002, 02:29: Message edited by: Xenecor ]

 

Look at the number of violent crimes in each country in one month. Then scale them down based on the population till it's fair.

 

Ragusa,

Once again, I think you used the term "assault" weapon.

May I ask what, exactly, you think that means?

Please don't describe a weapons use - as that's not definitional.

 

Rag's in Germany, and I have no idea what their deal is over there. I think if it propels a projectile, it's an assault weapon; over there.

Over here, there's been several different "definations". I'm not sure which ones are federal now, and which ones are still state.

The original def. came directly from the Attorney General. He literally came out with a list of all weapons that carried the designation "assault weapon". This was all through the 80's.

There's another one now, and I think this one has actually been signed into federal law, that defines an "assault weapon" as having at least 3 of 5 different characteristics. At least semi-automatic fire, pistol grip, magazine capactiy over 14 rounds, and some others that I don't remember anymore. All full-auto capable weapons automatically qualify, period.

So, there actually has been laws passed that define an "assault weapon", in the US.

 

I use the term assault rifle in the same way as Ragusa does even though I am quite aware that the term isnt completely correct. But I have yet to find a good english word for what AK stands for as atleast in swedish AK is 'automat karbin' I could perhaps translate that to some english word like automatic carbine or something but as I have never heard it spoken or written I have never wanted to do so. My definition of an AK and thus assault rifle are weapons primarly used by the military and then by footsoldiers like the american M-16, the famous AK-47 Kalashnikov the swedish AK-5 and AK-4 those kind of weapons. I am not an expert on most of these firearms but I did use the AK-5 while I was in the army and I know the devastating power that humblelooking little rifle has. 5,56mm calibre and I dont remember the exact speed of the bullet as it leaves the barrel but it was just below what is allowed by international treaties so as to not make it a highpseed weapon which are illegal. The point is that the AK-5 is designed as a more or less perfect antipersonell weapon and is usable by any fool as it is extremely simple in its design but have an awesome firepower. You dont need to aim very much as long as you hit somewhere on the target he is dead, arms get torn off, huge holes in your legs which make you to bleed to death quite quickly and thats when you miss so to speak, if you hit in the chest or in the head the target is dead before he hits the ground. The bullets are designed to not take the straight way out of the body but to go in 'zic-zac' so they make the most damage. So when I say assault rifle and I think I can be presumptios to the say that Ragusa says the same so am I talking about weapons that are designed to kill their target in one hit and at the same time being very simple to use so any idiot soldier can pick one up and start killing with little or no training. That is not weapons I think should be out among the general populace. The difference between any handgun and a AK (assault rifle) is like the difference between a slingshot and a normal pistol. That was what I learnt when I was in the army I dont know about all them other 'assault rifles' as I didnt get any education of them but I cant imagine that they have much less firepower than the one I used.

 

In Germany we have the weapons-law. It prohibits - IMO for good reasons - to own:
firearms other than pistols/ revolvers shorter than 60cm (=2 feet; since they are easily concealed, folding weapons are prohibited as well),
bipods and tripods (since they are only useful for distances not useful for hunting),
silencers,
concealed weapons like a pencil gun,
night vision devices,
gun lights,
full automatic weapons such as submachine guns, mashine guns and automatic rifles with a magazine capacity higher than 3 rounds,
eventually there are thoughts to ban pump-action shotguns since their high rate of fire comes so close to an automatic weapon, probably there will be a magazine capacity limit of 4 rounds or so.
But that was just colorandi causa.
Assault weapon does not mean a weapon which can be used to assault someone with but as a weapon close to an assault rifle (deriving form the grandmother of all assault rifles, the german Sturmgewehr-44) as Joaqin rightly pointed out - like the M-16, the AK-47 or the G-3 or AUG, and it should IMO include semi-automatic carbines like the popular Ruger since they can be too easily (yet, depending on state, illegally) converted to full auto - which seems rather popular since I have seen advertisements in US magazines for that. IMO no civvie needs a weapon like the ones I listed before. It must be a silly hunter to need a 40r-magazine capacity for hunting ... anything, if he does he's inconsequent: why not hunting with a claymore mine (highly efficient for home defense as well ...) ?
.
PS: There is absolutely no problem with the government restricting gun ownership on certain weapon types suitable only for hunting, sports and self defense - eventually these are the only fields where civvies are allowed to use them.
If someone thinks that firing a minigun or a .50 cal rifle is the espression of his constitutional freedom to own guns he's wrong. Maybe it's silly for him if he has to give away his favourite toy, but that's not even `disarmamament´ since he would be allowed to keep is venerable .45 colt and his hunting rifles. He would still be able to defend himself, to sport and to hunt, just a little different, with common sense. So what?
There can't really be a doubt about the right of the government to restrict the gun ownership to certain types of firearms. That would even be conform with the 2nd amendment (how obsolete that however may be

[ October 22, 2002, 22:48: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Ah, Rag - thanks for the post. So many things to respond to.

Tell me, how many crimes have been committed with a .50 caliber rifle in private hands?

I ask because with so many that oppose the private ownership of a broad range of firearms, you seem to do so because you think it's "silly" or because of how it makes you feel, or your opinion. So...with the specter of stupid legislation passed to make people "feel good" in the background (something I hope you and I can agree is a waste of time and money), why not focus on the data?

BTW, you're fundamentally missing a major point in analyzing crime. Interested in a fully automatic H&K MP5? Try $15,000. If you can afford that, you think you're doing petty robbery? A .50 cal? Way too expensive and rare for someone to use it to knock over a liquor store.

And finally - "bipods and tripods (since they are only useful for distances not useful for hunting),"

Forgive me from being dumbfounded and the absurdity of this statement, since I suppose Germans wait for the deer to fall asleep and then beat it to death with the butt of an (obviously) unloaded rifle.

 

I'm kinda a bit confused over that post.

So, if I'm guessing right, you guys can have rifles?

Like say, a 30-06 or 30-30, semi-automatic, with a 6 or 8 round clip?

That's cool. I could deal with that.

Personally, rather than ban any kind of firearm, I'd rather start enforcing the "Well Regulated Militia" part of the Second Amendment. It'd be some work, but then you could have the militia take care of their own, so it wouldn't be a problem in the end...

 

Rightwinger, you're a beancounter, and a dimwit too - is there a difference between a costly MP-5 and cheap Mac-10 (or any other SMG)? All SMGs offer way too much firepower for a civvy to hold. 300-800rpm are a little bit too much for home defence, the SMGs accuracy is unsuited for sporting unless you like your target to look like a pollock paining and as for hunting - if you like minced meat (if you hit your target at all beyond 50 metres ...) ... Tell me rightwinger, for what purpose does a civilian *need* a submashine gun?

No crimes commited with a .50 cal? Who cares. Would you give a 155mm howizer even to a well reputed, law abiding citizen? How about a 40mm Bofors? Or a bazooka? Or a handgrenade? Where is the problem - look in the crime statistics - no crimes with 155mm howizers, handgrenades and bazookas ... How do you read a statistic? That there are no crimes with .50 cal rifles does not mean that there is a point in giving it to a civilian, much less a right of the civilian to own it.
You have to understand that somewhere you have to draw a line: The formidable performance of a .50 cal round (the munition basically is armour piercing) is, that much at least, definitely too much punch in the hands of a civilian, how law abiding he however may be. That's a pretty good reason and a strong argument IMO.

There is a big difference between the (and please, that's generously understood) needs of the population for sports, hunting and self-defence and the private ownerships of weapons made for the military. No reason to allow a civilian to own a such a weapon. There are weapons in civvies hands in the US no sane person needs - for the three fields I pointed out: Sports, hunting and self-defence. And everything that's larger or has a higher firepower is just that: Too much.

As for hunting and bipods: Hunting is generally meant to kill the animal at first shot - to minimize the suffering for the poor beast. That means hitting the neck or the heart with first shot. A hunter with a good rifle, even more with scopes, should be able to do that on a distance of up to 400 metres. On larger distances you's need a bipod or tripod to stabilize your gun to be able to get a safe, precise shot ... with the accuracy of your gun dropping and the chance of a good hit decreasing. Sure, a tripod and a bipod would help to increase accuracy, but they would also enable every hunter to be a longer range sniper - and that was not wanted - for reasons you can actually watch in Washington .... and eventually there is the romantic thought of hunting as an art and that the game needs a chance, otherwise it would be like hunting tigers in the zoo ...

[ October 22, 2002, 10:21: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Ragusa,

I can thank my lucky stars that you're not involved in formulating public policy. Again, it's emotional driven speculation that you seem to place much stock in.

Why aren't there crimes with howitzers? Umm..perhaps cause no one has them.

But we do have .50 caliber rifles, and a lot of 'em. Matter of fact, the vast majority of muzzle-loading rifles are .50 caliber - and I'll be damned if you can produce a rampant muzzleloading crime spree.

I'm also glad you don't seem to know much about firearms. Rates of fire are nearly meaningless - even counterproductive in many cases when it comes to the destructive force of a weapon. Considering that you're not going to see anyone with 4000-5000 rounds to fire at a given time unless they go through about 3-400 clips, not sure how that's relevant.

The crux is this: "And everything that's larger or has a higher firepower is just that: Too much."

Too much for what? Your sensibilities? Perhaps. I tend to value the fact that we trust our law-abiding citizens who, by definition, abide the law. They are able to enjoy the pastime/hobby/whatever you call it of shooting, whether for leisure/competition/actual defense with a wide variety of weapons. While I don't own a rifle semi-automatic or otherwise, it's very fun and very challenging to become proficient with it.

As for those who would misuse it? Attach and deliver penalties that severely outweigh the usefulness of such weapons. It's worked in Richmond, VA as I mentioned before that no one responded to.

 

I was clearly referring to the calibre .50 BMG (aka 12,7 x 99 NATO), and I think I made that pretty clear. Besides, I've had opportunity to shoot the weapons I'm talking about in the army and I am very well aware of the effects of their use. I'm a pretty good shooter and I actually enjoyed shooting. However, despite all the fun I had with it (except for cleaning) I cannot see a reason why I should have an assault rifle in my home.

Guns are deadly weapons, meant to kill people. Military weapons such as SMGs, assault rifles and mashineguns are even more efficient for that purpose. You fail to recognize the difference between the firepower *needed* for sports, hunting or home defence and the firepower full automatic weapons offer - more, since you instead believe in an inherent right to own whatever-you-like I can't see a real point in explaining it to you again and again. You're perception of gun ownership and the types is emotional and clearly not based on rational considerations. Besides, you're aware you haven't answered any of the questions I threw up in this thread, spitting out nonsense instead?

You still haven't told me why a civilian, how law abiding however, needs a full automatic firearm, any full automatic weapon. That's a completely non-technical question. I only ask for some common sense for a change. That btw has nothing to do with how law abiding he is or what the crime statistics say. So why does a civilian need such an amount of firepower?

[ October 22, 2002, 23:11: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

I've not advocated the right of civilians to own fully automatic weapons. In fact, it's not possible here. (ok, it's possible - but very, very rare)

I just believe in that inherent right, and if you plan on infringing on it - you better have a damn good reason to do so, and evidence to back it up.

 

That is no reply.

 

Heh. This is an impasse I've discovered before with Euro v. American debates. A good number of citizens of European countries want to know why someone should be allowed to do something.

Americans instead assume that they are free to do as they choose and that government has to have a reason for restricting them.

In my opinion, the American version is far superior. I never understand why people whose governments (e.g., Germany) have in the past terrorized the people tend to trust their governments while people in America, where we've never had anything approaching a Stalin, Hitler, Franco, etc., don't trust the government to do squat.

 

Up until Shralps last post I didn't see anyone here really begin to talk about the nature of a right. Shralp hinted at it.

So, lets take this off on a bit of a philosophical bent. The U.S. was founded with the philosophy of John Locke as a guide. (Jefferson wrote and conversed with Locke, Locke wrote all men had the right to life, liberty, and property while Locke changed it to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness etc.)

Locke and the U.S. was born out of a libertarian ideal. That's not libertarian in the modern sense, but libertarian in a classical sense.

Distilled to its essence, the libertarian/American way of thinking about things began as : "I should be able to do whatever I like so long as I don't do direct harm to another." The idea behind this is all men are equal, and your judgment of what I may or may not do is no better than mine, and since I'm an autonomous being I should be allowed to do what I please as long as I don't cause direct harm to another. Since we're all equal you don't have a right to tell me what I'm doing is wrong if I'm not causing direct harm.

So, I have the right to own a gun. I don't have a right to shoot someone with it. I have a right to own and use heroin. I don't have the right to force it into someone else. etc.

It is crucial to differentiate between direct and indirect harm. Shooting heroin doesn't directly hurt anyone other than myself. Now, my family may be saddened etc but that is indirect harm. I may neglect my family if I'm high, not providing for the welfare of an infant, but that isn't the direct result of shooting heroin. In other words, it is not a necessary consequence of shooting heroin that someone else be harmed.

Likewise, it is not a necessary consequence of owning a gun that someone else be harmed.

Therefore, I have the right to posess heroin and own a gun. I don't have the right to harm others.

So far, the argument has been utilitarian based. People have been saying, "why do you need a gun?"

In order to convince Americans they don't have the right to own a gun, you'll need to come up with an argument for why they don't have that right, not tell them other people with guns hurt people. That doesn't address the question.

I can think of some ways to do that, but I've gone on long enough.

Oh, I do admit to using the heroin/gun analogy on purpose.

 

You can't force heroin to someone without his permission (I mean that he must be willing to do it). On the other hand you don't need somebody's permission in order to shoot him.

 

Sure you can, strap em down and shoot em up.